SR-042490-12A
e
IjtJZ--~
e
IA~~<t
TO: Mayor and City Council
lfzr ..
o cLlJu1 tlvt
california
LjO;;;"-007
_HAY 1 1990
CjED:PB:DKW:WW:WW
PCjccdr885
Council Mtg: April 24, 1990
Santa Monica,
FROM: City staff
SUBJECT: Appeal of Planning Commission Denial of Development
Review 88-005, Conditional Use Permit 88-019, Variance
88-012, Reduced Parking Permit 89-009, for Development
of a Three story, 89,000 Square Foot Mixed Commercial
Office Building Constructed over a Four story Level
Subterranean Parking Garage Located on the Northwest
Corner of Pico Boulevard and Ocean Avenue in the Rve
(Residential-Visitor Commercial) District. The Appeal
also Pertains to EIR 897 Which was not Acted Upon by
the Commission. Applicant/Appellant: Sage Institute
representing Ocean Avenue Plaza Associates
INTRODUCTION
In December 1989, the Planning Commission denied DR 88-005, CUP
88-019, VAR 88-012 and RPP 89-009, for development of an 89,000
square foot mixed commercial project on the northwest corner of
pico Boulevard and Ocean Avenue in the RVC (Residential-Visitor
Commercial) District. (See Exhibit A). The Planning Commission
voted 6-1 to deny the project.
The Commission to.ok no action
with respect to the adequacy of the Environmental Impact Report,
but did express concerns regarding its adequacy. Under CEQA
guidelines, the decision-making body is not required to take
action on the final EIR if it votes to deny the project.
On December 20, 1989, the applicant appealed the Planning
Commission's denial of DR 88-005, CUP 88-019, VAR 88-012 and RPP
89-009 (See Exhibit B).
The applicant requests city Council
- 1 -
'~1-~"
.........u
APR 24 1990
e
e
approval of the above application permits and certification of
final EIR 897.
The applicant has proposed revisions to the project which address
some, but not all, of the Planning commission's concerns.
Included in these revisions are a substitution of two floors of
residential units above the ground floor in-lieu of the
previously-proposed commercial uses.
Planning staff consulted the city Attorney regarding whether the
new version of the project could be considered by the city
Council in the context of an appeal. In a memoradum dated April
10, 1990, the City Attorney determined that the Council cannot
consider a different project than that which was considered by
the Commission, and that the new version of the project
represented significant enough changes to require a new
application and review process.
Given that the Council cannot consider the new version of the
project, staff is recommending denial of the original version,
consistent with the action of the Planning Commission.
BACKGROUND
On November 15, 1989, the Planning commission reviewed a proposal
to develop a three story, 89,000 square foot mixed use commercial
project that contained ground floor retail, restaurant and office
uses and second and third floor office uses. A subterranean
level auto plaza contained additional retail floor area.
- 2 -
e
e
The first floor plans showed 20,800 square feet of commercial
retail and restaurant uses and a 6,300 square foot office lease
space developed around an interior open plaza. The building
maintained a required 35 foot front yard setback, required 1716"
side yard setbacks and a 10 foot in-lieu of a 15 foot rear yard
setback (for which a variance was requested).
Second and third floors showed 55,600 square feet of office
floor area. The subterranean parking level contained an
additional 6,300 square feet of retail floor area.
Elevation plans showed a three story, 45 foot building height
with a a 3'6" parapet screen constructed above.
A total of 406 subterranean parking spaces, (nine spaces in
excess of the code required 397 spaces) were shown in a four
level subterranean parking garage with ingress and egress taken
off of pica Boulevard.
The project required issuance of a Development Review Permit to
allow development of more than 30,000 square feet of floor area
in the RVC District, issuance of a Conditional Use Permit to
allow general office uses above the ground floor street frontage
in the RVC District, issuance of a Variance to permit a 10 foot
in-lieu of a 15 foot rear yard setback required in the RVC
District and issuance of a Reduced Parking Permit to allow use of
20% tandem parking spaces as part of a commercial development.
- 3 -
e
e
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
During the November 15, 1989 hearing, Planning Commissioners and
adjacent residential property owners and residents expressed the
following concerns:
1. That the scale and mass of the 3 story, 89,000 square foot
building appeared visuallY intrusive~
2. That the 17' 6" side yard landscaping setback provided
adj acent to Vicente Terrace did not provide an adequate
transition between the low scale single family residences
located along Vicente Terrace and the commercially intense
project;
3. That the second and third floors did not provide adequate
setbacks and articulation, consistent with several recent
RVC projects approved by the Commission;
4. That the development of two floors of office space along
the west side of Ocean Avenue was not consistent with the
RVC District. The Commission noted that during recent
Commission and City Council hearings conducted for the
Maguire Thomas Partners proposed development at 1746 Ocean
Avenue, proposed office uses were denied as part of the
proposal;
5. That the 45 foot building height and 3-1/2 foot parapet
screen would significantlY restrict residential access to
sunlight ~long the north side of vicente Terrace~
6. That there were inadequate reasons for issuing a rear yard
variance on the 1.05 acre site and that approval of a
variance would establish an undesirable precedent for
future development in the RVC District.
The Commission denied the project and was therefore not required
to take action on the EIR.
However, prior to denying the
project, some Commissioners indicated that, in their opinion, the
EIR failed to reasonably consider shade and shadow impacts that
would affect residential buildings located on the north side of
Vicente Terrace, the concentration of carbon monoxide and other
vehicle pollutants adjacent to the residential sites and the
- 4 -
e
e
reduced level of service and impacts that would result at several
unsignalized intersections that were omitted from the traffic
study.
(See Exhibit C). At the request of the applicant, the
Commission voted 4-3 to continue the public hearing on the
proposal until December 6, 1989, to allow the applicant the
opportunity to consider the Commission's concerns, including the
following:
1. To reduce the project FAR and provide a building design
that was more sensitive to surrounding residential uses;
2. To provide additional building setbacks and articulation
on the second and third floors. The Commission suggested
five feet additional on the second floor and an additional
amount on the third floor;
3. To provide a residential use or retail use on at least one
upper floor level. The Commission suggested that office
floor area be restricted to one floor only of the project;
4. To expand the traffic study to evaluate the peak hour
impact(s) of residential uses and to study key
unsignalized intersections omitted from the final EIR.
The Commission indicated that if the applicant accepted in
concept the proposed recommendations, the public review process
would be continued to allow submittal of revised plans and
information.
However, the Commission stipulated that if the
applicant rejected the proposed recommendations, a final vote
would be taken on the proj ect and no further opportunity for
pUblic review would be provided, unless an appeal application
were filed.
On December 6, 1989, the applicant presented revised site plan
drawings that showed the following:
1. An 84,000 square foot (in-lieu of the 89,000 sq.ft.)
commercial building that contained ground floor retail,
restaurant and office uses with second and third floor
- 5 -
e
e
office uses. Building FAR was reduced from 2.0 to 1.84,
equivalent to a 5% reduction in commercial square feet;
2. A minimum 2' 6" additional setback was provided on the
third floor of the development. Portions of the second
floor still showed a minimum 17' 6" setback. A minimum
17'6" first floor setback was shown;
3. The building did not show residential uses or other
alternative uses. Office uses continued to be shown on
the two upper floors. The applicant stated that
residential uses were economically infeasible and that if
the Commission conditioned approval of the project upon
the inclusion of residential uses, the proj ect would be
abandoned.
The Commission stated that the submittal of the revised plans and
the applicant's remarks appeared to constitute a rejection of the
November 15, 1989 recommendations and that a final vote on the
proposal would be provided.
The Commission then voted 6-1 to
deny the project based upon the concerns expressed during the
November 15, 1989 meeting.
On December 20, 1989, the applicant appealed the Commission's
action, stating that the project was in strict compliance with
the current zoning Code and requested the city Council to remand
the project back to the Planning Commission for further
reconsideration of the following areas:
a. Change of use from office to residential;
b. Creation of additional setbacks on Vicente Terrace;
c. Reduction in overall square footage below a 2.0 FAR.
During February 1990, the applicant submitted revised site plan
drawings for Council consideration that show a 75,660 square
foot, three story/45 foot building height that contains ground
floor retail and restaurant uses with 28-two bedroom units
developed on second and third floors of the building. The units
- 6 -
e e
contain lofts above the third floor. A 6,300 square foot retail
space is located on the first level of the subterranean parking
garage.
The project FAR was reduced from 2.0 to 1.66, equivalent to a 15%
reduction in square feet. Office floor area was eliminated from
the project and the restaurant space was relocated along the
vicente Terrace frontage.
The 17 ' 6"
setback adjacent to
residences along vicente Terrace was not increased as recommended
by the Planning commission on November 15, 1989.
Minimum
setbacks shown along pi co Boulevard were reduced to 13'6" in-lieu
of 17'6" as previously shown. The minimum front yard setback was
reduced to 30 feet in-lieu of the 35 foot front yard setback
required by code and the rear yard setback remained at 10 feet
in-lieu of the code 15 foot rear yard setback.
The variance
would pertain to front, side and rear yard setbacks shown on
revised plans.
The second and third floors do not provide
additional setbacks or articulation that are consistent with the
Planning commission's November 15, 1989 recommendation.
The 45
foot building height with 3' 6" parapet screen above was not
reduced as recommended by the Planning Commission.
ANALYSIS
The stated purpose of the RVC District is 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. The
RVC District is designed to preserve and enhance the
unique scale, character, and uses along the promenade and
on the Santa Monica Pier. The RVC District is also
intended to conditionally permit other uses such as
- 7 -
e
e
office, new residential, and cultural uses to ensure
consistency with the goals, objectives and policies of the
General Plan."
The Planning Commission determined during the November 15, 1989
and December 6, 1989 meetings that the location and use of the
original three story, 89,000 square foot project would not
protect or enhance the existing mix of residential and commercial
uses located in the RVC District.
The Commission adopted
findings which indicate the project does not conform with General
Plan Policy Sections 1.5.1, 1.5.3, 1.5.4, and 1.5.8 which
encourage recreation and visitor uses in the RVC District.
During the November l5, 1989 hearing, the Commission referred to
previous Commission and Council hearings on the Maguire Thomas
Partners proposed hotel project at 1746 Ocean Avenue, during
which office uses were prohibited as part of the proposal. The
commission stated the project approval should be consistent with
the Maguire Thomas project approval.
The applicant's revised plans, which show two floors of
residential
uses
constructed
over
commercial
retail
and
restaurant uses, are responsive to some of the Commission's major
concerns, although not all of them. The proposed uses of ground
floor retail and restaurant and upper floors in residential use
comply with the Commission's objectives in this area. However,
under the City Attorney's interpretation of relevant law, this
new version of the project cannot be considered by the Council at
this time and requires a new application.
- 8 -
e
e
The Planning commission's denial should be viewed in context.
The Planning Commission continued its review of the project from
November 15, 1989 to December 6, 19B9 to allow the developer
adequate time to consider developing alternative uses on at least
one floor of the project. The Commission did not require
submittal of revised plans for the December 6, 19B9 hearing. The
revised site plan drawings presented by the applicant during the
December 6, 1989 hearing did not show: 1) a residential building
use or other alternative use; 2) adequate second and third floor
setbacks/articulation; or 3) a significant reduction in project
FAR. The Commission determined that the revised plans were
insensitive to concerns previously expressed and had not been
evaluated in the EIR.
The latest plan revisions which show two floors of residential
uses are substantially different from plans analyzed in the EIR
and which were considered during the November 15th and December
6th, 1989 public hearings. Since traffic, noise, and other
environmental factors could be different when residential uses
are developed in the place of office uses, a new environmental
impact analysis would be required prior to any action on the
revised site plans, which would also require a new application
under the City Attorney's opinion of April 10, 1990.
Addi tionally, the revised plans would require new yard setback
variances and the location and layout of parking spaces have been
modified. Another issue is that the restaurant space has been
relocated across the street from single family residences on
vicente Terrace, which could have an adverse neighborhood impact.
- 9 -
e
e
The Commission and public have not had the opportunity to review
the revised plans.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT
The recommendation presented in this report does not have any
budget or fiscal impact.
RECOMMENDATION
Per the opinion of the city Attorney, the council cannot consider
the new version of the project, and must therefore take action on
the original version of the project which included one floor of
retail, office, and restaurant uses, and two floors of office
uses. Planning staff recommends that the City Council uphold the
Planning Commission's denial of the project with the findings set
forth in the Commission's statement of Official Action. If the
Council wishes to approve the appeal, staff would recommend
continuing the matter for staff to return with conditions of
approval.
Prepared by: Paul Berlant, Director of Planning
D. Kenyon Webster, Principle Planner
Wanda Williams, Associate Planner
Planning Division
Community and Economic Development Department
ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A-City Attorney Memorandum
Exhibit a-Planning commission staff Report,
statement of Official Action
Exhibit c- Applicant's Appeal Letter
Exhibit D- EIR 897
Exhibit E- Project Plans presented during 11/15/89
hearing, 12/6/89 hearing and in February
WW:ww
PC/ccdr885
04/17/90
- 10 -