SR-082289-12B
#:2-'007
yc1J 12 g
:t) , ," -
j/! })'"!,<") j:/l&' --
," ,. AUG 2 Z 1989
Santa ~~ica, Cal~fornia
,
C/ED:PB:DKW:AS
Council Mtg: August 22, 1989
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: City staff
SUBJECT: Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Development
Review 425, Variance 89-006, EIA 868, 1746 Ocean
Avenue, six story, 138,369 square-foot Hotel with 221
Parking Spaces Provided in a Three-Level Subterranean
Garage, Appl icant: Maguire Thomas Partners,
Appellant: Sharon Gilpin and Laurel Roennau.
INTRODUCTION
This report recommends that the City Council deny the appeal and
uphold the Planning commission's approval of Development Review
425, Variance 89-006, and certification of the Environmental
Impact Report, EIA 868, to permit construction of a six-story,
138,369 square foot hotel with 221 parking spaces located in a
three-level subterranean garage.
At the meeting of June 14,
1989, the Planning commission approved the project on a 5-1 vote,
Sharon Gilpin and Laurel Roennau are appealing that decision.
The appeal statement is provided in Attachment A.
BACKGROUND
The hotel development is proposed to be constructed on a 65,234
square foot parcel located on the west side of Ocean Avenue
between Pica Boulevard and Colorado Avenue.
The project is
comprised of a 320 seat restaurant located on the ground floor,
1456 square feet of meeting room space, a 3455 square foot health
club with sport court for hotel guests only, 190 square feet of
- 1 -
\2-8
Au~.: '2 ~j ~G~~~
,
retail space, and a total of 175 guest rooms located on two
subterranean levels and on floors one through six.
The effective development standards for this project are a height
of 56 feet and a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 2.5. Land Use Element
Policy 1.5.8 permits hotel developments in the Oceanfront
district to be governed by FAR and building height in feet rather
than by the number of stories. The subject development
application is for a project with a maximum height of six
stories/54.s feet and a FAR of 2.12. The project also requires a
Variance to permit 38% of the 221 parking spaces to be compact
size stalls.
The project design features a wide, 35 foot setback from Ocean
Avenue to accommodate the passenger drop-off area as well as
landscaping along the length of the Ocean Avenue frontage. The
development includes a large, central courtyard that steps down
the slope of the hill at the rear of the site with terraces and
landscaping. Numerous balconies and small terraces are
incorporated at each building level. The building massing has
been designed to minimize the impacts on the neighboring
residential uses to the south. The bulk of the building is
located along the north property line by the Loews Hotel. To
both the west and to the south the building steps down
substantially with terraces, covered walkways and pergolas.
An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared for this
project and approval of a resolution certifying the adequacy of
the ErR is recommended. Comments received and the responses to
- 2 -
the comments are incorporated into the Final EIR. This document
is attached for your review (Attachment F).
The project reviewed by the Planning commission included a
request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow 12,578 square feet
of office space on the sixth floor. An Addendum to the Final EIR
was prepared to analyze the potential impacts of this proj ect
modification (Attachment G). However, at the Planning commission
hearing, the applicant withdrew this CUP and the Planning
Commission, in its approval of the project, required that the
sixth floor be used for hotel rooms only.
At the Planning Commission public hearing the Commission approved
the project with the addition of a number of Special Conditions.
Public testimony at the hearing displayed a substantial community
concern regarding construction related impacts. The Planning
Commission, therefore, required that a Construction Monitoring
Committee, composed of an immediate neighbor of the project, a
representative from Maguire Thomas Partners, and City staff be
established to handle the construction related complaints and
concerns of the surrounding neighbors. Issues that cannot be
resolved are to be arbitrated by the Planning Commission. In
addition, the Commission imposed a series of constructicn
mitigation measures suggested and outlined by the applicant.
These measures include limiting construction hours to 7:00 a.m.
to 3:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, requiring that noisier
operations be conducted after 8:00 a.m., prohibiting construction
workers from congregating at the job site before 7:00 a,m.,
utilizing Ocean Avenue for the delivery of most construction
- 3 -
materials, and providing off-site parking for construction
workers and a staging area for material deliveries in an area
east of Ocean Avenue, These measures are more fully outlined in
the Planning Commission statement of Official Action contained in
Attachment C.
Other conditions added by the Planning Commission aimed directly
at the physical impact of the project on the neighborhood
included requiring that access to the hotel restaurant be
provided from Ocean Avenue as well as from the interior of the
hotel to increase the pedestrian accessibility to the project,
establishing a landscaped buffer along the "finger lot" that
projects from the site's south property line and extends 95 feet
to Sea View Terrace, requiring that building equipment ducts and
the garage exhaust system be directed away from Appian Way,
relocating the hotel kitchen to the north side of the project or
insulating it from the Sea View Terrace residents with a sound
buffer, and, to reduce congestion on Appian Way, restrict the
Appian Way garage entrance for use by employees and area
residents only, In general, however, the Planning Commission was
complimentary of the project design, noting that the massing and
scale was sensitive to the project site,
The Planning Commissioner who did not support the project stated
that, given the impacts already generated by the One Pico hotel
project currently under construction, there are clearly impacts
that will result from the subject proposal that cannot be
mitigated.
- 4 -
ANALYSIS
The project appellants, at this time, have not submitted
supplemental information outlining the specific reasons for the
appeal. However, on the appeal form submitted they stated that
"the FEIR is inadequate in that it fails to identify potential
adverse impacts that could significantly impact the area,
including, but not limited to, traffic, noise, air quality,
health, safety, and welfare concerns." The appeal form is
contained in Attachment A.
The EIR prepared for this project provides a detailed analysis of
traffic, air quality, and noise related impacts. The
construction of the hotel project was found to have significant
traffic impacts at only one intersection, Ocean Avenue and pica
Boulevard. As recommended in the EIR, to mitigate this impact
the southbound approach on Ocean Avenue will be restriped to
provide an additional lane. This mitigation measure, which was
incorporated into the conditions of approval for the project,
will improve the level of service and reduce the volume/capacity
ratio at this intersection to below the cumulative base
condition. Thus, the significant impact would be mitigated.
Air quality impacts were found to be adverse but not significant.
However, by implementing mitigation measures such as watering to
reduce construction-related dust particles, maintaining
construction equipment to minimize exhaust emissions, and halting
construction activities during stage Two smog alerts and periods
- 5 -
of high winds, these impacts will be reduced to an insignificant
level.
Noise related impacts were also found to be adverse but not
significant. Construction related noise, although short-term in
nature, can disturb surrounding neighbors. However, as
previously noted, the applicant has agreed to limit construction
hours, regulate material deliveries to the job site, construct
noise barriers, and notify the neighborhood of upcoming
construction events and estimated durations, Upon completion of
the project, as demonstrated by Table 15 of the EIR, project
generated noise impacts will not increase the decibel level by a
perceptable amount. To regulate building equipment noise, the
Planning commission has required that building equipment ducts
and the garage exhaust system be directed away from Appian Way.
In addition, hotel deliveries are limited to 8 a.m. to 6 p.m.
The maj ori ty of the Planning commissioners reviewing the EIR
found the document to be an adequate and complete appraisal of
project related impacts. The commission certified the document
by a 5 to 1 vote,
Since the commission meeting, staff has given much consideration
to the condition requiring a Construction Monitoring Committee
(Condition No. 62) and providing for Planning Commission
arbitration of unresolved complaints. We believe the committee
is an excellent idea. However, we are concerned that the
Commission is not the proper entity to arbitrate disputes. We
feel that the nature, timeliness, and variety of issues of
- 6 -
possible complaints are such that it would be more appropriate
for the city Manager to appoint an individual to arbitrate
unresolved
disputes.
In
this
manner,
someone
who
is
knowledgeable in construction issues could be quickly designated
to handle a problem,
With regard to the construction period mitigation plan referred
to by Condition No. 16, we would also suggest that the Building
Official be added to the review prior to approval of building
permits.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT
The recommendation presented in this report does not have any
budget or fiscal impact.
RECOMMENDATION
It is respectfully recommended that the Council deny the appeal
and uphold the decision of the Planning Commission to approve
Development Review 425, VAR 89-006, and certify the Environmental
Impact Report, EIA 868 with the findings and conditions contained
in the June 14, 1989 Planning Commission statement of Official
Action,
Prepared by: Paul Berlant, Director of Planning
D, Kenyon Webster, principal Planner
Amanda Schachter, Associate Planner
D.
E,
F,
Appeal from Sharon Gilpin and Laurel Roennau
Planning Commission staff Report dated 6/14/89
Planning Commission Statement of Official
Action
Planning commission Minutes date 6/14/89
Resolution of Certification of ErR
Final ErR, ErA 868
Attachments: A,
B.
C.
- 7 -
AS:
PC/CCDR425
08/09/89
G. Addendum to Final EIR
H. Project Plans
- 8 -
..
. 1'rHfc/IMfAJI'Jf'- UJitCtHltJ' fl~ ,Ja,~2:LI"
Cltyof - ~
Santa MOijl~a s; - -. \4n\:'''''
Community and Economic Develo~'1t ~partment
Planning and ZOning DivisIon f':,' \ 4;l[)J CC
(213) 4-58.8341 vD,. r
APPEAL FORr.4'8~ JUN 27 P 2 'J'3
Date Filed L/dtJ"I
Received by ,"7~ t ~ t--
Receipt No
FEE: $100.00
Name -s.tlAl?oN ("ll-\>\.N \ \....CuJiQQ ~
Address \11..<;"'l'l\e.. \'raM~(J2,~~14 G;1Y'V\ <1~O\
Contact Person L;;>t\A-loN blL-'V\Al Phone ~~. 4Cl4\o
Please descnbe the project and decIsion to be appealed Iv 'yt.,"Cl-l I \ ~g , '6\4 ~,~t. k~ ~ 114lD 0 ~
IlJ \+-.... Co.. 1 .\L ~A.e. ~ D.. III <,('l:l;.(U ,\ ~'L 9,1 q 4=1 ..ft... irJ-t I u, t->ul (du..v W ~
IfctMl ~ lfut"""lI~ c!(,f .MN~ ~ Z :(.,'FM' ,.. \J - \
UJe.- ~ '-f\t...c. l1./<l"I(~.t '-'m..t Ot\ tt 4-zh " c.vr-W..l(/'.:t~;,J"V', i)) ~
e \'12. - ~ IA 7,Vii,' ~, C"i\ r,;v4,'" {J1Aik ~ -+N ~1A-.tv..L . ifY>1)1l If . u4k. 'ilfi -00'" J,0 ..M
i1~~ovA.\. ~" PL. . I I . .
Case Number 'w. yt'$;' / '
Address I1Lllp /)(IJ./'.)JJ\./.we. ~~ """ r1=b3 Oc..MM -4ve./i5/Iri.u.. ~W't,(;,
Applicant t'Ytacv<i'rl' --n..Ul'rt-\tWl ~~ . vu '
Onglnalheanngclale ,?vM 11 ~~q r~d ~ crvW2. 14/lq3q ,
Qnglnal ac~on MorC1Jllt Di<. t\7..S ; ~((l(ll"lrV~ (JAIL xq..OO(..' ('ur-t:.A.,~LJ e:,~ I F-IA jIs{,,~ ~ d.o1,~j{'~P Ef1~_
- . - ~ -, I l) , .
Please slate the specific reason(s) for the appeal A~ c ~k< fea~l't-ID I ftu.. t:E Ii? ,;, (M6Id....~
c..... ~ '~oJn 40 \deM.~ \(Ot~ o.d',VeNY-- Vl\A.f0.l-+.9 --HrI.rt" c.cruIO U
~~--K~"1 UMf!?tt ~ o-.r(:M I,.AN__tv-~UM. ~ Vw-I- vw+ i~ -\0 ~ --\vCl{.~'<" ~
(\(~ . tV.,r tMJttl.d;... ,VI~. ~d-..l .-!.Nv.f weUc.vJf' (L'Y\(ob'\JJ. ---('~.D i=F,~'<-
. V I V I ,
''^ l-\..~}aJl , IAA{rr--.vJ) \e);J7 tW.J~ /1' IM>t l\ erourY I J~-t-1A. &.I1.o-rf 'OJ
i..,v Ll tf.ipV~ (~ . 1 , -l '"'V I
11 addrtlonal space IS needed, use back of 101m
Signature ~fM.JM.l. )~ Dale (v'r\.Q. 02=1 I \9~CY
Santa Monlra MuniCipal Code
:'11:r' ,':.11"1 ','I Appeals
'i,'r 11.:1' '1\';;>' Appl!al 01 action
1=S, A J :H"r ~11 'I"t a~\r:' r I ~ "~I'I' I ,.":11 . I r' C' ll.' I.....; .\" ,..t", 11.., 0 Ih., P.1 rW"i .. ~~ I......,' h..f1 ,\::: I'I..I~"'II Jf I "n I' I ,. 'I"
(..rn"r"lI..,C',I:) :"f'lll,,, il IP:"'f.' I ~ t I t:l I '",I il J r oJ. 't1l..)ll'r I ~~ '...rr" (If J:)~".ll t~ ,h, C;'", l"ClIlIl,,'"
,h; .~Ii; ~'r~.()'i II. 'r 1'~:p"'11 '" :r 'J n.. ",:l'C' I n of Ihl' I- .J'"rl! 1:'...1: m ~ (.l:.r.n ~r: rh,. :,1 ., C", I I
.t.1 !)r"'JI cJ.' 'f iJ"AI '.. II 1'';1 '"h.1 Ir'p'1111(1 !-':'';', "'h.l)" rl..\\I' ,^,.1 ",t 1,1'\\ r.("tlc"n cm i='lI ~lt':(IIIII1.'1 (mEI 1""'11 II 11"1.1 II' I ":.~'" '1..'"'"
I .,Iq ,'.... IE, \;. c"IIII,1" ,!. 11U"11 "'loI(a,1 lw"'~' 'It' ~': I' "I.r' ~I .r.1 .t. 011111.. On~~ljl'll rll ,1"': I~ IXlr:'.:1 lIu' ;J()~ ......111..'rI I r : r ~"..: .1": I",
lIr:lll n,h,~'1LC ollly 1'''11 ~'lIq fl.' '1' 1c:.:'1 ." III. , "'''r t t .1: j,)(loll
5 'cllell \II J~ 2 Fllmq 01 Appl!3IS
I:U Ai,pt":J'~ ~h.t' !YI,:d,"'(' "C~:"" - ,~.pp "t.' .J .nt .;rl,ll.rr :JI "." r1:lf'td ~;1".lr I II pr ^"'I :, t .1!.Jr Llj" " ~ ".. r
:::lIhr.l""rJ.l" 10,~ IlItl W:;II, .'1 ell.; I 'I 'II :'If'". I.... I'.' '.ull"- cr Ih' Or ;:~I nlll ~ .I~P" '11
'r-I hn i'lPP' .1:) ..1/1)111' J ^dll1' I .."I,ll I HI "II~ I bI" I, ! ".... "Ill' 1\01 rllllq n..1 un Jv "";"' ,11. (,,' I.. Iii I"lt '", I rld.r i.-'/'
1:1110"""'9" C II 1''':1' l:IIOII"O"""1 N'" rl ,-rl d: PI' I , r '",'
I".! All ,ml',';)1 01 .1 ~'W'III"Q f,:ll'l'lll',,,.n I." I~I"I\ ~:",II t". 11',,1 "If"j r!hcc 01 \III' C,oy C t'o1c "nd '1dll tl~, "Il"'" '\'~,,, ~" I,)" r
wIt-,n \ 1 C('l' ~'~1JII~-' C11. I1lj ,I d.IYs IO:':!'N rlQ rnu :'J.lll (II r..l on 101 wnlt:~ :J"llIDllI'll I~ Mlltln
'1'1. A:.r""!':"l.1~~') "'. ,'~n ;"1. ',"II,III':INJ .n"~III.r.::l~'1
"~.I O. :j' 1;> J Appeal Hl!arlllWlII
r ",:"IJI: lIul r.;u oJ !r, _~lJ.AI.JI" ". 'r'~ ..1111 f"!:'''ln",: I.., r I tr" r 'f' .",":,. II'" 0"."," II,r'~ 1..11 'N'!""] ,,4."
':i,,~ ',m .ll:.l.' Ellecllvl! DillE' 01 ApPl!OIIW Ar.Uons
'~I: ~r..(,p. Ic;o~llol"I:.cprr"n,ll(~..\ttJrlll" 1.~rr""'!r'.llr.l"i "'!':-I~I:rr~/cnll't1^,1r"II,I',' '""W:) 1"lflCll~rnl'j1l.rl' n'I(..'r"r.I....ldn
'" dl ",1 b "'" ,rl~ ,.IIc tl" 1(1 r I( ..'. i . I II' : : , -i I 1.'1 ~: I ,. f' (,'" ..: :~..r'n
l:ll /0." .,(' rrllll ,'0) C:.rl lur,',ICIl rl~I1".I: .IJ Il III r, Ii C,)I,' I ~I'II,I'CI b('('~111'" r, 1 'ie r' ,!' ,11111.11 I ...i,r:M J 1.\ II'" (,,1 '(
Coun'..
::I~( '"e,' ql,I~:l Appoal Fl!l'S
Ml:'r'~..,rt.J" ~h: Crv CC"IJI'C I,m~ 1.1' :"1"1' 1 C :r :11,"1'0.' ",II, I i II I:.. f( l1 Ifl ~ t". p. f 1 r ... ....,'....:1 II'.' In ip~ "II
~ if" a~Ctu'l1cJ!I~_~_'b_I&",
City of " ~'::.
Santa MOlJil~a~. -, '\':";^'
CommunIty and Economic DeveloP'J1j!1ll 'gIepartrnent
Planning and Zoning O1V1slon
(213) 458-8341
APPEAL FORMS>
c! f!~ Co
JUN 27 P2 33
FEE $100 00
Dale Filed iJ'DIi??
Received by '? '1A · "" 1-
Receipt No .
Name -;'HIH?c,A! ("I<-)IN \ \...WJI~ ~.,.,.,.,
Address \11..<; "T\\e. ~f"fI\'-\M~-sl'-~1t.l "'r1>"'\ "'I~D{
Contact Peroon 7lIA-aorJ bIL\>\Al PhOne M~ tf04""
Please descnbe!he pIOJeCIand declSlon 10 be appealed G yi;,,"'-l.l ,I ~g-. rll1 <:.1 ,1+. t",'\Iil "* J14l. 0<.td.V'..
t~,~ c" 7. l1.~Aii2. ~ Co. In <,/tWu ,\~q.,\I,l'1 "'" ~t-.'1ll-!flO to,."ftl"^,,, V"~
,,-Q;t....J. ~ .rl.rt"^'"">~ I!'-- ........1"" 7 ~". f~' ", V I
\)Jt- ~111. '--1'",-,,- oJ4..,f.w::t;;l" vll'tJ {J'fI);i <f7f;," " ~tU,:t""^ ~ ~
F'.\e - /=;-iA ""I.i' ~ ,<'1I~v,,~ ~""* ~-#o.P w.:tr....... -~;tl-, uAk. 'i\'i-DOc",k,(.bJ
n.<>Orav61 r..A lr.. ., . , -
Case NV~bel )tz. 't\~ ,
Address 111.J'" {J(oLJ.oA A<;e..!~ -\, !i'b3 10,~ 4ve.1 N(Nu. IL.u...P.-J"""1
Applicant liIor..-lirr --rIo...>MLA.b' ~ ' uv
Onglnalheanrl9dale A.1'>R.1. r1M rmCli:.wtJ' .J.o),.,..... '~rl%q
OngrnalactHln AQO(D1J2it M l.\~. A""r""e.& uAI2:.'Q<i-(IOC, "'oX-tAA,~[i F:lle./IO-IA?<l.8' .dC,"bf(AJP81~
-- . , '11'-
Please sta1e the specIfIC reason{s) lOl the appeal A,'\V,,"'<'! o~ fealt.'>1.D, --I-\.u... f'E'~ ,1. 'M"~e.-wrt:P
v.... ~ ,)<Jc.J.b 40 IdtM.-w....." iX:t~ <>dutl/<"c. L"J'\oWOId:o ~ c..:.vlr, (.-
~.~~ lMo-f",ct ...t-w." ';(~M VN..welL,l",,! . Vwt wrt' l~ -k> ~ ..\v<>{'b,e. I
r'\(~ . /)j,J( &...I"l ~ I VlP~ . ~d:.J .!MA ,JJ€f.lcvorf' (M(a...1/) -ri.,," j:f'I'<-
11\ V~~Jd, "M~"..w}\en 'rIA.:9 r~ t^,d- Q ;"",rri ,J,....~ o...IJ.N~ C1
~Il lJ\uJ~ie.- ' 'I vI)
If ad<!;IOna! spaco . needed ".. baok oj form
S:gnature ~fM.lN\l- ~-v--- Date --\iN 02'/ ; \9(\'1
7~-
C'
t=
Santa Monica MIInlc pal CO~E
~
i~
I Subcnaqet1 OL-- ~peaI"a ~ ,
r Saclion913:U AppealD1tellon {~ ,
i-- ..' (a) Anyperson mayappeaiadeClslOl\oIlhe ZonIl1llAdmillistralor:=:"Ie :':a.",-;; :Cllm'SS1olf,' II deci~or "'C ~."
'I ';; Commi~onon,suehappealsr.allbtfinal and nolsubiettlofIJ-ha"a:lp>,j I,."'i CllyCounc1l. *
lb) --Jonype~ maylijipealanoogonal <ledSlon oJ1f1Q Planmns CcT~ s~o'll= \-'3 :;Ity Cooncol~. ":~
,.. [Cl 0ilC!! an appeal i&1Iled.!he appelfatellodymay re_ andlake a~'~' <lI a C~ ~tmlnalfons, Inierpfellillo"5 J" ":"~,__
r -.. ju(l.\ments,Orsimllar<!donstakenwhidlwereinlheJlUl'llewc ,~=.~,.... ~a"gbOOr9nlheawical"'''~'J.r: andJS
! 0' "llOlIJmitedlllcnlylheQrfgrnalr~$taledlOrltreappeal "" 'S
I ~~n$l3ll:'f1l1nll~ A~~ % -- ~ __ ,~
i, [a) A/lPeaI$ sllaIl be ~sedm lhe appellate b:>dy llI'la lorm prC;';'::!C~ t. ..... i"lng-Admlrlisllalor pursu--: .. ".
(,co ~jGJ. The.appetWJfshallSIale!hespecifll(reason$ O":/ll!:.!SH' ..aPPial ~_
',' --<, (b) Ari~ota ZonmgAdmo' o"nlSllaloractlOO>hallo'be fiIOO ",m ill, PoiI r no;: '" or WIthin 14 conseCUllve c~...",', ~..S
> foIIooingl/ledats 01 acOOn from wl'IoIlanappealis lak~n_ 1, "
, [c( AIlappeai or Ii PlanningCO/nlnissiondeclsion inalllle filE!dinlhe c"ee~' .,. : '. CIeIk andwilh the Zonl,... ~:' . nlor
; . wl1h1ll14to!l6eC1A1w caJandar days fobwlg lIIt4alEl ofactllln .~. ....,~ to' awallS macle __ --
I ~;;:~~:;:'l,~~,... - .._~,'
~ SacIion 11132.4 'ijleclIve Date of Appe~ AcIIcns "-- ,.
i (ai ~ asilJle_Ixo'lKled1or In lIvs-Cha;lter.anaCf.on OFh Z,- -g'\"~ -, ,kirappeared !o1l1e Pia' -~ ~.''''ISSlon
"0 shpJ1ml beoome eff9clIveunleSund tlIl!iI appr-O'Iedb)'1he CAr... 5~:. _
{Il} AnacllClnoftl1e Commission appeared f01I1eClty CAuncilsha~.o;) tmc- ( "'ar fC unless a"!l1.lllIiapprc.,,: =. '"e ';~y
~ -,Cottlct f "
-:::.-.
,.
SectlCl<'\il32.5 Appeal Fees.
Mlm!be;~oflhe,Crl)'COunaland Planning Commlsson shalllHllbe ,,: le~"t;;>. > 'eewhBnfil"'ll anappe-al
.
.
~t?2-"'-OI07-
Sharon Gilpin
1725 The Promenade #324
Santa Monica, CA 90401
393-4046
June 27, 1989
Paul Berlant
Planning Department
1685 Main st.
Santa Monica CA 90401
Clarice Johnsen
City Clerk
1685 Main st.
Santa Monica CA 90401
Re: DR 425iVAR 89-006iEIA 868
Appeal of Planning commission Decision
1746 Ocean Ave/Hotel; 1733 Ocean Ave/
Office Bldg.
Dear Mr. Berlant and
Ms. Johnsen:
Attached is our check in the amount of $100 and the
Appeal Form for the above referenced project. Neither Ms.
Roennau or I are available for any July council meetings and
request that this appeal be put on any council agenda after
July, 1989.
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to
call.
Very truly yo~s,
01-twN\ p~
sharon Gilpin
ATTACMENT B
CITY PLANNING DIVISION
community and Economic Development Department
M E M 0 RAN DUM
DATE: June 14, 1989
TO: The Honorable Planning commission
FROM: Planning Staff
SUBJECT: DR 425, VAR 89-006, CUP 89-038, EIA 868
Address:
Applicant:
1746 Ocean Avenue
Maguire Thomas Partners
SUMMARY
Action: Application for Development Review, Variance, Condition-
al Use Permit and certification of an Environmental Impact Report
to permit the construction of a six story, 138,369 square-foot
hotel and office development with three levels of subterranean
parking. The Development Review application is subject to review
under the provisions of the previous zoning ordinance. The
Variance to permit compact parking stalls and Conditional Use
Permit to permit office uses in the Rve District are subject to
the provisions of the current zoning ordinance.
Recommendation: Approval with conditions.
Permit streamlining Expiration Date: Although the Permit Stream-
lining Expiration Date for this project was on March 22, 1989,
the applicant has agreed, pursuant to California Government Code
65956, to give the City 30 days notice prior to its intent to
provide public notice regarding approval of the project under the
permi t Streamling Act. The City has 60 days from the date of
this notice to act on the development application. Such notice
has not been given as of this time. Action on the project by the
Planning Commission will address the city's responsibilities
under the Permit Streamlining Act.
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The subject property is a 65,234 sq. ft. parcel located on the
west side of Ocean Avenue between Vicente Terrace and Autoway and
extending to Appian Way. The parcel has a frontage of two hun-
dred feet along both Ocean Avenue and Appian Way. Surrounding
uses consist of the five story Loews Hotel (RVC) to the north,
one and two story residential uses (RVC) to the south, the three
story Flamingo Hotel (CC) to the east which is the site of an
- 9 -
office development proposed by the applicant, and the Sea Castle
Apartments (R3) to the west.
Zoning Districts: R4/RVC
Land Use Districts: Ocean Front South
Parcel Area: 65,234 sq. ft.
PROPOSED PROJECT
Proposed is a six story, 138,369 square-foot hotel/office
development with a total of 152 hotel rooms located on two sub-
terranean levels and on floors 1 through 5, a 320 seat restaurant
located on the ground floor, 1456 square feet of meeting room
area, a 3455 square-foot health club and sport court for hotel
guests, and 12,578 square-feet of office space located on the
sixth floor. (Due to a recalculation of the building square
footage, the building square footage on floors 2 through 6 is
approximately 2% less than the square footage noted in the Adden-
dum to the Environmental Impact Report.) The project reaches a
maximum height of 54.5 feet and has a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of
2.12.
A Variance is required to permit 38% of the 221 parking spaces to
be compact size stalls. A Conditional Use Permit is required to
to permit one floor of office space in the RVC district. Since
both these applications were filed after the adoption of the cur-
rent zoning Ordinance in september, 1988, the provisions of ex-
isting code will apply to this portion of the project.
The applicant requested mOdifying the project to include office
space following issuance of the Final Environmental Impact Re-
port. Planning staff advised the applicant that the substanta-
tive development standards for the project are those specified in
the Land Use Element and the former zoning ordinance. However,
since uses are allowed to change in structures that are non-
conforming as to height and density, provided that other
Municipal Code requirements such as parking are :met, Planning
staff determined that a CUP could be filed to permit the office
space. Essentially, since the current Zoning ordinance permits
office space in the RVC district with a CUP, the applicant could
wait until after the proj ect was constructed, and then request
the change of use. Instead, the applicant has elected to file
this request concurrently with the Development Review applica-
tion. An Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report has
been prepared to analyze the potential impacts of the project
modifications.
MUNICIPAL CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE
The proposed project is consistent with the Municipal Code and in
conformity with the General Plan as shown in Attachment A with
the exception of a variance to permit 38% of the parking spaces
to be compact size stalls.
- 10 -
CEQA STATUS
An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared for this
proj ect as well as for the office development proposed by the
same applicant at 1733 Ocean Avenue and approval of a resolution
certifying the adequacy of the EIR is recommended. Copies of the
Draft EIR were distributed to the Planning commission at the
beginning of the 45-day public review period. Comments received
and the responses to the comments are incorporated into the Final
EIR.
RENT CONTROL STATUS
The 91 room Kensington Hotel has received a hotel exemption under
Charter Section l801(c) (1) of the Rent Control law. At the time
the application for the subject proposal was filed, the City At-
torney determined that this exemption was sufficient to enable
Planning staff to accept and process the application. However,
this exemption does not enable the applicant to remove the hotel
units. Pursuant to Charter Section l803(t), prior to demolishing
the existing units the applicant will be required to obtain any
permits or approvals deemed necessary from the Rent Control
Board.
FEES
It is anticipated that the Coastal Commission will impose an Af-
fordable Housing Mitigation Fee to reduce the impact of removing
the 91 hotel rooms from the project site. In addition, the proj-
ect may be subject to a Transportation Mitigation Fee as outlined
below in the conditions of approval.
ANALYSIS
Consistency with Land Use Element
The proposed hotel/office development is located in the Ocean-
front-South land use district. Land Use Element policies in this
area encourage the development of visitor serving uses, including
hotel accommodations and restaurants. Policy 1.5.1 stipulates
that the Oceanfront district should be devoted primarily to visi-
tor related uses while POlicy 1. 5.3 encourages the assembly of
land for the construction of visitor accommodations. In addi-
tion, to further facilitate the development of hotel uses, the
height of hotel structures is governed by the maximum height in
feet and maximum FAR permitted in the district rather than by the
number of stories.
As proposed, the project is consistent with the policies and ob-
jectives for the Oceanfront-South area. The project provides a
total of 158 guest rooms, smaller than both the recently complet-
ed Loews Hotel adjacent to the project site and the 1 pico Hotel
southwest of the project site. The 320 seat restaurant and bar,
although open to the general public, will primarily serve hotel
guests. The health club will be available only to hotel guests
- 11 -
and, therefore, will not additionally impact the neighborhood
with traffic and patrons. The project, at 54.5 feet, is within
the permitted height limit for the district.
Conditional Use Permit for Office
The application for the proposed project was filed and deemed
complete prior to April 29, 1988. Therefore, the prevailing
development standards for the project are those specified in the
Land Use Element. Since that time, the applicant has elected to
include one floor of office space, in lieu of 17 hotel rooms, on
the sixth floor. This application was filed on May 18, 1989 and,
consequently, is subject to the regulations of the current zoning
ordinance. Under the current code the subject property is zoned
Residential/ Visitor/Commercial (RVC). This district permits
office uses above the first floor with approval of a Conditional
Use Permit.
This modification to the proj ect does not change the proj ect' s
building envelope or exterior elevations. The total square
footage of the project increases slightly from 138,219 to
138,369. An Addendum to the EIR has been prepared to assess any
additional impacts that might result from the proj ect change.
The Addendum found that the reduction of hotel rooms and the in-
clusion of office space in the propose project would not generate
additional significant environmental impacts that cannot be miti-
gated. In that the proposed office space does not significantly
alter the scope and character of the project, the office space is
located on the sixth floor of the project and will be occupied by
the project applicant, and that the addition does not require any
physical changes to project design, staff recommends approval of
the CUP.
Parking Variance and Access
A total of 154 parking spaces are required for the project per
the Municipal Code. The hotel portion must provide a total of 77
parking spaces, based on a requirement of one parking space for
each of the first 40 rooms and one parking space for every three
rooms thereafter. The restaurant/bar, meeting rooms, retail, and
office areas must provide a total of 77 parking spaces, based on
a requirement of one parking space per 250 square feet of floor
area. (An error in the Addendum to the EIR states that 187 park-
ing spaces are required.) The project provides a total of 221
parking spaces in a three level subterranean garage, exceeding
the code requirement by 34 spaces. Of these spaces, 38% are com-
pact size stalls. Current code permits, by right, a maximum of
40% of the total number of spaces provided, to be compact. In
that the project provides parking in excess of the code require-
ment and that current code would automatically allow the compact
stalls, staff recommends approval of the variance request.
Access to the the subterranean parking levels is provided via a
20 foot wide two-way driveway from Appian Way as well as from a
16 foot one-way driveway from Ocean Avenue. Vehicles entering
from Ocean Avenue may either pull into a 40 foot wide passenger
- 12 -
drop-off area or proceed through to the ramp down to the parking
levels.
project Design
The hotel project features a wide, 35 foot setback from Ocean
Avenue to accommodate the passenger drop-off area as well as
landscaping along the length of the Ocean Avenue frontage. This
provision is consistent with Land Use Element policy 3.5.5 which
encourages new buildings along this portion of Ocean Avenue to
provide substantial front yard setbacks to allow for trees and
landscaping. The building design inclUdes a large, central
courtyard that steps down the slope of the hill with terraces and
landscaping. The hotel swimming pool is located at the base of
the terrace by Appian Way. Numerous balconies and small terraces
are included at each building level.
The building massing has been designed to m~n1m1ze the impacts on
the neighboring residential uses to the south. The bulk of the
building has been located along the north property line by the
Loews Hotel. To both the west and to the south the building steps
down sUbstantially with terraces, covered walkways, and pergolas.
Hotel Development
The proposed 152 room hotel development represents the third new
hotel project in the Oceanfront area between Colorado Avenue and
pico Boulevard. Land Use Element policy 1. 5.9 requires that a
report be prepare on existing and proposed hotel development in
the city after each 750 hotel rooms are added to the city'S in-
ventory. This study, which is currently underway, has determined
that since the adoption of the Land Use Element a total of 1138
new hotel rooms located in seven different projects have been
approved. Of these, 349 rooms are located at the Loews Hotel
adjacent to the project site, and 196 rooms are located at the 1
pica hotel southwest of the project site. Although this rep-
resents approximately 38% of the total hotel rooms approved in
the city, the Land Use Element identifies the Oceanfront area as
the primary visitor serving district in the City. Given the
location of the proposed hotel between the ocean, the downtown,
the Main street Commercial area, and the Civic Center, staff
believes an additional, somewhat smaller hotel is be suitable and
that recycling of the existing deteriorated buildings at the site
is appropriate.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for both the subject
project, as well as for the proposed office development at 1733
Ocean Avenue, which analyzed a number of areas of potential proj-
ect-related impacts, including: land use, light and glare,
shadows, aesthetics, utilities, traffic and circulation, fiscal,
and neighborhood effects. The EIR concluded that the project
alone would not generate any significant adverse environmental
impacts that could not be mitigated. The major areas of the EIR
are discussed below.
- 13 -
Traffic and Circulation
sixteen intersections were analyzed in the EIR to determine the
the volume/capacity ratios (V/C) and levels of service (LOS)
during the morning and evening peak hours. The study found that
four of the analyzed intersections are currently operating at LOS
E or F during the evening peak hour (4th Street & Olympic, 4th
Street & Pico, pico & Lincoln, and Ocean Park Blvd. & Lincoln)
while one intersection is operating at LOS E during the morning
peak hour (4th & olympic).
With the addition of the project under cumulative base conditions
the traffic impact analysis determined that, prior to mitigation,
the project would create significant traffic impacts at the Ocean
Avenue and pico Boulevard intersection and at the Neilson Way and
Ocean Park Boulevard intersection. After the implementation of
the following mitigation measures these impacts would be reduced
to a less than significant level:
Ocean Avenue and Pico Boulevard
Restripe the southbound approach on Ocean Avenue to pro-
vide an additional lane. This will allow the approach to
have two left-turn lanes, one through lane, and one shared
through/right-turn lane.
Neilson Way and Ocean Park Boulevard
Restripe the southbound approach of Neilson Way to provide
an additional lane allowing for one left-turn lane, one
through lane, and one shared through-right turn lane.
When the hotel development is combined with the traffic generated
by the proposed office project at 1733 Ocean Avenue, the follow-
ing seven intersections experience significant impacts:
4th st. & I-IO WB Off-ramp
4th st. & Olympic Blvd.
pico Blvd. & Ocean Ave.
pico Blvd. & Main st.
pico Blvd. & 4th st.
pico Blvd. & Lincoln Blvd.
Ocean Park Blvd. & Neilson Way
However, with the addition of the previously noted conditions as
well as the mitigation measures outlined below, the project re-
lated impacts are reduced to an insignificant level. In fact, as
demonstrated by Table 32 of the EIR, the operation of the im-
pacted intersections at the cumulative level would be better
after construction of the project and implementation of the
recommended mitigation measures than if there was no project.
The LOS would improve at four of the seven intersections while
the V/C ratios would be reduced between 5% and 33% below the
cumulative base conditions at all seven intersections.
- 14 -
4th street and I-10 Off-Ramp
Restripe the westbound off-ramp to provide three lanes, an
exclusive left-turn lane, a shared left-turn and right-
turn lane, and an exclusive right-turn lane. (This mea-
sure has already been completed.)
4th street and Olympic Boulevard
Widen the southbound approach of Fourth street by removing
the sidewalk on the east side of the bridge over I-10 to
allow the pavement to be widened from 55 feet to 60 feet
and provide two through lanes and two left-turn lanes.
Main street and pica Boulevard
Restripe the westbound approach of pica Boulevard to pro-
vide an additional lane to accommodate two left-turn
lanes, one through lane, and one shared through/right-turn
lane.
4th street and pica Boulevard
Restripe the eastbound approach of Pico Boulevard to pro-
vide an additional lane to accommodate two left-turn
lanes, one through lane, and one shared through/right-turn
lane.
Lincoln Boulevard and Pico Boulevard
Restripe the eastbound approach of pica Boulevard to pro-
vide one additional lane to accommodate one left-turn
lane, two through lanes, and one exclusive right-turn
lane.
The EIR states that these measures were selected as low-cost,
easily implementable means of improving the operating conditions
of the impacted intersections during the peak hours.
Wastewater
The Addendum to the EIR estimates that the proposed hotel/office
project would generate 30,680 gallons per day (gpd) of wastewa-
ter. Current wastewater generation for the 91 room hotel on the
project site is 13,650 gpd. This represents an increase of
17,030 gpd. The applicant will be required to attempt to achieve
a zero-net flow through a City-approved program. The net increase
represents approximately 19.7 percent of the city I s six-month
wastewater allocation. (The Addendum to the EIR states that when
the office project at 1733 Ocean Avenue is combined with the pro-
posed hotel project the total daily sewage flow is 13,400 gpd.
This should be corrrected to 14,120 gpd.)
- 15 -
Fiscal
As estimated in the Addendum to the EIR, the proposed project
will generate net revenue to the City. The sources of municipal
revenue will be business license fees, transient occupancy and
sales taxes, property taxes and the utility users tax. After
deducting costs incurred by the City for the provision of ser-
vices such as police and fire protection and public works, the
yearly net revenue generated by the proj ect is proj ected to be
$550,760.
CONCLUSION
The proposed hotel/office development is consistent with the
policies and objectives for the Oceanfront South land use dis-
trict and the RVC zone in that it provides visitor serving com-
mercial uses, the office component of the project is clearly sep-
arate from the hotel portion and does not require any visible
modifications to the building's design, more than adequate park-
ing is provided, and no significant environmental impacts that
cannot be mitigated will result from the project's construction.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve DR 425,
CUP 89-038, VAR 89-006 and approve the resolution certifying the
Environmental Impact Report, EIA 868 subject to the following
findings and conditions.
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 the project has been sensitively massed to locate
the largest portion of the building along the north prop-
erty line by the five story Loews Hotel and by stepping
down the project along the south and west portions of the
site that abut existing residential units.
2. The rights-of-way can accommodate autos and pedestrians,
including parking and access, in that the site design pro-
vides adequate driveway facilities from both Ocean Avenue
and Appian Way and that the project provides 221 parking
rather than the minimum 154 spaces required by the
Municipal Code.
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
preestablished.
- 16 -
4. The proj ect is generally consistent with the Municipal
Code and General Plan, in that the project was designed to
meet all code requirements and the General Plan, with the
exception of a variance for compact parking stalls.
5. 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 espoused by the ErR have been included as condi-
tions of approval for the project, as well as additional
staff conditions.
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 Ordinancell, in that the office space is not
located on the ground floor and, therefore, will not be
visible from the street frontage.
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 office component is limited to the
sixth floor of the project and will be used by the owners
of the hotel.
3. The subject parcel is physically suitable for the type of
land use being proposed, in that it is a site zoned for
commercial uses.
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
offices occupied by the Rand corporation are located
northeast of the project site.
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 Addendum to the EIR found that including of-
fice space on the sixth floor of the proposed project
would have less impact on public utilities than the pre-
viously proposed 17 hotel rooms.
6. Public access to the proposed use will be adequate, 1n
that access to the 221 space parking garage will be from
both Ocean Avenue and Appian Way.
7. The physical location or placeIDent of the use on the site
is compatible with and relates harmoniously to the sur-
rounding neighborhood, in that the incorporation of office
space into the proposed hotel development will not require
modification to the massing and stepped back design of the
structure.
- 17 -
8. The proposed use is consistent with the goals, objectives,
and policies of the General Plan, in that the addition of
office space to the hotel project represents just one com-
ponent of a primarily visitor-serving project.
9. The proposed use would not be detrimental to the public
interest, health, safety, convenience, or general welfare,
in that adequate public utilities and parking will be
provided.
12. The proposed use will not result in an overconcentration
of such uses in the immediate vicinity, in that the office
portion of the project represents just 9% of the total
project square footage and that the surrounding area is a
mix of commercial and residential 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 number of on-
site parking spaces exceeds the code requirement and the
inclusion of compact parking spaces will not detrimentally
affect the circulation and parking patterns of the
project.
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 similar projects in the past have utilized compact
size parking stalls with no significant impact on circula-
tion patterns or neighboring properties and that provided
parking is in excess of that required.
3. The strict application of the provisions of this Chapter
would result in practical difficulties or unnecessary
hardships, not inclUding economic difficulties or economic
hardships, in that past projects have incorporated compact
parking stalls with no significant impacts and that the
total number of parking spaces provided exceeds the re-
quired number.
4. 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 project is consistent with the
General Plan.
5. The variance would not impair the integrity and character
of the district in which it is to be located, in that more
parking than is required will be provided and that the
variance will not affect the appearance of the project.
- 18 -
6. The subject site is physically suitable for the proposed
variance, in that it is a recycling of commercial land
with the provision of adequate access and circulation.
7. 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 project is an in-fill in a developed
area with all necessary improvements.
a. There will be adequate provisions for public access to
serve the subject variance proposal, in that adequate
driveways will be provided on Ocean Avenue and Appian Way
and that pedestrian sidewalks are in existence.
9. 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, in that similar varian-
ces have been granted in the past which have not created
any deleterious effects and parking is provided in eXcess
of the code requirements.
CONDITIONS
Plans
1. This approval is for those plans dated 5-18-89, a copy of
which shall be maintained in the files of the City Plan-
ning 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.
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. Plans for final design, landscaping, screening, trash en-
closures, and signage shall be subject to review and ap-
proval by the Architectural Review Board.
- 19 -
6. 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
7. 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 proj ect 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.
Demolition
8. Until such time as the demolition is undertaken, and un-
less the structure is currently in use, the existing
structure shall be maintained and secured by boarding up
all openings, erecting a security fence, and removing all
debris, bushes and planting that inhibit the easy surveil-
lance of the property to the satisfaction of the Building
and Safety Officer and the Fire Department. Any landscap-
ing material remaining shall be watered and maintained
until demolition occurs.
9. Unless otherwise approved by the Recreation and Parks De-
partment and the Planning Division, at the time of demoli-
tion, any street trees shall be protected from damage,
death, or removal per the requirements of Ordinance 1242
( CCS) .
10. Immediately after demolition (and during construction), a
security fence, the height of which shall be the maximum
permitted by the Zoning Ordinance, shall be maintained
around the perimeter of the lot. The lot shall be kept
clear of all trash, weeds, etc.
11. Prior to issuance of a demolition permit, applicant shall
prepare for Building Division approval a rodent and pest
control plan to ensure that demolition and construction
activities at the site do not create pest control impacts
on the project neighborhood.
Construction
12. 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.
- 20 -
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. A construction period mitigation plan shall be prepared by
the applicant 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; 8) 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.
17. 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.
- 21 -
18. 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. 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.)
20. 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.
21. 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 recycling 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.
22. 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
- 22 -
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
goal of the Transportation Demand Management Plan shall be
to reduce vehicle trips which would otherwise occur by
twenty percent.
23. Ocean Avenue and Pico Boulevard: Restripe the southbound
approach on Ocean Avenue to provide an additional lane to
allow two left-turn lanes, one through lane, and one
shared through/right-turn lane.
24. Fourth street and Olympic Boulevard: widen the southbound
approach of Fourth street by removing the sidewalk on the
east side of the bridge over I-lO to allow widening of the
pavement from 55 feet to 60 feet and to provide two
through lanes and two left-turn lanes.
25. Fourth street and Pico Boulevard: Restripe the eastbound
approach of pico Boulevard to provide an additional lane
to allow two left-turn lanes, one through lane, and one
shared through right-turn lane.
26. Main street and Pico Boulevard: Restripe the westbound
approach of Pico Boulevard to provide an additional lane
to allow two left-turn lanes, one through lane, and one
shared through right-turn lane.
27. Lincoln Boulevard and pico Boulevard: Restripe the east-
bound approach of pico Boulevard to provide one additional
lane to allow for one left-turn lane, two through lanes,
and one exclusive right-turn lane.
28. Neilson Way and Ocean Park Boulevard: Restripe the south-
bound approach of Neilson Way to provide an additional
lane to allow one left-turn lane, one through lane, and
one shared through right-turn lane.
29. Adequate watering techniques will be employed to partially
mitigate the impact of construction-related dust
particles.
30. Construction equipment will be properly maintained and
serviced to minimize exhaust emissions.
31. South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 403 will
be adhered to, insuring the clean-up of construction re-
lated dirt on approach routes to construction sites.
- 23 -
32. Construction activities shall be halted during local stage
One and stage Two smog alerts and during periods of high
winds.
33. The developer shall proceed with landscaping and seeding
as soon as possible to reduce the area of unimproved
surfaces.
34. The South Coast Air Quality Management District's Regula-
tion XV will be initiated and enforced where applicable.
This regulation requires employers of over 100 employees
to develop a plan to promote employee participation in
trip reduction and ridesharing programs.
35. Project developers shall be required to implement building
construction which complies with energy guidelines in-
cluded in Title 24 of the California Administrative Code.
Complying with these regulations will further reduce ener-
gy consumption and reduce emissions from off-site station-
ary sources.
36. Construction and demolition activities shall take place
only during the hours and at the levels specified in the
Santa Monica Noise Ordinance.
37. All construction equipment, fixed or mobile, operated
within 1000 feet of a dwelling unit shall be equipped with
properly operating and maintained muffler exhaust systems.
38. Stationary equipment shall be placed such that emitted
noise is directed away from sensitive noise receivers such
as residential areas.
39. stockpiling and vehicle staging areas shall be located as
far as practical from occupied dwellings.
40. Every effort shall be made to create the greatest distance
between noise sources and receptors during construction
operations.
41. Barriers between the noise source and noise-sensitive
areas shall be constructed where feasible. Areas where
this will be most beneficial include the residential units
to the south.
42. Normal building operations shall not exceed the standards
established in the Santa Monica Noise Ordinance for Zone
1.
43. Hotel deliveries shall be limited to normal working hours
of 7:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. to avoid disturbing adjacent
residents during late or early morning hours.
44. Outdoor lighting on the south side of the structure shall
be directed away from the adjacent residential uses.
- 24 -
45. Sections of Title 20 and TItle 24 of the California Admin-
istrative Code regarding water consumption and conserva-
tion will be enforced.
46. The project shall incorporate drought-tolerant plant spe-
cies in the water conserving landscape design.
47. A low volume irrigation system shall be used for all
landscaping.
48. The project shall be in compliance with Ordinance 1447
(CCS) , regarding water conservation.
49. The project shall comply with California state Building
Standards included in Title 24 of the California Adminis-
trative Code.
Miscellaneous Conditions
50. The building address shall be painted on the roof of the
building and shall measure four feet by eight feet (32
square feet) .
51. 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.
52. 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
projectts owner's 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.
53. 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.
54. 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.
55. Prior to demolition of the existing units located in the
Kensington Hotel the applicant shall be required to obtain
a removal permit from the Rent Control Board.
- 25 -
Validity of Permits
56. In the event the permittee violates or fails to comply
with any conditions of approval of this permit, no further
permits, licenses, approvals or certificates of occupancy
shall be issued until such violation has been fully
remedied.
57. 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
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.
58. 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
59. 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 appl icable, provide periodic reports
regarding compliance with such conditions.
Prepared by: Amanda Schachter, Associate Planner
- 26 -
AS
PC/DR425
08/09/89
Attachments: A. Municipal Code and General Plan
Conformance
B. Radius Map and Location Map
C. Resolution of Certification of EIR
D. statement of Certification of EIR
E. Public Comment
F. Final EIR
G. Addendum to Final EIR
H. Project Plans
- 27 -
ATTACHMENT A
MUNICIPAL CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE
Category Municipal Code
Permitted Use R4: Permits
Hotels and
Accessory Uses
RVC: Permits
Offices with
CUP.
Height 6 stories/65'
Setbacks
Front yard
20'
sideyard
13'
Rearyard
15'
Lot Coverage
50%
F.A.R.
N/A
Parking
Land Use
Element
Ocean Front
South: Permits
Visitor
Accommodations
and Related
Uses.
56': Number
of stories
Not Applicable
for Hotels
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2.5
Hotel: 152 Rooms
l/lst 40 rms.=
40 Spaces
1/3 rIDS above 40=
37 Spaces
Retail: 190 sq. ft.
1/250 sq.ft.=
1 Spaces
Restaurant/Bar 4980 sq. ft.
1/250 sq. ft.
20 Spaces
Office: 12,578 sq. ft.
1/250 sq. ft.=
50 Spaces
Meeting Rooms: 1456 sq. ft.
1/250 sq.ft.=
6 Spaces
Total = 154 Spaces
Loading Spaces 3 Spaces
- 28 -
Project
Hotel/Office
Development
with Restaurant,
Retail, and
Health Club
6 Stories/54.51
35'
13'
16'
49%
2.12
221 Spaces
3 Spaces
ATTACHMENT C
STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL ACTION
PROJECT
NUMBER: DR 425, CUP 89-038, VAR 89-006, EIA 8686
LOCATION: 1746 Ocean Avenue
APPLICANT: Maguire Thomas Partners
REQUEST: To construct a six story, 54.6 foot, 139,819
square foot hotel building with a restaurant and
bar area, health club and sport court for hotel
guests, meeting room space, and retail space. A
total of 175 hotel rooms will be located in the
proj ect. The Conditional Use Permit request to
include office space on the sixth floor was not
approved. The project will provide 220 parking
spaces in a three level subterranean garage.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
6-7-89
Date.
x
Approved based on the following findings and
subject to the conditions below.
Denied.
Other.
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 the project has been sensitively massed to locate
the largest portion of the building along the north prop-
erty line by the five story Loews Hotel and by stepping
down the project along the south and west portions of the
site that abut existing residential units.
2. The rights-of-way can accommodate autos and pedestrians,
including parking and access, in that the site design pro-
vides adequate driveway facilities from both Ocean Avenue
and Appian Way and that the project provides 221 parking
rather than the minimum 154 spaces required by the
Municipal Code.
- 29 -
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
preestablished.
4. The proj ect is generally consistent with the Municipal
Code and General Plan, in that the project was designed to
meet all code requirements and the General Plan, with the
exception of a variance for compact parking stalls.
5. 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 espoused by the EIR have been included as condi-
tions of approval for the project, as well as additional
staff conditions.
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 number of on-
site parking spaces exceeds the code requirement and the
inclusion of compact parking spaces will not detrimentally
affect the circulation and parking patterns of the
project.
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 similar projects in the past have utilized compact
size parking stalls with no significant impact on circula-
tion patterns or neighboring properties and that provided
parking is in excess of that required.
3. The strict application of the provisions of this Chapter
would result in practical difficulties or unnecessary
hardships, not including economic difficulties or economic
hardships, in that past projects have incorporated compact
parking stalls \,rith no significant impacts and that the
total number of parking spaces provided exceeds the re-
quired number.
4. 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 project is consistent with the
General Plan.
5. The variance would not impair the integrity and character
of the district in which it is to be located, in that more
- 30 -
parking than is required will be provided and that the
variance will not affect the appearance of the project.
6. The subject site is physically suitable for the proposed
variance, in that it is a recycling of commercial land
with the provision of adequate access and circulation.
7. 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 project is an in-fill in a developed
area with all necessary improvements.
8. There will be adequate provisions for public access to
serve the subject variance proposal, in that adequate
driveways will be provided on Ocean Avenue and Appian Way
and that pedestrian sidewalks are in existence.
9. 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, in that similar varian-
ces have been granted in the past which have not created
any deleterious effects and parking is provided in excess
of the code requirements.
CONDITIONS
Plans
1. This approval is for those plans dated 5-18-89, a copy of
which shall be maintained in the files of the city Plan-
ning 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.
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. Plans for final design, landscaping, screening, trash en-
closures, and signage shall be subject to review and ap-
proval by the Architectural Review Board.
- 31 -
6. 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
7. 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.
Demolition
8. Until such time as the demolition is undertaken, and un-
less the structure is currently in use, the existing
structure shall be maintained and secured by boarding up
all openings, erecting a security fence, and removing all
debris, bushes and planting that inhibit the easy surveil-
lance of the property to the satisfaction of the Building
and Safety Officer and the Fire Department. Any landscap-
ing material remaining shall be watered and maintained
until demolition occurs.
9. Unless otherwise approved by the Recreation and Parks De-
partment and the Planning Division, at the time of demoli-
tion, any street trees shall be protected from damage,
death, or removal per the requirements of Ordinance 1242
(CCS) .
10. Immediately after demolition (and during construction), a
security fence, the height of which shall be the maximum
permitted by the zoning ordinance, shall be maintained
around the perimeter of the lot. The lot shall be kept
clear of all trash, weeds, etc.
11. Prior to issuance of a demolition permit, applicant shall
prepare for Building Division approval a rodent and pest
control plan to ensure that demolition and construction
activities at the site do not create pest control impacts
on the project neighborhood.
Construction
12. 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.
- 32 -
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. A construction period mitigation plan shall be prepared by
the applicant for approval by the Department of General
Services prior to issuance of a building permit. However,
prior to approval by the Department of General Service,
this plan shall be made available to the public for re-
view. As applicable, this plan shall 1) specify the
names, addresses, telephone numbers and business license
numbers of all contractors and subcontractors as well as
the developer and architect; 2) Describe how demolition
of any existing structures is to be accomplished; 3) In-
dicate where any cranes are to be located for erection/
construction: 4) Describe how much of the public street,
alleyway, or sidewalk is proposed to be used in conjunc-
tion with construction; 5) Set forth the extent and na-
ture 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 dewatering and its effect on any adjacent
buildings; 8) 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 normally permitted hours is proposed: 11)
Describe any proposed construction noise mitigation mea-
sures: 12) Describe construction-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 con-
struction manager.
17. 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
- 33 -
shall also indicate the hours of permissible construction
work.
18. 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. 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.)
20. 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.
21. 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 recycling 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.
22. 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
- 34 -
vanpools; C. Ridesharing programs such as a rideshare
matching program, incentives, and car and .v~npool sub-
sidies; D. Transit programs such as prov~s~on 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
goal of the Transportation Demand Management plan shall be
to reduce vehicle trips which would otherwise occur by
twenty percent.
23. Ocean Avenue and pico Boulevard: Restripe the southbound
approach on Ocean Avenue to provide an additional lane to
allow two left-turn lanes, one through lane, and one
shared through/right-turn lane.
24. Neilson Way and Ocean Park Boulevard: Restripe the south-
bound approach of Neilson Way to provide an additional
lane to allow one left-turn lane, one through lane, and
one shared through right-turn lane.
25. Adequate watering techniques will be employed to partially
mitigate the impact of construction-related dust
particles.
26. Construction equipment will be properly maintained and
serviced to minimize exhaust emissions.
27. South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 403 will
be adhered to, insuring the clean-up of construction re-
lated dirt on approach routes to construction sites.
28. Construction activities shall be halted during stage Two
smog alerts and during periods of high winds.
29. The developer shall proceed with landscaping and seeding
as soon as possible to reduce the area of unimproved
surfaces.
30. The south Coast Air Quality Management District's Regula-
tion xv will be initiated and enforced where applicable.
This regulation requires employers of over 100 employees
to develop a plan to promote employee participation in
trip reduction and ridesharing programs.
31. Project developers shall be required to implement building
construction which complies with energy guidelines in-
cluded in Title 24 of the California Administrative Code.
Complying with these regulations will further reduce ener-
gy consumption and reduce emissions from off-site station-
ary sources.
- 35 -
32. Construction and demolition activities shall take place
only during the hours and at the levels specified in the
Santa Monica Noise Ordinance.
33. All construction equipment, fixed or mobile, operated
within 1000 feet of a dwelling unit shall be equipped with
properly operating and maintained muffler exhaust systems.
34. stationary equipment shall be placed such that emitted
noise is directed away from sensitive noise receivers such
as residential areas.
35. stockpiling and vehicle staging areas shall be located as
far as practical from occupied dwellings.
36. Every effort shall be made to create the greatest distance
between noise sources and receptors during construction
operations.
37. Barriers between the noise source and noise-sensitive
areas shall be constructed where feasible. Areas where
this will be most beneficial include the residential units
to the south.
38. Normal building operations shall not exceed the standards
established in the Santa Monica Noise Ordinance for Zone
1.
39. Hotel deliveries shall be limited to normal working hours
of 7:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. to avoid disturbing adjacent
residents during late or early morning hours.
40. Outdoor lighting on the south side of the structure shall
be directed away from the adjacent residential uses.
41. Sections of Title 20 and TItle 24 of the California Admin-
istrative Code regarding water consumption and conserva-
tion will be enforced.
42. The project shall incorporate drought-tolerant plant spe-
cies in the water conserving landscape design.
43. A low volume irrigation system shall be used for all
landscaping.
44. The project shall be in compliance with Ordinance 1447
(CCS), regarding water conservation.
45. The project shall comply with California state Building
Standards included in Title 24 of the California Adminis-
trative Code.
- 36 -
Miscellaneous Conditions
46. The building address shall be painted on the roof of the
building and shall measure four feet by eight feet (32
square feet).
47. 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.
48. 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 owneris 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.
49. 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.
50. 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.
51. Prior to demolition of the existing units located in the
Kensington Hotel the applicant shall be required to comply
with one of the following from : 1) obtain a removal per-
mit from the Rent Control Board1 2) obtain an enforceable
court order indicating that the Kensington Hotel, as an
exempt property,can be demolished without obtaining a re-
moval permit, or 3) obtain a ruling from the City Attor-
ney's office that the Kensington Hotel can be demolished
without obtaining a removal permit.
Validity of Permits
52. In the event the permittee violates or fails to comply
with any conditions of approval of this permit, no further
permits, licenses, approvals or certificates of occupancy
shall be issued until such violation has been fully
remedied.
53. 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
prepared by the Planning Division, agreeing to the Condi-
tions of approval and acknowledging that failure to comply
- 37 -
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.
54. 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
55. 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, upon written request, provide periodic
reports regarding compliance with such conditions.
SPECIAL CONDITIONS
56. The Conditional Use Permit request to allow office space
in the project shall be withdrawn.
57. In addition to access from the interior of the hotel, ac-
cess to the restaurant shall be provided from Ocean
Avenue.
58. The landscape buffering of the "finger lot" (Lot 3, Tract
2562) shall be submitted to the Architectural Review
Board.
59. The applicant shall repave, landscape, and improve the
lighting of the Seaview Terrace walkstreet.
60. Hotel delivery hours shall be limited to 8 a.m. to 6 p.m.
- 38 -
61. The building equipment ducts and garage exhaust system
shall be directed away from Appian Way.
62. A Construction Monitoring Committee compromised of an im-
mediate neighbor of the project, a representative from
Maguire Thomas Partners, and City staff shall be es-
tablished to handle the construction related complaints
and concerns of the surrounding neighbors. Unresolved
issues shall be arbitrated by the Planning Commission.
63. The hotel kitchen shall be relocated to the north side of
the project or be insulated from the Seaview Terrace resi-
dents with a sound buffer.
64. Work hours during construction will be 7:00 a.m. to 3:30
p.m., Monday through Friday. Unforseen emergencies shall
be exempted. Noisier work items shall start after 8 a.m.
each work day. Construction workers will not be allowed
to congregate at the project site before 7:00 a.m.
65. Traffic control during construction will be coordinated to
use Ocean Avenue for the delivery of most materials. Uni-
formed security personnel will be located on Ocean Avenue
and Appian Way to control site access, parking and traffic
flow.
66. Barricades will be constructed around the site perimeter
to contain noise, dust and debris that is generated by
construction work. The barricade will be properly main-
tained to ensure the safety of the gereral public and
maintain an orderly appearance.
67. Cleanliness of the street area during construction will be
maintained on a daily basis with the use of street
sweepers and washing equipment, as needed.
68. Off-site parking for construction workers and a staging
area for material deliveries will be provided east of
Ocean Avenue. Shuttle services for construction workers'
parking will be provided, if necessary, between the site
and the parking area to reduce the parking demand in the
project area.
69. public notification will be made to the neighborhood on a
periodic basis to appraise them of upcoming construction
events and the estimated durations. A contact person and
telephone number will be posted at the job site for infor-
mation and/or complaints.
70. The Appian Way garage entrance shall be restricted for use
by employees and area residents only.
- 39 -
VOTE
Ayes:
Nays:
Abstain:
Absent:
Farivar, Kaufman, Lambert, Mechur, Pyne
Nelson
None
Hecht
NOTICE
If this is a final decision not subject to further appeal under
the City of Santa Monica comprehensive Land Use and zoning Or-
dinance, the time within which jUdicial review of this decision
must be sought is governed by Code of civil Procedure Section
1094.6, which provision has been adopted by the city pursuant to
Municipal Code section 1400.
I hereby certify that this statement of
accurately reflects the final determination
Commission of the City of Santa Monica.
Official Action
of the Planning
signature
date
print name and title
I hereby agree to the above conditions of approval and
acknowledge that failure to comply with such conditions shall
constitute grounds for potential revocation of the permit
approval.
Applicant's Signature
Dan Kingsley, vice president( Maguire Thomas Partners
Print Name and Title
- 40 -
t!oz--tJ,oy-
ATTACHMENT D
CONTINUED FROM JUNE 7, 1989
M I NUT E S
CONTINUED MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 14, 1989
7:30 P.M.
MAIN LIBRARY AUDITORIUM
1343 6TH STREET, SANTA MONICA
1. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:52 p.m.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner pyne led the Pledge of
Allegiance.
3. ROLL CALL: Present: Mehrdad Farivar
John Kaufman
Leslie Lambert
Ralph Mechur
Donald Nelson
Thomas pyne
Absent: Eileen Hecht
Also Present: Paul Berlant, Planning Director
Ron Fuchiwaki, city Traffic Engineer
Laurie Lieberman, Deputy city Attorney
4.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
approval.
Minutes were not submitted for
5.
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S
Director's Report.
REPORT:
Paul
Berlant gave
the
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS: Consent Calendar
7. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
C. DR 425, CUP 89-038, VAR 89-006, EIA 868, 1746 Ocean
Avenue, R~/RVC, Applicant: Maquire Thomas Partners,
proposed l.S a six story, 54.6', 139,819 sq.ft.
hotel/office development containing a total of 152 hotel
rooms on floors one through five as well as on two
subterranean levels and a total of 12,561 sq. ft. of
office space on the sixth floor. The hotel will also
include a 3,455 sq. ft. health club and sport court for
the hotel guests, a 4,980 sq.ft. restaurant and bar
area, a 190 sq.ft. retail area, and 1,456 sq.ft. of
meeting room space. parking for 220 cars will be
provided in a three level subterranean garage.
- 41 -
A Development Review permit is required to allow the
construction of a commercial project over 15{000 sq. ft.
A Variance is required to permit compact parking spaces.
A Conditional Use Permit is required to permit office
space in the RVC district.
A resolution certifying the Environmental Impact Report,
EIA 868, will be considered. Certification of the EIR
will be required prior to the Planning Commission taking
action on the project.
Prior to the staff report, Chair Nelson suggested that
items C and D be combined for purposes of discussion and
certification of the EIR. Commissioner Mechur made a
motion reflecting Chair Nelson's suggestion.
commissioner pyne seconded the motion. Mr. Berlant and
Deputy City Attorney Lieberman stated that this action
could not be done. The motion was withdrawn.
Following the staff report, commissioner Lambert asked
for clarification of the parking requirements. staff
stated that Attachment A on page 154 explains the
requirements.
commissioner Lambert asked if 91 rooms are to be
removed. Staff indicated that was the correct figure.
commissioner Lambert asked about the Coastal affordable
housing requirement. staff indicated this had not been
resolved yet.
commissioner pyne commented on the non-discrimination
condition in the Development Agreement and asked if this
was a new or standard condition. Staff indicated it is
a standard condition for office buildings. However, the
Development Agreement is not a part of this hearing.
Commissioner Farivar asked for some background on the
office space in the hotel project. Staff stated that
the office space is to be on the sixth floor of the
proposed hotel building, which is permitted with a CUP
under the new code in the RVC zone. Commissioner
Farivar asked if office space could be built under the
old code. staff indicated it would not be permitted.
commissioner Farivar commented on visitor services uses
being desired by code in the Ocean Avenue area. Staff
stated that the primary use of the proposed project is
the hotel, which compiles with code.
commissioner Farivar asked if there was currently any
office uses on the west side of Ocean Avenue. Staff
stated none was known at this time.
- 42 -
Commissioner Mechur asked for the new code requirements
for parking. staff stated that information is not
available at this time.
commissioner Mechur asked if the Coastal commission
agrees with our standards for parking requirements.
Staff indicated the Coastal Commission has its own
standards.
Chair Nelson asked staff why the CUP policy had been
reversed. Staff stated that in an effort to bring the
project up to the new code standards that policy has
been adjusted.
Chair Nelson asked the EIR traffic consultant Dick Kaku
about left turn p.m. counts found in Figure 6 on page
29. Mr. Kaku stated that left turns are possible
according to the volume of traffic recorded in the
counts.
Chair Nelson asked Mr. Kaku about the assignments in
Figure 5 and about the dispersion of traffic. Mr. Kaku
stated that a percentage of traffic had been assigned to
the California Incline, a percentage to Montana Avenue
and San vicente Boulevard for eastbound traffic flow.
Chair Nelson asked about the variance of figures between
this project and the 1 pico Hotel project. staff stated
that the EIR for 1 Pico is not available at this time,
and the current EIR for this project states that the
impacts can be mitigated.
Commissioner
substantially
the plans are
sets of plans
Farivar asked if the plans had been
changed since originally submitted since
dated May 18, 1989. Staff stated that new
were requested by staff for this hearing.
commissioner pyne made a motion to allow the applicant a
ten minute presentation rather than the standard five
minutes. Commissioner Farivar seconded the motion,
which was approved by a unanimous voice vote.
Mr. Dan Kingsley of Maguire Thomas Partners and the
architect, Mr. John Rube1l, discussed the proposed
project with the Commission, which included a slide
presentation.
commissioner Lambert asked Mr. Kingsley about the
proposed office floor of the hotel and specifically what
will happen to office floor if and when the office
building across the street is built. Mr. Kingsley
stated that the office space will remain because the
cost to convert the space to hotel rooms would be
prohibitive.
- 43 -
Commissioner pyne
would be rented
stated the space
Partners.
asked if the proposed office space
to other businesses. Mr. Kingsley
will remain part of Maguire Thomas
The following members of the public spoke:
Sally Reinman, 11 Vicente Terrace, Santa Monica (01)
Ken Ward, P.O. Box 5594, Santa Monica (05)
Bob Gabriel, 515 4th Street, Santa Monica (02)
George MacKoul, 4-B Marine Terrace, Santa Monica (01)
Glenn Johnsonm 4-C Marine Terrace, Santa Monica (01)
Bob Madok, 1725 The Promenade #223, Santa Monica (01)
Eric Moore, 1725 The Promenade #611, Santa Monica (01)
David Lewis, 326 San vicente Blvd., Santa Monica (01)
Scott Thompson, 2132 21st street, Santa Monica (05)
wally White, 1725 The Promenade, santa Monica (01)
Jane Irvine, 1725 The Promenade #303, Santa Monica (01)
Robert Allan, 1725 The Promenade #708, Santa Monica (01)
Sharon Gilpin, 1725 The Promenade, Santa Monica (01)
Judy Haddad, 1725 The Promenade, Santa Monica (01)
Jim Mulryan, 1725 The Promenade #607, Santa Monica (01)
curtis Sams, 41 Seaview Terrace, Santa Monica (01)
Emily Silcock, 6 Seaview Terrace, Santa Monica (01)
Estelle Sieger, 12 Seaview Terrace, Santa Monica (01)
Christy Christl, 2320 6th Street, Santa Monica (05)
Elaine Anderson, 19 Seaview Terrace, Santa Monica (01)
Darsie Anderson, 19 Seaview Terrace, Santa Monica (01)
Omar Armendariz, 521-1 Hollister Av., Santa Monica (05)
Nan Faessler, 1725 The Promenade #313, Santa Monica (01)
Same Halle, 130 Ocean Park Bl., Santa Monica (05)
Gabrielle Tierney, 922 14th st. #107, Santa Monica (03)
Dave Lalor, 41 Seaview Terrace, Santa Monica (01)
The following members of the public submitted chits but
were not present to speak:
Louis Tedesco, 230 4th Avenue, Venice 90291
Richard Destin, 1249 9th Street #6, Santa Monica (01)
Chris Harding and Dan Kingsley spoke in rebuttal to the
public comment. Mr. Kingsley stated that Maguire Thomas
will set up an arbitration system as suggested by
Commissioner Lambert and several members of the public.
Commissioner Kaufman commented on the construction
complaints cited by the public regarding the Loew's
hotel project and asked if mitigation measures were
possible. Mr. Kingsley stated that the following
measures will be instituted: that rigid construction
hours will be enforced from 7 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. Monday
through Friday; that a "hotline" will be installed to
handle construction complaints; that construction
workers will be kept from congregating around the
proj ect site prior and after construction hours i that
off-si te parking will be provided for workers; that a
traffic control system will be developed and Ocean
Avenue will be used for construction materials; that
- 44 -
truck staging will begin off-site with only one truck on
site at a time: that there will be daily clean-up of the
site and that there will be a neighborhood information
system instituted.
Commissioner Farivar asked for a comparison of the
12,000 square feet of office spaces versus the hotel
space: and asked for the rational behind the Appian Way
entrance. Mr. Kingsley stated that the Appian Way entry
is for employees of the hotel and residents of the area
only.
Commissioner Farivar asked Mr. Kingsley how visitors to
the hotel will be prevented from using the Appian Way
entrance. Mr. Kingsley stated there will be a card key
system installed at that entrance.
commissioner Farivar commented on the absence of a
ballroom and other convention type meeting rooms.
Mr. Kingsley stated that convention/conference use is
not intended for the hotel.
commissioner Farivar
restaurant accessible
stated that the code
restaurant.
asked about making the hotel
from Ocean Avenue. Mr. Kingsley
requires interior access to the
Commissioner Lambert commented on the construction phase
and asked about the type of excavation equipment to
used. Mr. Kingsley stated that pile driving will not be
used and that the method to be used will be less noisy.
Commissioner Mechur asked about the proposed open
courtyard and potential noise problems. Mr. Kingsley
stated that the courtyard is intended as a quiet space
adjacent to the restaurant.
commissioner Mechur asked about scheduled hours for
delivery trucks after the operation is running and for
trash piCk-Up. Mr. Kingsley stated this will be
investigated.
commissioner Hechur asked about the "wing" lot noted on
the plans and intended uses. Mr. Kingsley stated that
the lot is tied to the property but will remain empty
except for landscaping. commissioner Mechur asked if
the landscaping could be a condition of approval.
Mr. Kingsley agreed to having landscaping of the parcel
as a condition.
commissioner Mechur asked if the mechanical system will
be on the roof. Mr. Kingsley stated this aspect was not
yet designed. Commissioner Mechur commented on the
garage exhaust system and the beach access way.
Mr. Kingsley stated the beach access would be by the
pool and across the parking lot.
- 45 -
Chair Nelson asked about the asbestos removal from the
current buildings on site. Mr. Kingsley stated that a
contractor that specializes in asbestos removal will be
used and the material will be properly disposed.
Chair Nelson asked for the cubic square foot amount of
dirt to be removed from the site. Mr. Kingsley stated
he would have to return with that information.
Chair Nelson stated he could find no justification
having a CUP to operate an office use in a hotel.
Mr. Kingsley stated that in February 1989, staff
requested that the applicant file a Development
Agreement for the office project at 1733 to accommodate
the civic Center Specific Plan. Since this would delay
the construction of the offic building, the CUP was
filed to permit Maguire Thomas Partners to use a portion
of the hotel for their own offices.
Chair Nelson asked if there would be a satellite dish.
Mr. Kingsley stated the hotel would be using cable
instead.
Chair Nelson commented on convention hotel ban issue and
asked if this project would be outside the participation
area. Mr. Kingsley stated that the proposed hotel does
not have ballroom facilities and will rent the guest
rooms to any guest or organization which wishes to use
the space.
Chair Nelson commented on utilizing Appian Way for
traffic, especially in the summer, and asked why a
loading zone was placed on Appian Way. Mr. Kingsley
stated the City prefers to have loading zones off Ocean
Avenue.
Chair Nelson asked how truck traffic will be controlled
in summer. Mr. Kingsley stated he would have to return
with an answer to this question.
Commissioner Lambert asked if an operator had been
selected for the hotel. Mr. Kingsley stated an operator
had not been selected yet.
After a brief break, Mr. Kingsley responded to previous
questions asked by the Commission. Mr. Kingsley stated
that Maguire Thomas is willing to withdraw the CUP
application for office space; that delivery hours will
be controlled and from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. Monday through
Friday only, (the same hours will apply to trash
pick-up); the north wing cooling towers will be used for
mechanical; the garage vent will not be toward Appian
Way: the meeting rooms will be for small meetings only:
noise is not anticipated (in the courtyard); and the
excavation will be approximately 44 I 000 cubic square
feet of dirt.
- 46 -
commissioner Farivar commented on the hotel and
restaurant access on ocean Avenue and stated that the
Ocean Avenue access should be encouraged despite the
Code. Mr. Kingsley indicated this may be possible.
commissioner Kaufman asked Mr. Kingsley about
withdrawing the CUP. Mr. Kingsley stated that he was
willing to withdraw the CUP application.
Commissioner Pyne asked if the CUP for office space was
required because Maguire Thomas I s current office space
lease is going to expire. Mr. Kingsley stated that this
was true, however the hotel approval is desired over the
office space.
Commissioner Farivar asked if the restaurant could have
an entrance on Ocean Avenue. Staff stated that under
the old code the site is zoned R-4 and a restaurant
entrance is not permitted; but under the new code an
entrance is permitted.
commissioner Lambert asked about relocating the
kitchens. Mr. Kingsley stated this could be done.
Chair Nelson closed the public hearing.
commissioner Farivar commented on the quality of the
project, then made a motion for approval of the project
with conditions as listed in the staff report and the
additional conditions that the restaurant be accessible
to Ocean Avenue and that the CUP application be
withdrawn.
Chair Nelson stated that the EIR must be approved prior
to a motion for approval of the project.
commissioner Mechur asked staff about the impact of the
project on City services. Mr. Berlant stated that
additional law enforcement and fire personnel are part
of the budgeting process under the City Manager. He
further stated that an increase in safety personnel has
been budgeted to compensate for new development in the
City and that a new Police Department Headquarters is
being proposed.
Commissioner Mechur stated that additional and future
ErR work should note the need for increased police and
fire protection.
Chair Nelson stated that the Outlook had quoted Police
Chief Keane on this issue and it should be noted in the
EIR.
Mr. Berlant stated that the Police Department are
consulted as part of the planning process and review
EIRs.
- 47 -
commissioner Mechur asked staff about the housing
mitigation in-lieu fee. Staff explained how the figures
were calculated.
commissioner Mechur commented on the Hotel Update Report
and the proposed traffic mitigation measures.
Mr. Fuchiwaki explained how traffic mitigation measures
are determined and reviewed with a focus on technical
feasibility. He further stated that the traffic
mitigation measures are feasible.
commissioner Kaufman made a motion to reopen the public
hearing to hear additional information from
Mr. Kingsley. commissioner Farivar seconded the motion.
The public hearing was opened after a voice vote with
one dissenting vote.
Mr. Kingsley stated that he had contacted Caltrans and
that Caltrans will approve the proposed mitigation
measures that fall within their jurisdiction.
Commissioner Kaufman made a motion to close the public
hearing. Commissioner pyne seconded the motion. The
motion was approved by unanimous voice vote.
commissioner Mechur asked about the use of Appian Way.
Mr. Fuchiwaki stated that Appian Way is a traffic
problem in the summer months and on weekends.
chair Nelson commented on the ErR (p. l3A, addendum)
estimated future annual municipal cost, particularly the
use of city parks by guests of the hotel. Staff stated
that the ErR consultant used standard factors which are
referenced in the back of the document.
Chair Nelson asked staff if a raised median for Ocean
Avenue had been considered as a traffic mitigation
measure to eliminate left turns across Ocean Avenue.
Mr. Fuchiwaki stated this had not been considered.
Chair Nelson asked Mr. Fuchiwaki his opinion on raised
medians. Mr. Fuchiwaki stated it is a 24 hour a day
diversion, which is not needed in this case.
Chair Nelson commented on the heavy pedestrian movements
around the Pier area. Mr. Fuchiwaki stated the issue
has not been examined to any great degree. Chair Nelson
commented that the Bayside District expects pedestrians
from the hotel projects.
Commissioner Lambert made a motion to certify the EIR.
Commissioner Farivar seconded the motion.
Chair Nelson stated he could not support the EIR as it
stands due to the 1 Pico hotel project and other
developments. He stated the need for a Statement of
- 48 -
overriding Consideration because some impacts can not be
mitigated.
Commissioner Mechur seconded Chair Nelson's statement as
a submotion.
Chair Nelson cited the need for
overriding Consideration because
economic benefits of the project.
the
of
statement of
the positive
Commissioner Kaufman asked if the statement of
Overriding Consideration was needed because the EIR is
inaccurate. Chair Nelson stated the EIR is correct,
however the conclusion is faulty and impacts can not be
mitigated.
The substitute motion was denied by the following vote:
AYES: Farivar, Mechur, Nelson; NOES: Kaufman, Lambert,
pyne; ABSENT: Hecht.
commissioner Mechur repeated what Chair Nelson had
stated that the cumulative negative impact of the
project requires a statement of Overriding
Consideration. A discussion followed with staff
explaining the legal aspects of the EIR process and CEQA
requirements.
The main motion for certification of the EIR was
approved by the following vote:
AYES: Farivar, Kaufman, Lambert, Mechur, pyne;
NOES: Nelson; ABSENT: Hecht.
commissioner Farivar made a motion for approval of the
hotel project with the following conditions: that
Appian Way garage entrance be for employees and
residents only; that a construction monitoring body
composed of one adjacent neighbor, a representative of
Maguire Thomas, and City staff be initiated to handle
neighborhood complaints by residents and with
arbitration to be handled by the Planning Commission;
and that the hotel's restaurant access for pedestrians
be on Ocean Avenue.
Commissioner Pyne seconded the motion.
Commissioner Mechur asked the staff condition #16
regarding construction mitigation plans include public
comment; that the landscape buffer on the south side of
the project be renovated per the Harding letter; that
the finger lot be landscaped and approved by ARB; that
delivery trucks be restricted to the hours of 8 a.m. to
6 p.m. Monday through Friday only; and that the
mechanical and garage exhaust systems be directed away
from Appian Way.
- 49 -
commissioner Farivar asked if the CUP had been
withdrawn. Chair Nelson stated it had not been
withdrawn. Commissioner Farivar asked that the
withdrawal of the CUP application be made a condition of
approval.
Deputy City Attorney Lieberman asked that the following
condition be added: "Prior to demolition of the
existing units located in the Kensington Hotel the
applicant shall be required to comply with one of the
following from: 1) obtain a removal permit from the
Rent Control Board: (2) obtain an enforceable court
order indicating that the Kensington Hotel, as an exempt
property, can be demolished without obtaining a removal
permit, or (3) obtain a ruling from the City Attorney's
office that the Kensington Hotel can be demolished
without obtaining a removal permit."
Commissioner Kaufman asked for changes on the following
conditions in the staff report: 2, 20, 22-28, 4-48, 55,
59.
Commissioner Lambert asked for a condition requiring
moving the kitchen to the northside of the proj ect or
the installation of a sound buffer.
Chair Nelson asked that the words "local stage one and"
be struck from Condition #32.
commissioner Mechur asked how many stage 2 alerts
occurred last year. Chair Nelson stated there were zero
stage 2 alerts last year, however there have been two
such alerts so far this year.
commissioner Farivar stated he accepts the change in
condition #59, but not the rest of the changes suggested
by commissioner Kaufman.
Commissioner Lambert complimented the design of the
hotel.
The motion for approval of the hotel project was
approved by the following vote:
AYES: Farivar, Kaufman, Lambert, Mechur, pyne;
NOES: Nelson; ABSENT: Hecht.
D. D.A. 89-001, ZA 5380-Y{ EIA 868, 1733 Ocean Avenue, CA
Distr iet, Appl icant: Maguire Thomas Partners, Proposed
is a Development Agreement to permit the construction of
an office development with ground floor retail and
restaurant uses on a 34,200 sq. ft . site. The
Development Agreement specifies that the applicant shall
be allowed to construct one of the following proposed
projects.
- 50 -
Project site Plan A is a five story structure not to
exceed 70 feet with a maximum Floor Area Ratio of 2.4.
This project would be permitted if, by July 1, 1990,
either an approved or Draft Civic Center Specific Plan
restricts development to no more than 5 stories/70 feet,
or if, by July 1, 1990 a civic Center Specific Plan has
- 51 -
.,
RESOLUTION NO. 7890(CCS)
(City Council Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
ON THE 1733 OCEAN AVENUE OFFICE BUILDING
AND THE 1746 OCEAN AVENUE HOTEL
WHEREAS, a Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact
Report was issued in February, 1988; and
WHEREAS, a Notice of Completion of a Draft Environmental
Impact Report was published in August, 1988, in compliance with
the California Environmental Quality Act and the City of Santa
Monica CEQA Guidelines: and
WHEREAS, in February, 1989, the Final Environmental Impact
Report was published: and
WHEREAS, on August 22, 1989 the City Council, as Lead City
Agency, reviewed the Final Environmental Impact Report,
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council has reviewed and considered the
Final Environmental Impact Report on the 1733 Ocean Avenue Office
Building and the 1746 Ocean Avenue Hotel prior to acting on the
project.
SECTION
2.
The
City
Council
certifies
that
the
environmental review for the project was conducted in full
- 1 -
compliance with state and City CEQA Guidelines, that there was
adequate public review of the Draft Environmental Impact Report,
that it has considered all comments on the Draft Environmental
Impact Report and responses to conments, that the Final
Environmental Lmpact Report adequately discusses ail significant
environmental issues, and that the City council has considered
the contents of the Final Environmental Impact Report in its
decision-making process.
SECTION 3. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of
this Resolution, and thenceforth and thereafter the same shall be
in full force and effect.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
~~~
ROBERT M. MYERS
City Attorney
W/EF441746
- 2 -
Adopted and approved this 22nd day of August, 1989.
Do.- / b
I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 7890(CCS)
was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Monica
at a meeting thereof held on August 22, 1989 by the following
Council vote:
Ayes: councilmembers:
Abdo, Katz, Reed, Mayor Zane
Noes: councilmembers:
Finkel
Abstain: Councilmembers:
None
Absent: councilmembers:
Genser, Jennings
ATTEST:
~U1U f~
City Clerkl
............... ---