SR-031792-7A
7-~A
LUTM:PB:DKW:DM:jCCSR9107.pcword.plan
Council Mtg: March 17, 1992
''''''fj;:; .' )')<"
1 . ~ ':'!
Santa Monica, California
TO: Mayor and city Council
FROM: City Staff
SUBJECT: Appeal of a Planning commission Denial of a Request to
Allow a Six Month Extension of a Previously Approved
Development Review.
Address:
Applicant:
502 Broadway
Johannes Van Tilburg and Partners
INTRODUCTION
This report recommends that the city Council deny the appeal and
uphold the Planning commission denial of Development Review
91-007. At the Planning Commission meeting of January 8, 1992,
the Commission denied the applicant's request by a vote of five
to one with one absence. The Planning staff recommended denial
of the applicant's request. On January 22, 1992, the applicant
filed the appeal of the Planning Commission action.
BACKGROUND
The proposed Development Review would extend the expiration date
for the project approved under Development Review 88-007. The
original project involved the construction of a four-story,
65,300 square foot mixed use building in the parking lot of the
existing Fred Segal store on the southeast corner of Broadway and
Fifth Street. The building was to include 29,460 square feet of
retail space, 6,230 square feet of office space, 6,300 square
feet of warehouse space, 2,000 square feet of restaurant space,
7--A
- 1 -
~[H:' 1 -. ,.iC
~ . .....
six residential units and a three-level, 266 space subterranean
parking garage.
The original project was approved by the Planning commission on
June 4, 1990. The approval was set to expire on June 18, 1991,
and was extended by the Zoning Administrator for the maximum
period of three months to september 18, 1991. Due to financial
constraints, the applicant was unable to obtain the building
permit and thus secure the rights granted by the Development
Review. On September 18, the applicant made application to the
Planning and Zoning Division to amend the previously approved
Development Review to extend the expiration date.
At the Planning commission meeting of January 8, 1992, the
Planning commission denied the applicant's request by a vote of
five to one with one absence. The Commissioners who voted to
deny the request did not feel that the applicant's claim of
financial hardship was adequate justification for an extension.
As stated in the attached appeal form (Attachment A), the
applicant contends that the project owner has already invested a
large sum of money in the project and has been pursuing
additional financing in order to obtain the building permit, but
has been unable to do so because of the current economic climate.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 9130.8, within 30 days after
the subject application was deemed complete, the applicant posted
a sign on the property stating the following information:
Project case number, brief project description, name and
- 2 -
telephone number of applicant, site address, date, time and
location of public hearing, and the Planning and zoning Division
phone number. It is the applicant's responsibility to update the
hearing date if it is changed after posting.
In addition, pursuant to Municipal Code section 9131.5, notice of
the public hearing was mailed to all owners and residential and
commercial tenants of property located within a 500 foot radius
of the proj ect at least ten consecutive calendar days pr ior to
the hearing. A copy of the notice is contained in Attachment B.
ANALYSIS
At the Planning Commission meeting of June 4, 1990, the
Commission certified the Environmental Impact Report and approved
Development Review 88-007 to allow the construction of the
project. The Commission approved the project with the findings
and conditions contained in the attached Statement of Official
Action (Attachment C). According to section 9115.5 (SMMC), the
rights granted by the Development Review permit are effective
only when exercised within the period established as a condition
of granting the permit or, in the absence of such established
time period, one year from the date the permit becomes effective.
The Zoning Administrator may extend the time limit for a period
not to exceed three months. Development Review 88-007 became
effective on June 18, 1990 (14 days after the Planning Commission
approval) . On June 13, 1991, the applicant requested and was
granted a three month extension of the permit. This extended the
approval to September 18, 1991.
- 3 -
The applicant has indicated that considerable financial resources
have been expended in an effort to secure a building permit and
project financing. Due to inability to obtain project financing,
the applicant has been unable to obtain the building permit and
thus secure the rights granted by the Development Review. On
September 18, 1991, an application was made to the Planning and
Zoning Division to amend the previously approved Development
Review to include the following condition:
The building permit for this project must be obtained by
the applicant no later than six months from the date this
modification becomes effective, or the Development Review
permit will automatically be deemed to have expired.
The city Attorney has indicated that this type of request is
allowable under the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, so long
as an application is filed before the relevant permit expires.
The Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal, has the
authority to approve, deny or conditionally approve the request.
The proposed Development Review is the third request of this
nature to be considered by the City Council. In April of 1991,
the Planning Commission approved a three month time extension for
a six-story retail/office building on the northeast corner of
Santa Monica Boulevard and Fourth street. The commission
approval was subsequently appealed to the City council and
upheld, thus granting the applicant a three month extension. In
September of 1991, the Planning Commission technically denied a
similar request for a three-story retail/office building at 2221
- 4 -
wilshire Boulevard. The Commission action was appealed to City
Council, and on November 12, 1991, the Council approved a 90-day
extension.
The City Council approval of the time extension request for 2221
Wilshire in November of 1991 was based primarily on an issue
involving an ordinance change that could have required the
applicant to redesign a portion of the project. In approving the
time extension, the Council stated that the approval was based on
unique circumstances and was not to be considered to set a
precedent for any future requests for time extensions. The
Council also stated that a problem with financing may not be
considered a unique circumstance.
Conclusion
In the context of acting on the last request of this type, the
City council stated that this type of request should only be
approved when there are unique or unusual circumstances that
would warrant an extension. In this case, other than economic
conditions, there do not appear to be any unusual circumstances
or hardships involving the project subsequent to its approval by
the Planning commission in 1990 that would justify the approval
of a time extension. Prior to its approval, the project was
initially delayed pending consideration of the landscape setback
text amendment, however there have been no unusual circumstances
shown, other than general economic conditions, subsequent to the
Commission's approval.
- 5 -
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT
The housing portion of the original project is subject to a Parks
and Recreation Facilities Tax of $200 per unit for a total tax of
$1,200.
In addition, the proj ect is required to comply with
Program 12 of the Housing Element of the General Plan as
implemented by Ordinance No. 1448 (CCS), which may be satisfied
by providing affordable inclusionary housing on-site or by
payment of an in-lieu fee.
This fee, prior to adjustment in
accordance with changes in the CPI, will be $79,788, based on a
gross residential project area of 14,380 square feet.
The project is exempt from the Housing and Parks Project
Mitigation fee established by Ordinance No. 1367 (CCS), based on
the fact that the project will not result in the new construction
of 15,000 net rentable square feet or the addition to an existing
project of 10,000 net rentable square feet or more of office
area.
RECOMMENDATION
It is respectfully recommended that the Council deny the appeal
and uphold the Planning Commission's denial of Development Review
91-007 subject to the findings in the Planning commission
statement of Official Action dated 01/08/92 (Attachment C).
Prepared by: D. Kenyon Webster, Planning Manager
David Martin, Associate Planner
Planning Division
Land Use and Transportation Management Department
Attachment:
A. Appeal form dated January 22, 1992
B. Notice of Public Hearing
c. Planning commission statement of Official Action
- 6 -
OM
PC/CCSR9107
03/10/92
- 7 -
}.r. q 1... 00 1-
Ct~ of
Santa Monica
Commurrty and EconomIC Oevetopment DepIJ1ment
Planning and lofting DIvIIkII
(213) 458-8341
APPEAL FORM
Fe bt1.V"J: 11 -- -- I q, ;_:.
-,~rh ,,; v:l j' ,,;-t '.
l.M.-~~ L~ l ,- ,(...... .~I' ~ \... L..
'-
~$100.DO
OMeFied January 22, 1992
=:M~1~
Name
Address
Conlad Person
Fred SeRal
502 Broadway. Santa Monica
Mlchael Segal
Phone
(310) 394-0273
Pleasedesa1bBhproflCtanddeC8onbbeappealed Project: 29,460 SF retail. 6.230 SF office, ,
6,3000 SF warehouse, 2.000 SF restaurant and 6 residential units. Total floor area;
65.300 SF. The application before planning commission was to be granted a 6 month
extention to the Development Review Permit #88.007. Performance Standard Permit
#90.004 and Environmental Impact Report #907. The application was denied.
Case Nt.mber DR 91007
AOteu 502 Broadway
~ Johannes van Tilburg & Partners (Gustaf)
Onpheanngda1B Januarv ~1 1991
OngInaIacbDn A!"nli"'::If'"inn npnip<l
225 Arizona Ave. Santa Monica
Please iiiia tlelPlClflt ......) tar.. appeal
5.10.91 and has been diligently
cond1t1ons and corrections have
The building permit application was filed on
pursued with since that time. A majority of
been resolved with the various agencies.
To date the Owner has spent in excess of $300.000 for City fees. Environmential
Impact Report. Plan Check fees, Architecture. Engineering and Landscape fees.
There is approximately $180,000 to be paid in fees and taxes plus an additional
$12,000 in engineering fees to be paid in order to secure the building permit.
The Owner has been diligently pursuing financing for the construction of the
building but has be~..!l _unable to secure a loan -Aue to the current exonomic climate.
-
S91It\n
l~
If IddiIIoIIIt ~.lIIIdId. _... oIlann.
DIll
t/~'2./c;2 .
, ,
A~6....rr
k.
NOTICE OF DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL
To:
Concerned Persons
From:
The City of santa Monica
-
Subject of Hearing: Appeal of Development Review 91-007,
502 Broadway, C3C,
Applicant/Appellant: Johannes Van Ti1berg &
Partners
sujeto de audencia: Ape1acion de 1a revista de desarrollo
DR 91-007
502 Broadway
Candidato: Johannes Van Ti1berg & Partners
A PUblic Hearing will be held by the City council on the
following request:
Appeal of Planning commission Denial of Modification of a
Condition of Approval to allow Extension of Time for Development
Review 88-007, approved in June of 1990 to allow the construction
of a four story 65,300 square foot mixed use building. (Planner:
Martin)
TIME:
TUESDAY, March 17
, 1992 AT 7:30 P.M.
LOCATION:
COUNCIL CHAMBER, ROOM 213, CITY HALL
1685 MAIN STREET, SANTA MONICA
HOW TO COMMENT:
The city of Santa Monica encourages public comment on this and
other projects. You or your representative, or any other persons
may comment at the City Council's pUblic hearing, or by writing a
letter.
Letters shoula be addressed to:
City council, city Clerk's Office
1685 Main street, Room 102
Santa Monica, California 90401
MORE INFORMATION
If desired, further information on any application may be
obtained from the city Planning Division at the address above or
by calling (310) 458-8341.
The meeting facility is handicapped accessible. If you have any
special needs such as sign language interpreting, please contact
the Office of the Disabled at (310)458-8701.
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65009(b), if this
matter is subsequently challenged in Court, the challenge may be
limited to only those issues raised at the Public Hearing
described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered
to the city of Santa Monica at, or prior to, the Public Hearing.
Esto es un aviso sobre
applicaciones proponiendo
ser de interes a usted.
1lamar a Elsa Gonzalez en
(310) 458-8341.
una audencia publica para revisar
desarrollo en Santa Monica. Esto puedo
si deseas mas informacion, favor de
1a Division de P1antificacion a1 numero
Publish: March 7, 1992
~f\CJ~m~tfT ~
PLANNING COMMISSION
STATEMENT OF OPFICIAL ACTION
PROJECT
NUMBER: Development Review 91-007
LOCATION: 502 Broadway
APPLICANT: Johannes Van Tilburg and Partners
CASE PLANNER: David Martin, Associate Planner
REQUEST: Application for Development Review to allow a
six month extension of Development Review 88-
007.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
01/08/92
Date.
J
Approved based on the following findings and
subject to the conditions below.
XX Denied.
Other.
EFFECTIVE DATE OF ACTION IF NOT APPEALED:
01/22/92
case #DR 91-007
FINDINGS
1. The physical location, size, massing, and placement of
proposed structures on the site and the location of pro-
posed uses within the project are compatible with and re-
late harmoniously to surrounding sites and neighborhoods,
in that in that the proposed building is of similar size
and scale to existing buildings located in the C3C
District.
2 . The rights-of-way can accommodate autos and pedestrians,
including parking and access, in that the site design pro-
vides adequate driveway and parking facilities and the
site is adjacent to improved streets.
3. The health and safety services (police, fire, etc.) and
public infrastructure (e.g. utilities) are sufficient to
accommQdate the new development, in that the project is an
- 1 -
A1\~~ (,
inf ill of an already developed area with all necessary
services and infrastructure preestablished.
4. Anyon-site provision of housing or parks and public open
space, which are part of the required project mitigation
measures required in Subchapter 5G of the city of Santa
Monica Comprehensive Land Use and Zoning Ordinance, satis-
factorily meet the goals of the mitigation program, in
that Subchapter 5G does not relate to this type of
development.
5. The request for a time extension is not consistent wi th
the Municipal Code and General Plan, in that the Municipal
Code states that such a permit shall expire one year from
the date of approval, with a possible three-month exten-
sion. The applicant obtained such extension, and request-
ed an additional extension in excess of six months. In
acting on a similar recent request for a project at 2221
Wilshire Boulevard, the city Council indicated that exten-
sions beyond the term set by the Municipal Code would not
generally be granted unless unique circumstances, not in-
cluding financial hardships, were demonstrated. Such un-
usual circumstances have not been demonstrated in the
present instance.
6. Reasonable mitigation measures have been included for all
adverse impacts identified in the Environmental Impact
Report, in that all reasonable mitigation measures iden-
tified by the EIR as well as staff were included as condi-
tions of approval for the project.
VOTE
Ayes:
Nays:
Abstain:
Absent:
Gilpin, Kechur, Nelson, Polhemus, Rosenstein
Pyne
Morales
NOTICE
If this is a final decision not Subject to further appeal under
the City of Santa Monica Comprehensive Land Use and Zoning Or-
dinance, the time within which judicial review of this decision
must be sought is governed by Code of civil Procedure Section
1094.6, which provision has been adopted by the city pursuant to
Municipal Code section 1400.
I hereby certify that this statement of Official Action accurate-
ly reflects the tinal determination of the Planning Commission of
the City of Santa Honica.
- 2 -
signature
date
Ralph Mechur, Chairperson
Please Print Name and Title
I hereby agr.. to the above conditions ot approval and
acknowledge that railure to comply with such conditions shall
constitute grounds for potential revocation of the permit
approval.
Applicant's Signature
Print Name and Title
PC/ST9107
DM
~
- 3 -