SR-0 (10)
e
f02~o07
e
~I, (J r,.. A--
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
April 11, 1990
Paul Berlant, Director of Planning
Kenyon Webster, principal Planner
Robert M. Myers, City Attorney
Laurie Lieberman, Deputy city Attorney
Appeal of Planning Commission Denial of DR 88-005,
CUP 88-019, Variance 88-012, Reduced Parking Permit
89-009
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
with regard to the appeal of the Planning Commission denial
of DR 88-005, CUP 88-019, Variance 88-012, and Reduced Parking
Permit 89-009, what is before the city Council is an appeal of
the application and plans that were considered and denied by the
Planning commission. The City Council can take one of several
actions:
1. Deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the
Planning commission.
2. Uphold the appeal, certify the EIR and approve the
proposed project that was before the Planning commission. This
option could include imposing conditions requiring minor design
modifications to the project, if the City council so desired, as
long as such modifications do not necessitate additional
environmental review.
3. Uphold the appeal and remand the project to the
Planning Commission for further environmental work on the project
that was before the Planning Commission.
Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9132.1 provides in
pertinent part:
SECTION 9132.1. Appeal of Action.
Cc) Once an appeal is filed, the
appellate body JIIay review and take action on
all determinations, interpretations,
decisions, judgments, or similar actions taken
which were in the purview of the original
hearing body on the application or project and
is not limited to only the original reason
stated for the appeal.
Therefore, what the City Council cannot do is consider a
different project than that which was presented to the Planning
- 1 -
e
e
commission, because such a project was not what the Planning
Commission took its actions upon.
In determining what constitutes a new or different project,
the following issues should be examined:
1. Are the proposed design changes major?
2. Are the proposed changes in use fundamental?
3 . Do the changes to the proj ect require a new or
supplemental EIR?
4. Do the changes fundamentally alter the nature of
project such that the review process (by staff and the public)
should appropriately begin anew?
In connection with the pending application, the proposed
changes advanced by the developer following Planning Commission
denial clearly constitute a different project. The new project
contains one floor of commercial use and two floors of
residential uses where formerly the project was comprised of
three floors of commercial uses (a mix of retail and office).
The design of the project has changed to accommodate the changes
in usage. In light of the substantial changes to the project,
additional environmental work is required, although it is not
clear whether a supplement or an addendum to the EIR is
necessary. Finally, the changes to the proj ect are of such a
fundamental nature that the review process would most
appropriately need to begin again. The Planning Division staff,
the Planning Commission, and the public should have an
opportunity to fully review and evaluate any newly proposed
project.
In conclusion, the City Council is limited to consideration
of the project which was presented to the Planning commission.
In the context of its deliberations, the City Council may
consider modifications to the proposed project only to the extent
that such modifications would not constitute consideration of a
project different from that considered by the Planning
Commission.
11587/hpc
cc: Mayor and City Council
- 2 -
e
e~ \'I"j
C 'i., I 0 IT
liB!!
CITY PLANNING DIVISION
Community and Economic Development Department
M E M 0 RAN DUM
DATE: November 15, 1989
TO: The Honorable Planning commission
FROM: Planning staff
SUBJECT: DR 88-005, CUP 88-019, VAR 88-012, RPP 89-009,
EIR 897
Address: 1828 Ocean Avenue
Applicant: Sage Institute representing Ocean Avenue
Plaza Associates
SUMMARY
Action: Development Review 88-005, Conditional Use Permit 88-019,
Variance 88-012, Reduced Parking Permit 89-009, Environmental
Impact Report 897, to permit the development of a three story,
89,000 square foot mixed commercial office building constructed
over a four level subterranean parking garage located on the
northwest corner of pico Boulevard arid Ocean Avenue. The site
previously contained a residential hotel building, a two story
restaurant and an asphalt surface parking lot. Prior to taking
action on the proposal, the Commission must certify the adequacy
of the final EIR and certify that the EIR has been considered in
reaching a decision on the project.
Recommendation:
conditions.
certify EIR and approve project subject to
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The subject property consists of a vacant 1. 05 acre parcel of
land located on the northwest corner of Pico Boulevard and Ocean
Avenue in the RVC (Residential Visitor Commercial) District. The
site previously contained a two story, 5,000 square foot residen-
tial hotel, a 1340 square foot restaurant and an asphalt parking
lot. The surrounding land uses and zoning consist of the Mucky
Duck Restaurant (RVC) and several one, two and three story
residential buildings (R3) located to the north, the Burger Plus
fast food restaurant (CM4) and the three story Ocean Avenue
apartments (R4A) located to the south, the eight story Pacific
Shores Hotel (CC) located to the east and the Park Hyatt Hotel
site (RVC,R4A) which is currently being constructed to the west.
zoning Districts: C4 (former)
RVC (interim)
- 1 -
e
e
Land Use Districts: Oceanfront South (2.0 FAR/3 stories/45 ft.)
Parcel Area: 1.05 acres (45,653 sq.ft.)
PROPOSED PROJECT
The proposed proj ect consists of the development of a three
story, 89,000 square foot mixed commercial building, constructed
over a four level subterranean parking garage on the northwest
corner of Pico Boulevard and Ocean Avenue.
Site plans show a "garden level" first floor constructed around
an interior atrium plaza that is set back a distance of 35 from
Ocean Avenue, 17'6" from Vicente Terrace, 17'6" from Pico
Boulevard and 10 feet from the rear yard property line. The in-
terior plaza is located adjacent to an outdoor landscaped plaza
along Ocean Avenue. First floor commercial uses consist of a
10,000 square foot restaurant (adjacent to Pico), 10,800 square
feet of mixed specialty retail uses (adjacent to Vicente Terrace,
Ocean Avenue and Pica Boulevard), and 6300 square feet of related
office space (adjacent to the rear property line). Exterior pa-
tios are shown adjacent to the Vicente Terrace retail spaces.
Site plans show second and third floors situated around the inte-
rior atrium plaza. Second and third floor commercial uses con-
sist of of a total of 55,600 square feet of floor area. Second
and third floor balconies extend into front, side and rear yard
areas (as permitted under SMMC Section 9040.18).
A 6300 square foot auto reception area that contains retail uses
is located in the first level of the subterranean parking
structure.
Elevation plans indicate a three story, 45 foot building height
measured above average natural grade. A 3 '6" parapet screen
(permitted to extend above the district height per SMMC Section
9040.3) is located above the 45 foot building height.
Development Review is required under SMMC section 9015.6 to per-
mit development of more than 30,000 square feet of floor area in
the RVC District.
A Conditional Use Permit is required under SMMC section 9015.4 to
permit general office uses located above the ground floor street
frontage in the RVC District.
A Variance is required under SMMC section 9113.3 to permit a 10
foot in-lieu of a 15 foot rear yard setback required in the RVC
District.
A Reduced parking Permit is required under SMMC section 9044.5 to
permit use of 20% tandem parking to be used with an attendant in
the RVC District.
- 2 -
e
e
The site plan indicates a total of 405 parking spaces in excess
of the 397 required parking spaces provided in a four level sub-
terranean parking garage with ingress/egress taken off of Pico
Boulevard.
The first floor restaurant is proposed in concept only. The
specific restaurant style, cuisine, number of seats, type of
alcohol service and hours of operation will be determined
following Planning Commission review.
MUNICIPAL CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE
The proposal conforms with aplicable General Plan and Zoning Code
requirements as shown in Exhibit A.
CEQA STATUS
Draft Environmental Impact Report 897 was prepared to accompany
the Development Review, Conditional Use Permit, variance and Re-
duced Parking Permit proposals. The draft document was circu-
lated for state agency and public comment and review on August
29, 1989. A total of six written comments were submitted during
the thirty (30) day review period. In accordance with Section
15088 of CEQA statutes and Guidelines, the written comments and
consultant responses have been incorporated into the Final En-
vironmental Impact Report.
FEES
This project is subject to the Housing and Parks Mitigation Mea-
sures of the Land Use and Circulation Elements of the General
Plan. The project mitigation measures may be satisfied by pay-
ment of an in-lieu fee to the City as established by Ordinance
1367 (CCS) and as outlined by condition of approval for this
project.
ANALYSIS
The development of the 1.05 acre site near the intersection of
two highly visible street locations needs to be evaluated in
terms of 1) consistency with zoning code and general plan re-
quirements, 2) compatibility with surrounding land uses and 3)
level of environmental impacts.
CONSISTENCY WITH ZONING CODE AND GENERAL PLAN REQUIREMENTS
Section 9015.1 of the Santa Monica Municipal Zoning Code states
that the RVC District is intended to:
Protect the existing residential mix in the area while
providing for the concentration and expansion of coastal-
related, lodging, dining, recreation, and shopping needs
of tourists and others in the oceanfront area. Develop-
ment intensity is intended to accommodate new hotel and
other desired uses. The RVC District is also intended to
conditionally permit other uses such as office, new
- 3 -
e
e
residential, and cultural uses to ensure consistency with
the goals, objectives and policies of the General Plan.
Key General Plan goals, objectives and policies that pertain to
the site provide:
- Expand visitor accommodations and related uses in the
Oceanfront area, while protecting the existing residential
mix.
- Devote Oceanfront District primarily to visitor accommo-
dations and commercial recreation.
- Encourage day and night pedestrian activity along the
street frontages on Main street, Ocean Avenue and the
Promenade, by requiring active uses oriented to walk-in
traffic, especially retail and commercial recreation,
small inns and restaurants.
The development of ground floor retail and restaurant uses in
close proximity to the Civic Center government district, Ocean-
front beach areas and downtown shopping district should encourage
day and nighttime pedestrian activity on the site. The develop-
ment of an exterior plaza adj acent to the interior restaurant
space, the construction of an interior atrium that is visbile
from Ocean Avenue and the development of an exterior garden plaza
along the Ocean Avenue frontage will reinforce the pedestrian
focus of the ground floor commercial uses and promote building
design compatibility with surrounding one, two and three story
residential uses located to the north along Vicente Terrace and
further west along pico Boulevard.
The development of second and third floor office uses located
wi thin pedestrian walking distance of municipal and courthouse
facilities should encourage site permanency for the office uses
as well as encourage greater daytime pedestrian activity in the
RVC, Civic Center and Downtown Commercial Districts. The size
and location of second and third floor office uses should not
interfere with use of ground floor tourist oriented uses and
should not result in an overconcentration of office uses in the
RVC District. The intended use of the RVC District will not be
compromised by approval of the second and third floor office
uses.
Under SMMC section 9015.6, a development review permit is re-
quired to permit construction of more than 30,000 square feet of
floor area in the RVC District. The 3 story, 45 foot building
height and retail uses are permitted by right under Section
9015.6.
Under SMMC Section 9015.4, a conditional use permit is required
to permit offices located above the ground floor. It appears
that the primary intent of the zoning code is to preserve the RVC
District as a day and nighttime tourist activity area. The
development of office or other commercial uses may be considered
- 4 -
e
e
- S -
. sa.J:n~::m..I~S A.J:O~S o....~ ~uao-e ~p-e ~O ~qD1aq aq~ q~ 1.... ~ua~sTsuo::lUT
.J:l!add'e ~OU Plnoqs ~qDTaq DUTPnnq A.J:O~S aa..Itt~ aqJ. . sauTl .h~
-..Iado..Id ..IOT..Ia~xa ..I'eau pazTmTuTm aq Plnoqs a~Ts aq~ }O asn ll!T::l..Iam
-mO::l aq~ tt~T"" pa~l!Tooss-e s~::ll!dmT l'e~uamuo.J:1Aua ..Iaq~o pu-e l-ensTA
'asTou 'SUl!ld a~Ts ~::la~o..Id uo U&oqs s~o'eq~as uodn paSl!g 'papTA
-O..Id a..Il! Z'Z'( 't.z,( 't'l'( suoT~oas Ul!ld ll!..IaUaD UT paD'e.J:nooua
sDUTPl"J:nq ll!l'~uaPTsa..I ~uao'e~pl! }O asn PUl! .h~Tnq'ea^"n aq~ ~l!q~
a..Insua Plnoqs SUl!Td a~Ts uo U....oqs sa..In~l!aJ uDTsap DUTP1Tnq pu-e
DUTUaa..IoS padl!::lspUl!l 's~ol!q~as DUTP1Tnq ..IadO..Id 'a~Ts ~uamdoTaAap
aq~ mO..IJ SSO..IOl! pa~l!001 sDuTPTTnq ll!T~uaPTsa..I ;;1:0 UOT~l!UTmTTa
..IO JouoT~onpe..I ~oa..ITP aq~ uT ~lnsa..I ~OU Plnoqs DUTP1Tnq 1-eTO..Iam
-moo asn paXTm .h..IO~S aa..Iq~ aq~ JO ~uamd01aAap aqJ. '~OT..I~STa ~A~
aq~ UT pa~l!OOT sasn llq:~uaPTsa..I DUT~sTxa 1.0 uOT~ua~e..I PUl! UOT~
-l!h..Iasa..Id aq~ o~ uaATD oBle 8T 5Tsl!qdma '~uamd01aA8p 80T1.1.o PUl!
lTe~a..I ..Ia....au aq~ aC'e..Inooua u'eld 1l!..IaUaD PUl! 8pO~ CUTUOZ aq~ alTttM
'CU1:..I..InOOO
5T -ea..I-e ~uo..IJu'ea::lO aq~ pu-e ~OT..I~STa ~A~ aq~ ~o sl!a..Il!' ..Io~-em
].0 ~uauxdoTaAapa..I a~u '~uauxdoTaAap ~o sacl!~s uOT~::ln.:qsuoo PUl!
~1'1U8d cUTP1Tnq 8q~ uT 8..Il! S~o8~o..Id 1T-e~8..I PUl! aOT].Jo '(seuxoq.L
a..ITncl!W 's.....ao'1 'OOTd auo) sTa~oq Jol.au ll!..IaAas 'ScuTPTTnq Tiq:O
-..IammO::l A..IO~S ..Ino]. pu-e aa..Iq~ 'o....~ pu-e sasn pOO]. ~s-e~ PUl! ~Ul!..Inl!~
-sa..I A.J:O~S aUo 'scuTP1Tnq l-eT~uaPTsa..I .h..IO~S aa..Iq~ pu-e O....~ 'auo
..IaplO ].0 a..In:j.xTux l! ].0 ~sTSUOO sasn PUl!T DUTPuno..I..Ins aq.L '~OT
CUT~..Il!d ~ ll!qdsl! PUl! ~Ul!..Inl!~sa..I .h..IO~S O....~ l! 'Ta~oq ll!T~uaPlsa..I
e 10 pa~sTsuoo a~Ts ~uauxdoTaAap aq~ uo saen puel en01Aa..Id
sasn aNY'! ~NlaNnOHlins H.LIM ^.LI'1IgI.LVdWO~
'ux'd 00:6 o~ 'UX'E
00:: 8 10 s..Inol.l cUT~l!..Iado TTl!~a.J: PUE aOTJ10 DUT..Inp a~TB uo pa~l!o
-OT aq T1TJol. ~u-epua~~-e ue pu-e aDl!.J:l!D ul!au-e..I..Ia~qns aq~ uT pa~-eooT
aq lTT.... UOT~l!~S ~ul!pua~~e DUT~..Ied '\[ 'mapu-e~ a..Il! UJOl.Ot[S saoEds
aDl!..Il!D u-eaue..I..Ia~qns SOy aq~ 10 (%ZT) .h~1Td 'uoT~e..Iado DUTP1Tnq
~o s..Inot[ DUT..Inp A~np uo s1 ~uepU8~~l! ue uaq.... ~uamdoTaAap TeTO..Iam
-mO::l l! q.T.... uOT~oauuoo uT DUT~..Ied uxapue~ %OZ uxnuxTxl!ux E ~Tm..Iad o~
pa..ITnD8..I sT ~Tm..I8d DUT~.J:l!d paonpa..I E 'S'vv06 uOT~oas ~WWS ..IapUn
'~sanDa..I
aTqeuoSEa..I -e sT pue apoo Aq pa..ITnDa.J: ~ol!q~as ~oo1. S1 at[~ UEq~
~Ua..Ia~1TP .hlql!aOl~OU ..Il!addl! .ou PTnoqs ~uamdoTaAap 1-eT~uaPTsa..Iuou
'e o~ ~uaoe ~Pl! ~oeq~as ~001 01 a1.l:.L . s}[:::ll!q~as P..IEA aPTs ..9 I L. 1
PUl! }[Ol!q~as p..IeA ..Il!a..I ~001 S1 '~oeq~as p..Il!.h ~UO..I1 ~OO~ S( l! aPTA
-o..Id PTno.... ~oa~o..Id att.L '..IEa..I at[~ ~E a~1s ~uauxdolaAap 1a~oq OOTd
auo pauoz .hT1ET~uaPTsa..I at[~ s~nqe a~Ts asn paxTux aq.L '~OT..I~STa
~AH aq~ uT pa..I1nDa..I ~:::leq.as P..I'e.h ..Il!a..I ~ooJ 51 'e 10 naTT-uT ~OO~
01 'e ~TUI..Iad o~ pa..I1nDa..I s1 aou'eT..IeA l! '('(T16 UOT~oas ~WWS ..IapUn
'pa..ITnOa..I sT TeAO..Id
-dE a.e..I-edas e ttOTtt1>\ ..101 '~UE..InE~Sa..I pasodo..Id aq. uT SaC'E..IaAaq
oTToqooTe 10 alEs atn o~ UTE...Iad .ou saop ~lm..Iad asn Tl!U01~
-TPuOO aq.L 'l.I~T"" paTTduxoo s1 apoo DUTUOZ aq~ ~o ~ua~uT at[~ ~l!q.
a..InSua PTnOtts sasn ~Ue..InE~Sa..I PUE TTE~a..I ..IOOT1. pUnO..ID ~o UOT~EOOl
PUE SUOT~l!AaTa ..IooTJ P..IT1.l:~ PUE puooas JO ~UaUX~Ea..I~ apeoe~ ..IoT..Ia~
-xa '~1.l:DTaq DUTPTTnq aTeos 1>\01 aq.L 'a~Ts a1.l:~ uo a..Iat[....asla paPTA
-o..Id a..Ie saT~TAT~oe s~sT..Ino~ auxT~~t(DTU PUl! .hEP uaq.... a~ET..Ido..Idde
e
e
The installation of vertical landscaping and palm trees adjacent
to residential uses located on vicente Terrace create a garden
style building appearance and minimize the impact of the per-
ceived mass of structures on adjacent land uses.
A setback survey conducted by the Project Architect indicates
that the residential buildings located across from the site on
Vicente Terrace are generally setback 14+ feet from vicente Ter-
race. The physical separation between these residential build-
ings and the site building is 71+ feet.
The perceived impact of balconies, terraces and openings along
the north wall adjacent to vicente Terrace has resulted in sub-
stantial resident concerns. Floor plans show exterior doors and
terraces located on the first floor and exterior doors and balco-
nies located on the second and third floors. The use of terraces
and balconied areas as view decks during evening hours could
result in a perceived loss of privacy for adjacent residents.
The removal of balconies, terraces and door openings (except for
required fire and building safety doors) adjacent to vicente ter-
race should provide a greater sense of privacy for the existing
residents. The installation of the large palms and other trees
shown on elevation plans should also add to the sense of privacy
and establish a physical separation between the residential and
commercial land uses.
The RVC District and many of the surrounding commercial areas are
currently in a transitional phase away from single parcel
development to multiple parcel consolidation. The proposed
development consolidates several adjacent parcels and provides
multiple land uses. This should be viewed as favorable in terms
of site permanency and efficiency of design. Efforts should be
made to accommodate the newer commercial development referred to
in the general plan and zoning code while ensuring the continued
liveability of residents located in the surrounding vicinity.
Several neighborhood meetings were conducted between surrounding
residents, city staff and the developer to identify measures that
could be implemented to ensure compatibility with surrounding
land uses. Many of these measures are incorporated in the Final
EIR and the special conditions section of the staff report.
LEVEL OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The Environmental Impact Report prepared by Phillips Brandt Red-
dick to accompany the proposal analyzed environmental impacts
that could potentially occur from project development. The major
environmental findings are summarized below.
Air Quality
The preparation of the project site for building construction
will produce two types of air contaminants: exhaust emissions
from construction and fugitive dust generated as a result of ex-
cavation and grading activities. These construction impacts can
be expected during the construction phases of project development
- 6 -
e
e
but can be minimized by applying wetting procedures described in
the special conditions section of the staff report.
Long term mobile emissions caused by vehicle usage will result in
increased concentrations of localized pollutants (primarily car-
bon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, and particulates) near roadways.
Compliance with the City's proposed Draft Transportation Manage-
ment Plan (TMP) and developer creation of a site specific
Transportation Demand Plan (TOM) will reduce pollutants on and
near the site.
Carbon monoxide concentrations for both existing traffic and ex-
isting plus project traffic will not exceed state or federal
standards.
The subterranean parking garage that is exposed to residences
along Vicente Terrace will be developed with required exhaust
systems. Additionally air pollutant and headlight glare will be
minimized by the location of the parking garage floor at a level
below the adjacent garage wall.
Noise Environment
The project will introduce additional traffic into the area and
the increased traffic will incrementally increase noise levels in
the area. Existing ambient noise levels measured at three sen-
sitive receptor sites in the vicinity currently exceed the city's
commercial exterior noise standard of 65 dBA between 7: a. m. to
10:00 p.m. Increases in project-related noise levels (measured
50 ft. from near travel lane centerline of streets adjacent to
receptor sites) will not exceed 1 dB, which is considered less
than significant in terms of surrounding residents being able to
identify a change in the noise levels.
Construction noise levels will intermittently impact adjacent
residential uses during the construction phase. The added impact
of high construction noise activity from the One pico site could
impact residents that are most sensitive to changes in noise
levels. Mitigation measures and report conditions that prohibit
pile driving equipment, require muffled exhaust systems and
staged construction activities are recommended to further mini-
mize noise impacts.
The development of the restaurant and outdoor patio directly ad-
jacent to the Pico Boulevard and Ocean Avenue intersections
should reduce customer and vehicle noise for adjacent residents
located to the north along Vicente Terrace and further west along
Pico Boulevard.
Vehicle car alarm noise, engine noises and other vehicle related
noise associated with parking garage use may result in adverse
impacts for adjacent residents. While a full time parking atten-
dant will monitor and enforce the reduction in vehicle alarm
noise, other vehicle noises are still expected to occur. The
residential units located along vicente Terrace could be nega-
tively impacted by vehicle noise originating in the partially
- 7 -
e
e
unenclosed parking garage. A measure that requires construction
of a solid garage wall along vicente Terrace (to mitigate vehicle
noise) is recommended.
Shade and Shadow
A shade and shadow study was conducted to assess the length of
shadows cast by the commercial proj ect on residential uses lo-
cated to the north and southwest of the site. The analysis con-
sidered the length of shadows from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m, on De-
cember 21, which is considered worst case. Shadow lengths cast
by the three story building will move in a west to east pattern
throughout the day and will proj ect early morning shadows on
residential uses located along Vicente terrace to the north. The
northernmost portion of the Ocean Avenue apartments located
southwest of the site would be impacted during the late after-
noon. The One Pico hotel site now under construction to the west
will result in more extensive shadow lengths than the proposed
project. Shadow impacts of the One pico project will continue to
affect the residential uses located on the north side of Vicente
Terrace. The project when viewed separately will not cause ad-
verse shadow impacts for surrounding land uses.
utilities
Water service to the site is provided by the City of Santa Monica
through a service agreement with the Metropolitan Water District
(MWD). The project will require approximately 11,616 gallons of
water per day. The city of Santa indicates that current water
supplies are adequate to meet future demands required by the pro-
posed project.
The proposed development is located in an urbanized area which
contains a sewer main on Ocean Avenue. Sewage treatment for the
project area is provided by the Ryperion Treatment Plant (RTP).
While the Hyperion Treatment Plant is undergoing massive changes
that will have environmental impacts, the development of the pro-
posed individual project will not result in significant adverse
environmental impacts. The proposed project will generate 11,155
gallons per day of sewage. The sewer main capacities will accom-
modate this additional sewerage at an acceptable service level.
A recommended condition for approval requires developer retrofit-
ting of existing residential units with low flush fixtures and
other water conservation devices. This measure should further
reduce any cumulative impact anticipated from project
development.
Traffic and Circulation
Detailed intersection capacity analyses were conducted at each of
fifteen signalized intersections. The fifteen intersections an-
alyzed were designated by the city Traffic Engineer. Based on
standards established by City of Santa Monica Traffic Analysis
Guidelines, the critical movement analysis (CMA) method of inter-
section analysis was used to determine the volume/capacity (v/e)
ratio and corresponding level of service (LOS) at each of these
- 8 -
e
e
locations. The intersection capacity analysis methodology was
applied to the existing base morning and evening peak hour traf-
fic volumes as shown in the Final EIR. Three of the fifteen
intersections analyzed currently operate below the accepted LOS
0, during the morning and/or evening peak hours.
Utilizing trip generation and distribution patterns from the In-
stitute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) and the City of Santa Monica
parking and Traffic Division, incremental traffic generated by
the proposed project site was assigned to the existing street
network. The total project is estimated to generate 4,530 daily
vehicle trips, 210 AM peak hour trips, and 475 PM peak hour
trips. Once traffic patterns were assigned, unmitigated adverse
impacts were identified for the following six intersections:
-Ocean Ave/Pica Blvd
-Neilson Way,Ocean Park Blvd
-Fourth Street/l-10 westbound off-ramp
-Fourth street/Pica Blvd
-Lincoln Blvd/pica Blvd
-Main street/Pica Blvd
Roadway improvements designed to mitigate the project impacts
were developed for the six impacted intersections. The improve-
ments are all localized intersection improvements which are di-
rected at the specific capacity problems identified in the Traf-
fic Analysis. Specific mitigation measures are listed in the
Final EIR and in the report's special conditions.
Concerns were expressed by some residents regarding the number
and location of intersections analyzed for the project. In par-
ticular, some residents felt that the intersection of pica
Boulevard and Appian Way should have been analyzed for traffic
conditions. Discussions with the City Parking and Traffic En-
gineer indicate that Appian Way near pico has been closed off to
vehicle uses for the past twelve months and therefore could not
be measured for traffic impacts. Additionally, Pico/Appian Way
is not a signalized intersection and therefore was not included
in the traffic analysis. Once Appian Way is reopened to vehicle
traffic, existing conditions should not change significantly,
since vehicle access to the site can be directly obtained by
traveling along Ocean Avenue or Pico Boulevard.
A surface level parking lot is currently located on a portion of
the site. The project will provide a total of 405 parking spaces
for employee, customer and visitor uses. City parking require-
ments were used to determine the total parking requirement for
each component of the project. Parking for the project is sum-
marized below:
Land Use Size Pkg. Ratio Pkg. Rqd. Pkg. Prpsd.
Office 61,960 sf I sp/300 sf 207 ------
Retail 17,100 sf I sp/300 sf 57 ------
Restaurant 10,000 sf 1 sp/75 sf 133 ------
- 9 -
e
e
Totals
89,060 sf
397
405
As shown above, a surplus of 8 parking spaces are provided on
site. The parking plan will require Coastal Commission review
following City actions.
Parking garage ingress/egress is located on Ocean Avenue near the
center of the site. The location of the driveway should operate
efficiently and discourage traffic circulation throughout adja-
cent residential areas.
The approved use of vicente Terrace as a two way street may
resul t in short term impacts for the adj acent residents. Cur-
rently motorists traveling along Appian Way use vicente Terrace
as a connector road to the project site. However, the City Park-
ing and Traffic Engineer has indicated that the two way traffic
pattern established along vicente Terrace is a temporary traffic
measure that will remain in effect during construction of the One
pica Hotel project only. Once the One pico project is completed,
one way westbound traffic along Vicente Terrace will be rees-
tablished and use of the street as a connection corridor will
cease.
Alternatives to the project
The EIR Considered several alternative project scenarios includ-
ing no project, a reduced project size that eliminated 1/3 of the
proposed office space, an increase in office space that includes
a reduction in retail space and alternative off-site locations at
1540 Second Street, One pi co Boulevard. with the exception of
the no project alternative, a range of traffic, noise, air, light
and glare and neighborhood impacts similar to the proposed proj-
ect will occur. Since the no alternative results in an under-
utilization of RVC land, this alternative should not be viewed as
favorable to the project. The EIR concluded that the alternative
scenario that provides an increase in office space with a reduc-
tion in ground floor retail space will result in less traffic
impacts than the proposed project. However, since the increased
office space would also require a reduction in ground floor day
and nighttime pedestrian oriented uses, this alternative should
not be considered as environmentally superior to the proposed
project. In terms of aChieving the development of uses that are
viewed as compatible with surrounding uses and comply with the
RVC and General Plan Oceanfront District designations, the pro-
posed project should be viewed as more reasonable and desirable.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning commission:
1) Adopt the attached resolution certifying the adequacy of Final
EIR 897 for the project; and
2) Approve Development Review 8S-005, Conditional Use Permit 88-
019, Variance 88-012 and Reduced Parking Permit 89-009, subject
to the findings and conditions outlined below.
- 10 -
e
e
FINDINGS
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 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 adequate front, side and rear yard setbacks are
proposed, landscaping amounts and locations create a gar-
den style building appearance and the 89,000 sq. ft. build-
ing will cover approximately 50% of the lot thereby ensur-
ing that adequate open space is provided on the site.
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 two improved commercial streets: Ocean
Avenue and pico Boulevard.
3. The health and safety services (police, fire, etc.) and
public infrastructure (e.g. utilities) are sufficient to
accommodate the new development, in that the project is
proposed to be an in-fill of an already developed area
with all necessary services and infrastructure already in
place.
4. Any on-site prov~s~on 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 the project will be required to comply with the re-
quirements of this program.
5. The project is generally consistent with the Municipal
Code and General Plan, in that the project as conditioned
is designed to meet all code and General Plan require-
ments, with the exception of the required parking
variance.
6. Reasonable mitigation measures have been included for all
adverse impacts identified in an Initial study or Environ-
mental Impact Report, in that all reasonable mitigation
measures recommended by the EIR have been included as con-
ditions of approval for the project.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS
1. The proposed use is one conditionally permitted within the
subject district and complies with all of the applicable
provisions of the "city of Santa Monica Comprehensive Land
Use and Zoning ordinance", in that the development of of-
fice uses located above the pedestrian oriented retail and
restaurant uses is consistent with the intent of the RVC
- 11 -
e
e
District, and will not result in adverse noise, visual and
traffic impacts for the adjacent residential land uses.
2. The proposed use would not impair the integrity and
character of the district in which it is to be established
or located, in that the surrounding neighborhood contains
a mixture of office, retail, restaurant and residential
land uses. The development of office uses on this site
should not result in the overconcentration of office uses
in the RVC District.
3. The subject parcel is physically suitable for the type of
land use being proposed, in that the site is located on a
highly visible street intersection and is in close prox-
imity to government and other office areas.
4. The proposed use would be compatible with existing and
permissible land uses within the district and the general
area in which the proposed use is to be located, in that
as indicated above, the surrounding area consists of a
mixture of office, retail restaurant and residential
land uses.
5. There are adequate provisions for water, sanitation, and
public utilities and services to ensure that the proposed
use would not be detrimental to public health and safety,
in that the site is located in an urbanized area that is
served by local water, sanitation and public utility pro-
viders. The levels of water, sewerage and utilities re-
quired for operation of the site will not exceed the cur-
rent supply available.
6. Public access to the proposed use will be adequate, in
that the site is located on the intersection of Pico
Boulevard and Ocean Avenue and will contain a two way
driveway aisle off of Ocean Avenue. site access has been
reviewed and approved by the parking and Traffic Engineer.
7. The physical location or placement of the use on the site
is compatible with and relates harmoniously to the sur-
rounding neighborhood, in that adequate building setbacks
are provided along with landscaping materials and design
elements that result in a garden style building
appearance.
8. The proposed use is consistent with the goals, objectives,
and policies of the General Plan, in that the project com-
plies with key General Plan policies, goals and objectives
for the Oceanfront District.
9. The proposed use would not be detrimental to the public
interest, health, safety, convenience, or general welfare,
in that the uses proposed will not put persons at risk,
will not result in safety or health violations and will
not produce objectionable sounds, odors or views.
- 12 -
e
e
10. The proposed use will not result in an overconcentration
of such uses in the immediate vicinity, in that the size,
location and layout of second and third floor office uses
should nit discourage pedestrian oriented uses along the
ground floor street f~ontages and should not result in the
construction of additional office uses in the Oceanfront
District or the conversion of other RVC sites to office
uses.
VARIANCE FINDINGS
1. There are special circumstances or exceptional charac-
teristics applicable to the property involved, including
size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, or to
the intended use or development of the property that do
not apply to other properties in the vicinity under an
identical zoning classification, in that the slightly ir-
regular shaped parcel contains street frontage adjacent to
three property lines. The provision of a 35 foot front
yard setback, 17 foot side yard setbacks makes it dif-
ficult to provide a full 15 foot rear yard setback as re-
quired by code. The remaining commercial uses located
along Ocean venue and pi co Boulevard do not contain simi-
lar setbacks. The development of a 15 foot rear yard set-
back will not be visible from surrounding streets and will
be adjacent to the building wall of the One pico (Hyatt)
Hotel proj ect currently being constructed. The 15 foot
landscaping setback would be developed as an unusable area
of the lot that serves no purpose.
2. The granting of such variance will not be detrimental or
injurious to the property or improvements in the general
vicinity and district in which the property is located, in
that the setback will not be visible from adjacent
streets, will not appear substantially different from the
required 15 foot setback and will not result in increased
noise, visual or related impacts for surrounding land
uses.
3. The granting of a variance will not be contrary to or in
conflict with the general purposes and intent of this
Chapter, or to the goals, objectives, and policies of the
General Plan, in that the intent of the General Plan and
Zoning Code are to ensure that uniformity of building
design, setbacks and other development standards are ap-
plied in a fair manner. The location of the site that
borders on three adjacent streets, requires that setbacks
be provided off of all three streets. Additionally, the
RVC District requires a standard 15 foot rear yard set-
back. The provision of setbacks off of all four property
lines makes it difficult to develop adequate ground floor
pedestrian oriented land uses. The intent of the General
Plan and Zoning Code are to ensure that long term ground
floor pedestrian oriented uses are developed in the RVC
District. By providing a 15 foot instead of a 10 foot
rear yard setback, the ground floor retail and restaurant
- 13 -
e
e
uses would need to be reduced in size, thereby jeopardiz-
ing their long-term use and site permanency.
4. The variance would not impair the integrity and character
of the district in which it is to be located, in that an
adequate setback is provided adjacent to the One pico non-
residential development. Other commercial properties lo-
cated in the vicinity maintain a setback similar to the
proposed 10 foot setback.
5. The subject site is physically suitable for the proposed
variance as indicated above.
6. There are adequate provisions for water, sanitation, and
public utilities and services to ensure that the proposed
variance would not be detrimental to public health and
safety, in that the site is located in an urbanized area
that is served by local water, sewer and utility
companies.
7. There will be adequate provisions for public access to
serve the subject variance proposal, in that the site is
bordered by Ocean Avenue to the east, pico Boulevard to
the south and vicente Terrace to the north.
8. The strict application of the provisions of Chapter 10 of
the city of Santa Monica comprehensive Land Use and zoning
Ordinance would result in unreasonable deprivation of the
use or enjoyment of the property as described above.
REDUCED PARKING PERMIT FINDINGS
1. A sufficient number of parking spaces are provided to meet
the parking demands of employees, customers and visitors
of the site in that the number of spaces provided exceeds
the Code requirement.
2. Satisfactory evidence has been submitted by the parties
operating the subterranean parking garage that indicates a
full time attendant will be employed during the site's
operating hours of 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
SPECIAL CONDITIONS
1. The developer shall comply with the city's adopted Noise
Ordinance 1406 (CCS) concerning construction hours and
equipment restrictions.
2. The developer shall erect temporary noise barriers around
the parameter of both sites during site excavation and
building construction. Said barriers shall consist of a
solid fence with a minimum height of 6 feet to limit noise
disturbances.
- 14 -
e
e
3. The use of pile-driving equipment shall be prohibited on
the site.
4. contractors shall be required to sprinkle the construction
site with water once a day or more often if necessary to
control particulate emissions onto uses located to the
north and south.
5. The use of exterior maintenance blowers, vacuums and other
equipment shall be limited to those hours established in
Municipal Code Section 4204.
6. The developer shall where feasible, construct walls with
apropriate sound insulation capabilities. Noise insula-
tion standards shall be incorporated into the project to
ensure that noise levels of the completed proj ect when
measured at the exterior property lines do not exceed 55
dba for more than 60 minutes in any 24 hour period, and 45
dba for more than 30 minutes between the hours of 11:00
p.m. and 7:00 a.m. MaterialS, finishing, and colors that
minimize the angle of reflected sunlight shall be used on
the building. The ArChitectural Review Board shall give
special consideration and review to use of materials,
finishes and colors that will be most effective in
minimizing sunlight reflection.
7. The developer shall eliminate exterior balconies, terrace-
sand related view areas shown on the north building wall,
adjacent to Vicente Terrace.
8. The exterior landscaping shall include low water-consuming
plants per SMMC Sections 9041.1 through 9041.11. The Ar-
chitectural Review Board shall review/approve the use of
low water consuming plants.
9. The proj ect shall use pervious paving material whenever
feasible to reduce surface water runoff and aid in
groundwater recharge. The Director of General Services
shall review/approve the paving material(s) prior to is-
suance of building permits.
10. The storm drain underlying the site shall be either grout-
filled or removed and replaced with approved compacted
fill, per the specifications of the Department of General
Services.
11. The developer shall meet with the City Parking and Traffic
Engineer to implement, at developer's cost, the following
traffic measures:
a. Restripe the southbound approach to Ocean Avenue and
Pico Boulevard to provide an extra turn lane.
b. Restripe the westbound approach of Neilson Way and
Ocean Park Boulevard to provide an additional lane.
- 15 -
e
e
c. Restripe the eastbound approach of Pico Boulevard and
Fourth street to allow one additional lane, and provid-
ing two left-turn lanes, one through lane, and one
shared through/right-turn lane.
d. Add an additional southbound lane at Fourth street and
I-IQ westbound off-ramp by removing the raised median.
e. Restripe the eastbound approach of pico Boulevard to
Lincoln Boulevard to provide one left-turn lane, two
through lanes, and one right-turn only lane.
f. Restripe the westbound approach of pico Boulevard to
Main street to allow two left-turn lanes, one through
lane, and one shared through/right-turn lane.
12. Exterior lighting fixtures shall be shielded and/or con-
cealed to prevent illumination of high intensity lighting
on adjacent streets and pedestrian plazas. The Architec-
tural Review Board shall review/approve the location and
type(s) of all exterior lighting.
13. The developer shall be required to relocate any gas or
electrical lines in conflict with the project
construction.
14. The proj ect shall meet the standard Fire Department re-
quirements for fire hydrants, fire flow, access and
design. The developer shall submit to the Planning Direc-
tor and the Chief Fire Official, prior to issuance of
Building Permits, a plan that indicates location of pro-
posed fire apparatus and equipment.
15. The developer shall contact the Police Department in order
to identify and implement appropriate design and opera-
tional features which maximize safety.
16. The developer shall work with the city's Building Division
accessibility staff to insure that the subterranean
garage and building entrances are handicap accessible.
17. The developer shall install automated signage at the en-
trance of the subterranean parking garage that directs
customers, employees and visitors to the lower parking
garage levels.
18. The developer shall construct a solid building wall along
the north side of the subterranean parking garage. Except
for ventilation or other required openings, the solid wall
garage wall shall be maintained for the life of the
project.
19.
All mechanical ventilation shall be
story exhaust vents which do not
residential property. The ventilation
with applicable Uniform Building Code
directed to upper
face the adjacent
system shall comply
sections and shall
- 16 -
e
e
be designed and equipped to minimize audible noise sound
beyond the exterior property boundaries.
20. The Architectural Review Board shall review this project
in relation to Land Use Element policies 3.1.1, 3.2.1 and
3.2.2.
21. The project shall meet or exceed all California OSHA reg-
ulations pertaining to ventilation, with particular em-
phasis given to the subterranean retail space located on
the site.
22. The normal business hours of operation for the office and
retail uses shall not extend beyond 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.
Operating hours for the restaurant shall be subj ect to
separate review and approval.
23. Construction activities shall be halted during local stage
Two smog alerts and during periods of high winds.
24. Construction equipment located within 1,000 feet of a
dwelling unit shall be quipped with properly operating and
maintained muffler exhaust systems.
25. Uniformed parking security personnel shall be maintained
on-duty in the parking garage during hours of operation.
26. Project design shall not incorporate street level recessed
doorways and overhangs to reduce the potential for tran-
sient lodging in these areas.
27. Ground floor retail and restuarant uses shall consist of
pedestrian oriented day and nighttime uses.
STANDARD CONDITIONS
Plans
1. This approval is for those plans dated January 24, 1989,
a copy of which shall be maintained in the files of the
city Planning Division. Project development shall be
consistent with such plans, except as otherwise specified
in these conditions of approval.
2. The Plans shall comply with all other provisions of Chap-
ter 1, Article IX of the Municipal Code, (Zoning Or-
dinance) and all other pertinent ordinances and General
Plan policies of the City of Santa Monica.
3. Final parking lot layout and specifications shall be sub-
ject to the review and approval of the Parking and Traffic
Engineer.
- 17 -
e
e
4. Minor amendments to the plans shall be subject to approval
by the Director of Planning. A significant change in the
approved concept shall be sUbject to Planning Commission
Review. Construction shall be in conformance with the
plans submitted or as modified by the Planning commission,
Architectural Review Board or Director of Planning.
5. Construction period signage shall be subject to the
approval of the Architectural Review Board.
6. Plans for final design, landscaping, screening, trash en-
closures, and signage shall be subject to review and ap-
proval by the Architectural Review Board.
7. The Architectural Review Board, in its review, shall pay
particular attention to the project's pedestrian orienta-
tion and amenities~ scale and articulation of design ele-
ments ~ exterior colors, textures and materials; window
treatment; glazing; and landscaping.
Fees
a. The City is contemplating the adoption of a Transportation
Management Plan which is intended to mitigate traffic and
air quality impacts resulting from both new and existing
development. The Plan will likely include an ordinance
establishing mitigation requirements, including one-time
payment of fees on certain types of new development, and
annual fees to be paid by certain types of employers in
the city. This ordinance may require that the owner of
the proposed project pay such new development fees, and
that employers within the project pay such new annual em-
ployer fees related to the City's Transportation Manage-
ment Plan.
9. During construction), a security fence, the height of
which shall be the maximum permitted by the Zoning Or-
dinance, shall be maintained around the perimeter of the
lot. The lot shall be kept clear of all trash, weeds,
etc.
Construction
10. Unless otherwise approved by the Department of General
services, all sidewalks shall be kept clear and passable
during the grading and construction phase of the project.
11. SidewalkS, curbs, gutters, paving and driveways which need
replacing or removal as a result of the project as deter-
mined by the Department of General Services shall be re-
constructed to the satisfaction of the Department of
General Services. Approval for this work shall be ob-
tained from the Department of General Services prior to
issuance of the building permits.
- 18 -
e
e
12. Vehicles hauling dirt or other construction debris from
the site shall cover any open load with a tarpaulin or
other secure covering to minimize dust emissions.
13. street trees shall be maintained, relocated or provided as
required in a manner consistent with the City's Tree Code
(Ord. 1242 CCS) , per the specifications of the Department
of Recreation and Parks and the Department of General Ser-
vices. No street tree shall be removed without the ap-
proval of the Department of Recreation and Parks.
14. A construction period mitigation plan shall be prepared by
the appl icant for approval by the Department of General
Services prior to issuance of a building permit. As ap-
plicable, this plan shall 1) specify the names, addresses,
telephone numbers and business license numbers of all con-
tractors and subcontractors as well as the developer and
architect; 2) Describe how demolition of any existing
structures is to be accomplished; 3) Indicate where any
cranes are to be located for erection/construction; 4)
Describe how much of the public street, alleyway, or side-
walk is proposed to be used in conjunction with construc-
tion; 5) Set forth the extent and nature of any pile-
driving operations; 6) Describe the length and number of
any tiebacks which must extend under the property of other
persons; 7) Specify the nature and extent of any dewater-
ing and its effect on any adjacent buildings; B) Describe
anticipated contruction-related truck routes, number of
truck trips, hours of hauling and parking location; 9)
Specify the nature and extent of any helicopter hauling;
10) State whether any construction activity beyond normal-
ly permitted hours is proposed; 11) Describe any proposed
construction noise mitigation measures; 12) Describe con-
struction-period security measures including any fencing,
lighting, and security personnel; 13) Provide a drainage
plan; 14) Provide a construction-period parking plan
which shall minimize use of public streets for parking;
15) List a designated on-site construction manager.
15. A sign shall be posted on the property in a manner consis-
tent with the public hearing sign requirements which shall
identify the address and phone number of the owner and/or
applicant for the purposes of responding to questions and
complaints during the construction period. Said sign
shall also indicate the hours of permissible construction
work.
16. A copy of these conditions shall be posted in an easily
visible and accessible location at all times during con-
struction at the project site. The pages shall be lami-
nated or otherwise protected to ensure durability of the
copy.
Environmental Mitigation
- 19 -
e
e
17. Ultra-low flow plumbing fixtures are required on all new
development and remodeling where plumbing is to be added.
(Maximum 1.6 gallon toilets and 1.0 gallon urinals and low
flow shower head.)
18. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, project
owner shall present documentation to the General Services
Department certifying that existing Santa Monica
occupancies with toilets installed prior to 1978 have been
retrofitted with ultra low-flow toilets (1.6 gallons per
flush or less) such that development of the new project
will not result in a net increase in wastewater flows.
Flow from existing occupancies which will be removed as
part of the new development may be deducted from flow
attributable to the new development if such occupancies
have been occupied within one year prior to issuance of a
Building Permit for the proposed project. Flow
calculations for new development and existing occupancies
shall be consistent with guidelines developed by the
General Services Department.
19. To mitigate solid waste impacts, prior to issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy, project owner shall submit a
recycling plan to the Department of General Services for
its approval. The recycling plan shall include 1) list of
materials such as white paper, computer paper, metal cans,
and glass to be recycled; 2) location of recyling bins; 3)
designated recycling coordinator; 4) nature and extent of
internal and external pick-up service; 5) pick-up
schedule; 6) plan to inform tenants/occupants of service.
20. To mitigate circulation impacts, prior to issuance of a
certificate of Occupancy, project owner shall submit a
transportation demand management plan to the Department of
General Services for its approval. This plan shall in-
clude: 1) Name, address and telephone number of desig-
nated person(s) responsible for coordinating transporta-
tion demand management measures at the development. 2)
Demand management measures to be employed at the site to
reduce circulation impacts which would otherwise occur.
Such measures may include, but are not limited to programs
addressing: A. Education and Marketing to alert employees
and visitors to the site to demand reduction programs and
incentives; B. Parking Management such as parking charges
for single-occupant vehicles, reduced rates for car and
vanpools; C. Ridesharing programs such as a rideshare
matching program, incentives, and car and vanpool sub-
sidies; D. Transit programs such as provision of bus
schedules to employees and visitors, subsidized bus tokens
and passes to employees and visitors; E. Bicycling pro-
grams such as provision of secure bicycle storage facili-
ties, provision of showers and lockers; F. Alternative
Work Schedules for building employees to avoid peak AM and
PM traffic hours and reduce overall trips; G. Trip Length
Reduction by programs to increase proportion of employees
residing within three miles of the project site. The
- 20 -
e
e
goal of the Transportation Demand Management Plan shall be
to reduce vehicle trips which would otherwise occur by
twenty percent.
21. Landscaping plans shall comply with Subchapter 5B
(Landscaping standards) of the zoning ordinance including
use of water-conserving landscaping materials, landscape
maintenance and other standards contained in the
subchapter.
Miscellaneous Conditions
22. The building address shall be painted on the roof of the
building and shall measure four feet by eight feet (32
square feet).
23. The operation shall at all times be conducted in a manner
not detrimental to surrounding properties or residents by
reason of lights, noise, activities, parking or other
actions.
24. No medical office use (requires a greater parking amount)
shall be permitted at the site.
25. If any archaeological remains are uncovered during
excavation or construction, work in the affected area
shall be suspended and a recognized specialist shall be
contacted to conduct a survey of the affected area at
project's owner1s expense. A determination shall then be
made by the Director of Planning to determine the sig-
nificance of the survey findings and appropriate actions
and requirements, if any, to address such findings.
26. Refuse areas, storage areas and mechanical equipment shall
screened in accordance with SMMC Section 9040.13-9040.15.
Refuse areas shall be of a size adequate to meet on-site
need, including recycling. The Architectural Review Board
in its review shall pay particular attention to the
screening of such areas and equipment.
27. street and/or alley lighting shall be provided on public
rights of way adjacent to the project if and as needed per
the specifications and with the approval of the Department
of General Services.
Validity of Permits
28. In the event permittee violates or fails to comply with
any conditions of approval of this permit, no further per-
mits, licenses, approvals or certificates of occupancy
shall be issued until such violation has been fully
remedied.
29. Within ten days of Planning Division transmittal of the
Statement of Official Action, project applicant shall
sign and return a copy of the statement of Official Action
- 21 -
e
e
prepared by the Planning Division, agreeing to the Condi-
tions of approval and acknowledging that failure to comply
with such conditions shall constitute grounds for poten-
tial revocation of the permit approval. By signing same,
applicant shall not thereby waive any legal rights appli-
cant may possess regarding said conditions. The signed
statement shall be returned to the Planning Division.
Failure to comply with this condition shall constitute
grounds for potential permit revocation.
30. This determination shall not become effective for a period
of fourteen days from the date of determination or, if
appealed, until a final determination is made on the ap-
peal. Any appeal must be made in the form required by the
Zoning Administrator.
Monitoring of Conditions
31. Pursuant to the requirements of Public Resources Code
Section 21081.6, the city Planning Division will coordi-
nate a monitoring and reporting program regarding any re-
quired changes to the project made in conjunction with
project approval and any conditions of approval, including
those conditions intended to mitigate or avoid significant
effects on the environment. This program shall include,
but is not limited to, ensuring that the Planning Division
itself and other city divisions and departments such as
the Building Division, the General Services Department,
the Fire Department, the Police Department, the Community
and Economic Development Department and the Finance De-
partment are aware of project requirements which must be
satisfied prior to issuance of a Building Permit, Certifi-
cate of Occupancy, or other permit, and that other respon-
sible agencies are also informed of conditions relating to
their responsibilities. Project owner shall demonstrate
compliance with conditions of approval in a written report
submitted to the Planning Director and Building Officer
prior to issuance of a Building Permit or certificate of
occupancy, and, as applicable, provide periodic reports
regarding compliance with such conditions.
PROJECT MITIGATION FEE CONDITION
32. In accordance with Sections 9046.1 - 9046.4 of the Santa
Monica Municipal Code, prior to issuance of a building
permit the developer shall execute an irrevocable letter
of credit or other form of security acceptable to the City
for the payment of an in-lieu fee for housing and parks
equal to $2.25jsq.ft. for the first 15,000 sq.ft. of net
rentable office floor area and $5.00jsq.ft. for the
remaining net rentable office floor area. This fee shall
be adjusted for inflation by the percentage change in the
Consumer Price Index ("CPI") between October 1984 through
the month in which the payment is made. Upon mutual
- 22 -
e
e
agreement of the developer and the City, the developer may
satisfy the Project Mitigation measures by providing low
and moderate income housing or developing new park space
on or off the project site. To fulfill this obligation an
agreement shall be secured in writing by the developer and
approved by the City Attorney and City staff prior to is-
suance of a building permit. This fee will be APPROXI-
MATELY $ 331.542.00
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A-
Exhibit B-
COde/General Plan Conformance Sheet
Proposed Resolution with Mitigation
Monitoring Program Plan
Project Letters, Information
Vicinity Photos, Maps
Final EIR
Exhbit C-
Exhibit 0-
Exhibit E-
Prepared by: Wanda Williams. Associate Planner
PC/dr885
WW:ww
11/02/89
- 23 -
e
e
.' ,} J
J .:;\ L._
STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL ACTION
PROJECT
NUMBER:
DR 88-005, CUP 88-019, VAR 88-012, RPP 89-009,
EIR 897
LOCATION:
1828 Ocean Avenue
APPLICANT: Sage Institute representing Ocean Avenue Plaza
Associates
REQUEST:
Development Review 88-012, Conditional Use Permit
88-019, Variance 88-012, Reduced Parking Permit
89-009, Environmental Impact Report 897, to per-
mit the development of a three story, 89,000
square foot mixed commercial office building con-
structed over a four level subterranean parking
garage located on the northwest corner of Pico
Boulevard and Ocean Avenue. The site previously
contained a residential hotel building, a two
story restaurant and an asphalt surface parking
lot.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
12/06/89
Date.
Approved project based on the following findings
and subject to the conditions below.
X Denied. No action taken on the EIR.
other.
FINDINGS
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FINDINGS
1. The physical location, size and massing of structures on
the site and the proposed building uses within the project
are incompatible wi th surrounding land uses and struc-
tures, do not reflect the style, character and recent pat-
tern of development along the west side of Ocean Avenue in
the Oceanfront District. The project lacks an appropriate
level of articulation and does not provide upper floor
setbacks that are consistent with other recently approved
project. The proposed amount of office floor area is not
consistent with recent City approvals or with the general
intent of the RVC District and could potentially adversely
- 1 -
e
e
alter the growth and direction of visitor and recreationa-
luses in the Oceanfront District. The project could ad-
versely impact residential uses located to the north and
south and does not conform with General Plan POlicy Sec-
tions 1.5.1, 1.5.3, 1.5.4 and 1.5.8.
2. The rights-of-way may have difficulty in accommodating
autos and pedestrians, including parking and access, in
that the location of the subterranean garage driveway
aisle along Pica Boulevard may result in an increased
level of vehicle and pedestrian impacts.
3. The project is inconsistent with the intent of the RVC
Distr~ct as described in the Municipal Code and General
Plan, in that the project does not propose adequate
visitor and pedestrian oriented uses as provided in
Municipal Code Section 9015.1 and General Plan Objective
1. 5.
CONDITIONAL GSE PERMIT FINDINGS
1. The proposed use is one conditionally permitted within the
subject district but does not adequately comply with the
intent of Municipal Code Section 9015.1 and General Plan
Objective 1.5, to provide expanded visitor accommodations
and related uses in the Oceanfront District.
2. The proposed use would impair the integrity and character
of the district in which it is to be established or lo-
cated, in that the surrounding neighborhood contains a
mixture of hotel, service retail and residential uses. The
primary use of the site for offices may establish an un-
desirable precedent for similar growth and development in
other areas of the Oceanfront District and may contribute
to an overconcentration of uses that are not visitor or
recreation oriented uses encouraged in Land Use Objective
1. 5.
3. The subject parcel is not physically suitable for the type
of land use being proposed, in that the site is located
adjacent to low scale residential uses along vicente Ter-
race and Pico Boulevard that would be adversely affected
by development of a 3 story/45 foot high cCllftTllercial use
building. The project site is located adjacent to a high-
ly visible street intersection that should serve to pro-
mote land uses that comply more precisely with Municipal
Code Section 9015.1 and General Plan Objective 1.5.
4. The proposed use would not be compatible with existing and
permissible land uses within the district and the general
area in which the proposed use is to be located, in that
as indicated above, the surrounding area contains residen-
tial,service retail and hotel uses.
5. Public access to the proposed use is inadequate, in that
the location of the subterranean parking driveway aisle
- 2 -
e
e
could increase vehicle and pedestrian impacts near the
~ntersection of pi co Boulevard and Ocean Avenue.
6. The physical location or placement of the use on the site
is incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood, in that
adequate building setbacks are not provided, the building
height and level of articulation are unacceptable, the
location of visitor oriented uses is inadequate and the
bu~lding scale and mass appear visually intrusive.
7. The proposed use is inconsistent with the goals, Objec-
tives, and policies of the General Plan, as discussed
above.
8. The proposed use would be detrimental to the public inter-
est, health, safety, convenience, or general welfare, in
that the location of the partially enclosed parking garage
may result in safety or health impacts for sensitive resi-
dents and may also create objectionable sounds, odors or
views.
9. The proposed use may establish a precedent for development
of similar office uses along Ocean Avenue and may lead to
an overconcentration of uses that are not permitted by
right in the RVC District. The size, scale and mass of
the building and intended office uses are inconsistent
with the zoning Code and General Plan and may discourage
pedestrian oriented uses in the Oceanfront District.
VARIANCE FINDINGS
1. There are not special circumstances or exceptional charac-
teristics applicable to the property involved, including
size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, or to
the intended use or development of the property that do
not apply to other properties in the vicinity under an
identical zoning classification, in that the 1. 05 acre
parcel contains adequate parcel width and depth to accom-
modate the type of development permitted by code. The
slightly irregular portions of the parcel do not restrict
or interfere with the layout or location of buildings,
parking, landscaping or other site elements.
2. The granting of the variance will be detrimental or in-
juriOUS to the property or improvements in the general
vicinity and district in which the property is located, in
that physical hardship or land use difficulties do not
exist to warrant granting of the setback modification.
Approval of the variance will establish a precedent for
future building construction along the west side of Ocean
Avenue.
3. The granting of a variance will be contrary to or in con-
flict with the general purposes and intent of this Chap-
ter, or to the goals, objectives, and policies of the
General Plan, in that the intent of the General Plan and
- 3 -
e
e
Zoning Code are to ensure that uniformity of building
design, setbacks and other development standards are ap-
plied in a fair manner. The location of the site in the
Oceanfront District, the size of the parcel, the property
w1dth and frontage along two streets and the depth and
permitted height and FAR do not create or impose an undue
hardship or burden for the property owner.
~. The variance would impair the integrity and character of
the district in which it is to be located, in that a
precedent for future development in the Oceanfront Dis-
trict will be established. Uniform aesthetic landscaping
setbacks and open space will not be provided on the site.
5. The strict application of the provisions of Chapter 10 of
the City of Santa Monica Comprehensive Land Use and Zoning
Ordinance would not result in unreasonable deprivation of
the use or enjoyment of the property as described above.
REDUCED PARKING PERMIT FINDINGS
1. A sufficient number of parking spaces are not provided to
meet the parking demands of employees, customers and visi-
tors of the site in that while the number of spaces pro-
vided exceeds the Code requirement, the demand for retail
and restaurant parking during tourist seasonal periods may
exceed the available supply.
VOTE
To Deny Project
Ayes:
Nays:
Abstain:
Absent:
Farivar, Kaufman, Lambert, Nelson, Mechur, Rosenstein
Pyne
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. This does not supersede Public
Resources Code Section 21167, which governs the time within which
judicial review of the city I s acts or decisions in connection
with the California Environmental Quality Act must be sought.
- 4 -
e
e
I hereby certify that this statement of Official Action accurate-
ly reflects the final determination of the Planning Commission of
the City ot Santa Monica.
.'r~_ h- '/' ,/ ~,/
.' -// ~ . r
( . t:P? f<? ~~ />, L-___ ..;;~_~
signature " / \ -
J "
, ~/' .,;:;
/f /"/ I
;~//f~q ~ /-.c<~UT ~ e: .5:.T/
print name and title /
"y/;~~~
da t"e /
Z'/ .
Lj'~/r-
PC/ist5
WW:ww
01/30/90
- 5 -