Loading...
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 -