SR-081286-12B
I/()Z~tJo3
12.-8
AUG 1 2 1986
~
C/ED:RAS:KR:nh
Counc~l Mtg: August 12, 1986
Santa Mon~ca, Californ~a
TO: Mayor and C~ty Counc~l
FROM: C~ty Staff
SUBJECT: Appeal of Planning Conun~ss~on Decislon Approving
Development Review 329, 1328 22nd Street. Appl~cant:
St. John's Hospital and Health Center, Appellant: Derek
Shearer.
INTRODUCTION
Th~s report recommends that the C~ty Council deny the appeal and
uphold the Planning Comm~sslon's approval to permit the addit10n
of offices w1thin an exist1ng connector build1ng wh~ch Joins the
west w~ng and south wing at St. John's Hosp~tal and Health Center
at the th1rd and fourth floor levels.
BACKGROUKD
On November 25, 1985 an Adminlstrat1ve Approval (AA258) for the
addit10n of a 2,658 square foot walkway connecting the south and
west w1ngs at the thlrd and fourth floors of St. John's HOsp1tal
and Health Center was granted by the Planning D1 vis~on because
the walkway was deemed a non-med~cal use.
The approval was
granted wlth the condition that the walkway be limited to
pedestrian c~rculation and any change of use to office or
medlcally related uses prlor to the adoption of the Hospital
Spec1f1c Plan shall be SUbJect to development review.
Thls
br1dge was subsequently constructed but to date 15 not being
used.
/2-B
AUG 1 2 1986
- I -
r
On April 9,
Development
1986, St. John's Hosp1tal and Health Center fJ..led a
Review applJ..cat~on for the "addit~on of a 2,572
square foot connector/walkway" hous~ng office, lounge and locker
room space to connect the west and south wJ..ngs of the Hospital.
A Development Review was requ1red 1n that these medlcally related
uses were being requested prior to the adoption of the HospJ..tal
Speciflc Plan in accordance with the Land Use Element.
On July 7, 1986, following a publlC hear1ng, PlannJ..ng
CommissJ..oners on a four to three vote approved Development Review
329, permittlng the eX1sting connector bu~lding to be used for an
offJ..ce, storage area, lounge, locker room, and corr1dor area, as
requested by the applJ..cant. The PlannJ..ng CommissJ..on approved the
proJect sUbJect to the f1ndings and condit1ons noted 1n the staff
report, as amended 1n the Statement of Offic1al Act10n.
An appeal of the Plannlng Comrniss10n action has been f1led by
Planning Cornm1ss~oner Derek Shearer. Corr~iss1oner Shearer's
bas1s of appeal 1S that the proJect was misrepresented 1n the
Cl ty staff report 1n that it was not clear that the br1dge was
constructed or that St. John I 5 had rece1ved an AdmlnJ..strat1ve
Approval to do so. Further he states, the approval of addlt10nal
offlce space will pre]UdlCe the adoptJ..on of the Hospltal SpecJ..flc
Plan and the prov1sJ..on for add1t1onal parkJ..ng 1S ~nadequate.
- 2 -
~
ANALYSIS
As proposed, this connector bUl.lding wl.ll l.nclude a 208 square
foot offl.ce, 195 square feet of storage, and 696 square feet of
lounge and locker space. The remal.ning 1,473 square feet will be
devoted to corrl.dor area. Thl.S proJect represents less than a 1%
addition to the hospl.tal campus. The eXl.sting wl.ngs are
currently connected at the ground, fl.rst and second floors, and
are prlmarl.ly for access. These connectors were approved in 1979
when the west wl.ng was constructed.
In revl.ewing Development Revl.ew 329 Plannl.ng staff was not aware
that the fourth floor connector bUlldl.ng was the l.dentlcal space
approved under Admlnlstratlve Approval 258. Therefore, the July
7, 1986 staff report should have indlcated that this was a change
of use rather than a new addl.tl.on.
In the July 7, 1986, Planning Comml.SSl.on staff report, staff
indicated that three parking spaces would be needed for the uses
proposed wl.thin the connector buildl.ng based upon a ratio of one
parklng space tor each 300 square teet ot the proposed otflce,
lounge and locker area. Planning staff has re-analyzed the
proJect and has determined that nl.ne parkl.ng spaces should be
required for the 2,572 square foot connector bUl.lding based upon
a ratio of one parklng space for each 300 square feet. The
appllcant has agreed to lease nl.ne parklng spaces off-site for
thlS proJect. These parking spaces will be leased at the Held
Garage and are In addltlon to those bel.ng leased per an agreement
between the hospltal and the garage dated July 16, 1985.
- 3 -
r
CITY COU~CIL AUTHORITY
Under the provlsions of Sectlon 4, Ordlnance 1321 the City
Councll may affirm, reverse or modify any determinatlon of the
Planning CornmlSS1on in regard to a Development Revlew Permlt and
the decislon of the City Councll shall be final.
In approv1ng an
appl1catlon the Council on appeal must make approprlate flndlngs
and may add condltlons necessary to protect the public welfare.
BUDGET/FISCAL IMPACT
The recommendation presented 1n thlS report does not have a
budget!flscal lmpact.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff respectfully recommends that the Cl ty Councll deny the
appeal and affirm the declslon of the Planning Cornmlssion
adopting the flndlngs and condltlons contalned 1n Attachment C.
Prepared by: R. Ann Siracusa, Director of P1annlng
Suzanne Frlck, Pr1ncipal Planner
Karen Rosenberg, ASSOClate Planner
Attachments: A. Staff Report to Planning Cornmlssion,
July 7, 1986
B. Letter of Appeal, Derek Shearer, July 7, 1986
C. Admlnlstratlve Approval 258,
November 25, 1985
D. Statement of Offlclal Actlon
E. proposed Amended Flnd1ngs and Condltions
Approving DR 329
RAS:KR:nh
CCDR329
07/ 29/ 86
- 4 -
IA,
Exhlblt A
CITY PLANNING DIVISION
Community and Economic Development Department
MEMORANDUM
DATE: July 7, 1986
TO: The Honorable Planning Commission
FROM: R. Ann S1racusa, Director of Plannlng
SUBJECT: DR 329, To Permit the Additlon of a 2,572 Sq. Ft.
Connector Build~ng to Join the EXlsting West Wing and
South Wing at St. John's Hospital and Health Center
Address:
Appllcant:
1328 22nd Street
CP
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The subject property is part of the St. John I s Hospital campus
which is located between Santa Monica Boulevard, Arizona Avenue,
20th Street and 23rd Street. Surrounding uses consist of
multi-family residentlal and medical related commercial uses (CP)
to the north, commercial uses (Cp, CA) to the south, multl-family
resldentlal uses (R2) to the east, and commercial and residential
uses (CP, CA) to the west.
Zonlng D~strict:
CP
Land Use District:
Commercial Professional District
PROPOSED PROJECT
The proposed project is for the addltion of a 2,572 sq.ft.
connector/walkway to connect the existing west and south wings of
St. John's Hospital. The building connection will be located at
the third and fourth floors, and will include a 208 sq. ft.
office, 195 sq. ft. of storage and 696 sq. ft. of lounge and locker
space. The remainlng 1473 sq.ft. wlll be devoted to corridor
area. Three parking spaces wlll be provided on surface Lot E on
Arizona Avenue between 21st and 22nd Streets.
MUNICIPAL CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE
The proposed proJect is conslstent with the Munlclpal Code and in
conformlty with the General Plan as shown in Attachment A.
CEQA STATUS
The project is categorlcally exempt from the provisions of CEQA,
City of Santa Monica Guidelines for Implementation. {Class 3
(14)).
- 1
FEES
This proJect is exempt from the Housing and Parks Mitigation
program.
ANALYSIS
The proposed project is subject to Planning Commlssion review.
Policy 1.13.1 of the Land Use Element specifies that prior to
adoption of Specific Plans for the area comprising and
immediately surrounding each hospital campus, medical and
medlcally-related development proposed by the hospitals shall be
subject to site review. Such proposed development shall be
approved only if it neither prejudices the adoption of the
Speciflc Plan nor adversely affects the surrounding
neighborhoods.
The proposed project is designed to create a contiguous area
between the south and west hosp! tal wings to provide a more
efficient and convenlent setting for cancer services and
ambulatory medicine and pain management services. Parking to
meet Munlclpal Code requirements will be provided on surface Lot
E on Arizona Avenue between 21st and 22nd Streets.
Conclusion
The proposed connector/walkway represents less than a 1% addition
to the hospital campus and meets applicable Municipal Code and
General Plan provisions for the CP District.
RECOMNENDATION
Plannlng staff respectfully recommends approval of DR 329 subject
to the following flndlngs and condltions.
FINDINGS
1. The development is consistent with the findings and pur-
pose of Ordinance 1321 as set forth below.
2. The physical location and placement of proposed structures
on the site are compatible wlth and relate harmoniously to
surroundlog sites and neighborhoods in that the 2,572
sq. ft. connector/walkway will be located completely within
St. John's Hospital and Medical Center campus and will be
designed to be compatlble with existing campus buildings.
3. The existing and/or proposed rights-of-way and facilitles
for both pedestrian and automobile traffic will be ade-
quate to accommodate the anticipated results of the pro-
posed development including off-street parking facilities
and access thereto in that three parking places will be
provided on surface Lot E on Arizona Avenue between 21st
and 22nd Streets.
- 2 -
.'
4. The existing and/or proposed public and/or private health
and safety facilities (including, but not limited to,
sanitation, sewers, storm drains, fire protection devices,
protecti ve services, and public utili ties) will be ade-
quate to accommodate the anticJ.pated results of the pro-
posed development.
5. The proposed development is consistent with the General
Plan of the City of Santa MonJ.ca and the Zoning Ordinance
in that the proJect wlll conform to the height, bulk, use
and urban design policies for the Commercial Profess~onal
District as specifJ.ed in the Land Use Element of the
General Plan and conform to the appropriate CP standards
contained 1n the Zoning Ordinance.
SPECIAL CONDITIONS
1. The Architectural Review Board, in their review, shall pay
particular attention to the scale and articulation of
des1gn elements, exterior colors, textures, materials and
window treatment to insure lts compatlbllity with the ex-
isting hospital buildings.
2. Three parking spaces shall be provided for this new addi-
tion at surface Lot E on Arizona Avenue between 21st and
22nd Streets.
STANDARD CONDITIONS
1. Minor amendments to the plans shall be subject to approval
by the D1rector of Planning. An increase of more than 10%
of the square footage or a significant change in the ap-
proved concept shall be subJect to Planning Commission
Review. Construction shall be in substantial conformance
with the plans submitted or as modified by the Planning
Commiss1on, Architectural Review Board or Dlrector of
Planning.
2. The rights granted herein shall be effective only when
exercised within a period of one year from the effective
date of approval. Upon the written request of the appli-
cant, the Dlrector of Planning may extend this period up
to an addit10nal six months.
3. The applicant shall comply with all legal requirements
regarding provlsions for the dlsabled, inclUding those set
forth in the California Administrative Code, Title 24,
Part 2.
4. Refuse areas, storage areas and mechanical equipment shall
be screened in accordance with Sec. 9127J.2-4 (SMMC). Re-
fuse areas shall be of a size adequate to meet on-site
need.
- 3
5. This determination shall not become effective for a period
of twenty days from the date of determination or, if ap-
pealed, until a final determination is made on the appeal.
Prepared by: Karen Rosenberg, Associate Planner
KR: nh
DR0329
6-18-86
- 4 -
ATTACHMENT A
MUNICIPAL CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE
Category Municipal Code
Permitted Use CP: permits
hospitals
He1ght
6 stor1es, 90'
Parklng
Spaces
2,572 sq.ft. @
1:300 sq. ft. =
3 parklng
spaces required
Land Use
Element
CP zone
requires site
review
- 5
Project
2,572 sq.ft.
connector/walkway
between two
existing hospital
wings
connector to be
located on floors
3 and 4 between
two existing SlX
story hospital
wings
3 parking spaces
provided at
hospital Lot E
Exhlb1t B
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
DEP AR TMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
. PLANNING AND ZONING DIVISION
CITY HALL, 1685 MAIN STREET. SAiVTA MONICA, C4LIFORNIA 90401-3295 · PHONE (213) 393-9975, Exr 341
1~lr 11~~
o l ,(,\ I I_
\:0 <\h.e. " It '11\ \11 v-.. j 'v l r't....L.- ~~ "
J \~~-( "If ~t cJ '\/-< 3 ~ '1 <f., \~~f ~
t\ ~ ~ 0", b f "-- ~ { S- 7 2. ~ ~ - <f t. ~ ~ V'-<- Jo--l Be. t VJ....,.' ~
~ ~ -\. :} () 'h Vl \ ~ k:Lc ~ C ~ +~ ,
~ \tt WC ~kJ- ~ ?l~ ~ ~ v-c 'j ~ II>. -..: ':l <::oC ~
~ u,""'--'. d: ~ ~e ILD o~.j ~. r"e i Q cJ~ ~' ctkcJ.:
~L, ~ ~~~~ tU-~UL-k 10 D.-v lc Vn. (,v\.(~ ~ ~ t v~
~ w h ~ ~ 0.. ~ '" c:; · d "" Cl-, ~ Ll>V1.. e c.. .{-. ~ <f).,.,J:'
& u,'^"-t c:X: lA..',) Q+r u cq-~ h.o.J ~~
vew- ~u..Ll-t-
~ z ] ~.~. hD,0. ot(-;c; ..q q <--L f ,,' J') t
C'-f\! w 0 0 J\ Q ~ 7;,) (hJJ ~ 0\J Q U (: c {) ~ hn, ~ I
\1 t ' \\ \1 u 1.-- \ . }, f +- J:ll!-<.-~
. ',,[ ~ ,(l > ......) 11 \J fA"::+- f"S lV~ ( 0 c.' +-.... ~ UJtJ-.2>
q ]\ LLlX.- \ .-~> \\ r, - ~ ~l (
~. S?~ u \; c <) t~ .
U \ \ 0- G-JJL:.h~ 0 J ~ ~j LO
C?) \?I\.t)"lSl~ _'~ \, t Q
~ ~~a:t~. v
S~~'7 /
-~
1 '-, r
)t4 ~l, ~
Le ~ ~ <7 SL--~.....
:,:..-~-oOI ;....
" .-
._.
=:xr.~b~t ~
:?r...;'..:a:~~~ .:..l;O ZC~:::.C :J:vrs:c~1
Cc-~~~~~Y a-= ~c~~c~~c Cev~lo~~e~~ :ep~=~-e~~
APPL::C:;'7r~~f ;"fJ:? ;;"~""INJS7'Q-.r'\~r"n:: t\Pp-qOV,'"\.L
-- ~?~;::- ";:'-=~Jil~-:::e :,.....3:1 ~ c::s J ~ .
"'.,~. _. 4f'fl.
... __ow;;. r.../"\- l.,,'::Jf/"
;"\~-e ;,.., ~c.. ~j '"
....... - ... -_'Wi . I .,
--AC~e9~ By: ~
-'
?~~ C~=~~a~ce 1:2: (C=3), cn-.~.- cevelc;-e~~ ?ro~~cts and
c:::.a~ges of :.!se ~...h:lc;:" -=:c...=c.:--.: ~o ~1-!? C~:!l'S :c:--:..::g Orc:..:..~ance ..and
Ge~e~~l ?1~- :a~d ese ~:e-e-~ ~ay ~~ ~~e~;~ ===~ t~e re~u~=eren~
~~ ~~:~:.~~~~~~:-:.p;o:~~~::.s:~~; '~~?~-~~~~~~~:.~_a:::e;,;l:~;~;~. ?e~~~~;
-:::::-0 -:ec-:.s -ay =e e:r ~:-;:~ :t ~"i--e :::: e=:.:=:"" cf P 12. ;'''''::':1'; ::-=-:'==-~nes
tba~ ~"e F==:e~: ~~c~~~c=~:es s~c~ ~c-d~~~c~s as are -ecessa:y =0
e"1su:.-e c=~=c::"-a~ce I.....l.:.:--~ Sec':.2..C" : ::.f Cr~.:.~a""::; :.::.: -~-". t.r-e
Zcn~~~ Cr=~~ance a~d ~~e ~2~d t~e ~:=~e~=~ ~~e~e cc~c_~~~~s ar~
a~~ac~ed ~~ ar ~c~~~~st=a~~7e ~~~==va~~ s_=~ c~~d~~~=-~: a~?=~val
~s bl~C~~g cn~y so =a~ as L~ e~~~Fts a ~~~Jec~ ==~- ~h~
=e~~":J.=-e-e-~ to o:'--:.:a~.., a De'.le :::::!:-- e- t. ?e ::r-.l ':. Ar a~;. __':2.~~ ~ay
apply f.....- a De.'elc;'7'er'l~ :e::--_~ ::-::1':'=.""'2..::'; any c=....:::.:.':.~:::~al
Ad~~~~s~=at~ve Ap~~cval.
.......
PI.::.'\SE rtESPom> TO AI..I. APP:':::C..eU CUEST:O~~S. !~:C:::~PLZ'!'E
IKFOR.....A7IO~:r MAY CACSZ A CZL.'\i" IN '!'liE p~C.:::::SS:~G DP YOUR
APPLICX:IC~.
~......
SI':"~ A.I:DRESS:
1328 22~D ST. S~N;A ~ONICA, c; 904J~
La~d
~. _ ~_ ~. ~~'~_' HCSPIT:L SPEC!FI~~_._~ ~.~_~.~_.
Use _.....e. e...... _-I>.s........__..... P'1_.~"1 n. c;~Rfri .....- _._--: -....- -..._.......11_
Lecal Descr~~~~o~ (Lo~. Blcc<. ~=~C~): LOT 14, BLOCK 3, ORC~ARD
- SAr~T JOHN'S HOSPITAL & ~EALTrl
APPLr~~>T; C~NTEq ~Q'
Cc:':.ac"'t. PerSOn:
FRED ~, BRIGGS
?~c-e: 3:9-8139
Ap?l.:..car::.' s \dc;:"~ss: 1328 22~;D 5T., SA~..TA I~otn CA. C.; 9C40Ll
PPOPS?TY G..~3.: S;':1!: AS APPL! CANT
829-8139
Phc-e'
C.....,er 's Acc;:";;!ss
DET~JLED P~OJEC7 C~SCR~P7~CN/?ROPCS~~ USS(s):
CONSTRUGiON OF
E~C~OSED WAL~WAYS ~- THE 3RD 4ND 4T~ ~LOOR LEVELS BETWEEN SOLTH
WING AND WEST WI~G. oqOJECT IS WITH:~ THE SAI~T JOHN'S INTE~IOR
COURT Al:lEA. 't1AL'('tIAY' 5 E'lCLOSED WITH ALU~'PlUH 4~;D Gi..ASS WINDOWWAll
CONSTRUCilON.
'~S! ;~D:~:C~A~ S~EETS I~ ~EE~2D]
EX~S-:';'r"q/"-.fcs~ Rece!:t Use! s}: _~~T'T f='''fT "'AR~
~e~Sh=c=:.-g Uses.
PP..TTC'-:T CARF
Ex~st~-G :~cc~ ~=ea-
SOUTH ','HNG
~~EST "IJ'lG.
216:"000 S. F.
55,QOO S.F.
F:co~ ;'::-ea
qe-cvec
l..c~ed:
NO'~:::
2.~bdb-S,F.
Fleer :;rea
CO =e
-to l:e
?=~=~se~ =:C~~ A=ea:
. - -.,
(C:~;7::.~I=: O~; ~:;.:X~ ?;GE)
- 1 -
~
::-.....-
~e$~=c~~-~~--_~-~e~ cE Un~~s
~...:.:s~.:.."'~. I'-lQ.NE_
..owl ~e ;\~=;c.. ~ Re-cIJ~,,==
c: Lr::l~:;:~ONE
!ro~JE
--~~-=er 0= ~n~~s
--?~~pcse~ ~:~~=e~
s_~~ ;=e~: * Prc~=sed ~l=~~ ~=~~ ~~~_o:
"SUI LT ->u,B,QV;. s:.XlsIq'~G.~fl RST ~LOOR ;~ALKr(AY . .
?=::;::::se,- .a.._ I.... I e_sL1_. ~0' p==~csea ~-=-t:. CO'Je:-a~e
*
*
~
~c. c: ?ar~~~c Spac~s--~~~~:~~~.
NA ?==;cscc: -Nil: ?e<::1.. _=-~d ~M
fc= CC~7e~c~a: U5es--~cu~s c: Cpe=a~~=~._____~A
--~c. of ~ea~ ~cur ~-?i~yed5_ ~A
--!~ ~esr:.aL:;:":'-.-:' ;:::- ='20=, ~:a 0: Sea:..s NA
p~7I~as CITY AEPROVALS:
NO'~ E
Ac=_-:.:.~~a.l
"l.ec:'.:_=~c: ~e''''l.,"'"s C'Mu
C~-:~S3~~~ Ccas~~:
~.. R.3.
c.:::u-::.:..l
La-c-
OM_;;:=--
... ~--
:-;"a=-<s
C~-;'"'.::..sS~C'" _
p=~~= to S~=-~~~~~C
CC-:S..l:-:' tw:.t.:: i?lan.:-:.:=
~r~c~ 0= ~~e :=l:c~~~g
t~~3 a~?:~cat.:..=~, ~~e a;~:~c~-~ s~o~:d
an':' Zen.:..::.-=- C:......~lSl.On s~a== to c.s':.er--"':':'~
ad~~~~=~al ~~~-s w~:l ~e reecec:
--p~o~=~~=?~S of :~oJec~ S.~e/~{~s~~~g s~~~=~~g{s}
--E~v~=c~~a~~a: I~=c~-a~~on Fo=-
--Plo~ Plan a~c/~r Par<~~g ?la~
--Ex~e=1cr E:2va~~c~s
--21.cor Plans
--Re~~ Con~=~l Exe~?~~on!Re~oval ?e=-~~
--S~~h other ~nfcr-ac~o~ as ~s de~-ed nece5sa~y
I CER~~YY THA~ TEE I~~O~YATrO~ CO~A:~~D IN THIS APP~ICA~IC~
CO~~C~ ~O THE BES7 OF MY KNO~LE~GE ~'D ~HAT TEIS APPLI~\TICN
I"..AD;O: T,olI':'H THE KtlC-..n:.zr:CZ ~m CCNSE.::T OF ':EE PRO?ER':'Y O~"NZR.
....,...""} -J-r-/-"/ /?
A--"~~~"'s s~~-a-1..:~e'~~~ -,..-> Ca<:.<!. 11/4/85
:'.:-'____.lI....... ,:... '- _;_ .. -." ~. ~"'.~
FRED M. BRIGGS /
DIR~CTOR OF CONSTRUCTION
IS
IS
FeR S:-l-.FF us;;: e~::..Y
-x
Ac~~~~s~=a~~7ely Ap~~cvec Fe~ Sec~~cn 2
, Or~. 1321 (c:s~
Su.::::ect ~o Sepa:-ate A(::1..L...._s~=.a.~:-.Je
Cc~c~':.~c-s Spec~f~ec ~he:eon
Ce-:.~:--~.::.a-:.:.cn
an;::,
ReC~1=as Develo?-e~t Per-~~ =e~ Sac~~cn 4, C==a 13:~(C:S~
O~::.er
r ....
De~er=::.nat::.cn by: /)'~r..../ /I)}l--
I
Tl.tl.e:47Lcf/ ~',""I~ ~~
Date:!! 'Z-9'us
~'l1D<J7
The. ...x. OF l'l-IE" ~ :.,.v.L;:"'~'(~ ~ T36" L/..rtFP To ~"1J
?1~U'lTcU o~.h.'r ;.:.c; o~ !~>:;.E' ~ ~ Cf'r'?e ~ i"I€Pi&1I1-~.AfEp
~ ~M.L "'ee' ~LT;eD LJ.;\....~ 1'\'1'; ;.lfu) ~c": ~ lJ/JLE*
A ~a-l-r "VeJL€W ~i1' I? A~v-e;> ~'f "'1-'"E' f\.."rlJ1J1~ to,q....,~i>A,j
C'\Z- A~ ~C"'- D*=- P. 't::Pa:.i""..::- i"I.A1.J 'Su/i+!J5oe J~ ~I~ WITH J
Trte ~f7",a.L, <:iFnmz.A ~;;> ~E'7<7eT fi:fG1.I :1J.1t'e -:'~IFr6 7'lAiJ
aaa?::::'}:
Pla9'lr"'1.-g a:"d Zc:-.:.:-:.g ~:.v:.s.:..on-r
~on~~a, CA 90401..
loas 11~:." St=eetJl ~cc.., 2l2~ Sar'=.~
(213) 458-834:
- 2 -
Exhlblt D
STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL ACTION
PROJECT
NUMBER: DR 329
LOCATION: 1328 22nd Street
APPLICANT: St. John's Hospital and Health Center
REQUEST: Addition of a 2,572 sq. ft. Connector Building to
Join the Existing West Wing and South Wing at St.
John's Hospital and Health Center
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
7-7-86
Date.
x
Approved based on the following findings and
subJect to the condit1ons below.
Denied.
Other.
FINDINGS
1. The development is consistent with the findings and pur-
pose of Ordinance 1321 as set forth below.
2. The physical location and placement of proposed structures
on the site are compatible with and relate harmoniously to
surrounding sites and neighborhoods in that the 2,572
sq. ft. connector/walkway will be located completely within
St. John's Hospital and Medical Center campus and will be
designed to be compatible with existing campus build1ngs.
3. The existing and/or proposed rights-of-way and facilities
for both pedestrian and automob1le traffic will be ade-
quate to accommodate the ant1clpated results of the pro-
posed development including off-street parking facilities
and access thereto in that three parking places will be
leased off slte.
4. The existing and/or proposed publ1C and/or private health
and safety facilities (including, but not limited to,
sanitation, sewers, storm drains, fire protection devices,
protect1 ve services, and public ut11i ties) will be ade-
quate to accommodate the anticipated results of the pro-
posed development.
- 1 -
5. The proposed development is consistent with the General
Plan of the City of Santa Monica and the Zoning Ordinance
in that the project will not prejudice the adoption of the
Hospi tal Specific Plan specifled in the Land Use Element
of the General Plan and conforms to the appropriate CP
standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance.
SPECIAL CONDITIONS
1. The Architectural Review Board, in their review, shall pay
particular attention to the scale and articulation of
design elements, exterior colors, textures, materials and
window treatment to insure its compatibillty with the ex-
lsting hospital buildings.
2. Three parklng spaces shall be provided for this new addi-
tion will be leased off site.
STANDARD CONDITIONS
1. Minor amendments to the plans shall be subject to approval
by the Director of Planning. An increase of more than 10%
of the square footage or a signiflcant change ln the ap-
proved concept shall be subject to Planning Commission
Review. Construction shall be in substantial conformance
wi th the plans submitted or as modified by the Planning
Commission, Architectural Review Board or Director of
Planning.
2. The rights granted herein shall be effective only when
exercised wi thin a period of one year from the effective
date of approval. Upon the written request of the appli-
cant, the Director of Planning may extend this period up
to an additional six months.
3. The applicant shall comply with all legal requirements
regarding provisions for the disabled, including those set
forth in the California Administrative Code, Title 24,
Part 2.
4. Refuse areas, storage areas and mechanical equipment shall
be screened 1n accordance with Sec. 9127J.2-4 (SMMC).
Refuse areas shall be of a size adequate to meet on-slte
need.
5. This determlnation shall not become effective for a perlod
of twenty days from the date of determination or, if ap-
pealed, until a final determination is made on the appeal.
- 2 -
VOTE
Ayes:
Nays:
Abstaln:
Absent:
Farivar~ Hebald-Heymann, Israel~ Perlman
Hecht, Kirshner, Shearer
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
KR:nh
STDR329
07/24/86
- 3
Exhlblt E
Proposed Amended Flndlhgs and Condltlons Approvlng DR 329
FINDINGS
1. The development 1S conslstent wlth the f~ndings and
purpose of Ordlnance 1321 as set forth below.
2. The physlcal location and placement of proposed structures
on the slte are compatlble wlth and relate harmonlously to
surrounding sltes and neighborhoods ln that the 2,572
sq. ft. connector/walkway will be located completely within
St. John's Hospltal and Medlca1 Center campus and will be
deslgned to be compatlble with eXlsting campus bUlldings.
3. The eXlstlng and/or proposed rlghts-of-way and facllities
for both pedestrlan and automoblle trafflc w1ll be ade-
quate to accorrunodate the antlclpated results of the pro-
posed development lncludlng off-street parklng facilltles
and access thereto 1n that three parking places wlll be
leased off slte.
4. The existing and/or proposed public and/or private health
and safety facll1tles (lncluding, but not Ilmlted to,
sanltation, sewers, storm dralns, flre protectlon devices,
protectl ve servlces, and public utill tles) wlll be ade-
quate to accorrunodate the antlcipated results of the pro-
posed development.
5. The proposed development is conslstent wlth the General
Plan of the Clty of Santa Monlca and the Zon1ng Ordlnance
ln that the proJect wlll not pre]UdlCe the adoptlon of the
HOSpl tal Speclflc Plan speclfled in the Land Use Element
of the General Plan and conforms to the appropriate CP
standards contained 1n the Zon1ng Ordlnance.
SPECIAL CONDITIONS
1.
The Architectural Review Board, ln thelr reVlew, shall
partlcular attentlon to the scale and articulation
deslgn elements, exterlor colors, textures, materlals
window treatment to lnsure ltS compatlbllity wlth the
lstlng hospltal buildlngs.
pay
of
and
ex-
2. N1ne parklng spaces shall be prov1ded for thls new addJ.-
t10n wlll be leased off site.
- 5 -
STANDARD CONDITIONS
1. M~nor amendments to the plans shall be subJect to approval
by the D~rector of Plann1ng. An increase of more than 10%
of the square footage or a sign1flcant change 1n the ap-
proved concept shall be subJect to Plann1ng CommlSS1on
Review. Construction shall be in substant1al conformance
wlth the plans subnlltted or as mod1fled by the Plannlng
Commiss1on, Arch1tectural ReV1ew Board or D1rector of
Plann1ng.
2. The r1ghts granted herein shall be effect1ve only when
exerc1sed withln a per10d of one year from the effect1ve
date of approval. Upon the wr1tten request of the appl1-
cant, the D1rector of Plann1ng may extend this period up
to an add1tional 5~X months.
3. The appllcant shall comply Wl th all legal requirements
regard1ng prOV1S10ns for the disabled, 1nclud1ng those set
forth 1n the Callfornla Adnllnlstratlve Code, Title 24,
Part 2.
4.
Refuse areas,
be screened
Refuse areas
need.
storage areas and mechanical equlpment shall
in accordance with Sec. 9l27J.2-4 (SMMC).
shall be of a Slze adequate to meet on-s1te
5. Th1S determlnatlon shall not become effect~ve for a period
of twenty days from the date of determ1nat1on or, 1f ap-
pealed, untll a f1nal determ1natlon is made on the appeal.
- 6 -
to cbtai~ Pl~nn~~g CO~L~ss~cn a;o~cval oE a Develc?~ent Per~lt.
In sc::'e cases, p=c,eC'ts w~ll b~ - unc:cnc~ tier:all v exe:.tot. Other
~ - .
p:.-o jects r:-:ay be exen?t IF the Di.:-ec':or of P le.nn1..:1g deter~unes
that the proJect incc:.-?orates such cc~d~~~cns as are necessary to
ensure ccnfcr:-:.ance with Section 2 of Ordinance 132l {CCS}, the
Zon~ng Ordinance and the La~d Use Element. "nere concitions are
attached to an Acministrative Approval, s~ch ccnd~t1onGl approval
is bi:1dir.g only so far as 1t exer.ots a proJect frem the
requ1::-er:'.en't. to obtain a DeveloFI'"ent Per::'~ t. An applJ..cant may
apply for a Develo~~ent Per~~t f011ow1..ng any conditional
Ad~J..nistratJ..ve Approval.
***
PT.F;l"SE RESPOND TO AT.T. APPLIC.l\.BLE QUESTIONS. INCCMPLETE
I~70RMATION MAY CAUSE A DELAY IN THE PROCESSING OF YOUR
APPLICA.TIO~.
***
SITE ADDRESS: 1328 22ND ST. SAN1~ MONICA~ CA 90404 . ___
. . HOSPITAL SPECIFIC. .. ..,
Land Use Element DlstrJ..ct:_PldN nT~TRTrT Zonlng D2strlct:~___
Legal Description (Lot, Blcck# Tract): LOT 14~ BLOCK 3~ ORCHARD TRAC
SAINT JOHN'S HOSPITAL & HEALTH
APPLICANT: CENTER As:
PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AS APPLICANT
Phone:
829-8139
CA 90404
829-8139
Contact Person:
FRED M. BRIGGS
Phone:
Applicant's Adcress: 1328 22ND ST.~ SANTA MONICA~
O......ner I s Address:
DETAILED PROJECT DESCRIPTION/PROPOSLD USE(S}:
CONSTRUCTION OF
ENCLOSED WALKWAYS AT THE 3RD AND 4TH FLOOR LEVELS BETWEEN SOUTH
WING AND WEST WING. PROJECT IS WITHIN THE SAINT JOHN'S INTERIOR
COURT AREA. WALKWAY IS ENCLOSED WITH ALUMINUM AND GLASS WINDOWWALL
CONSTRUCTION.
1
(USE ADDIT!ONAL SHEETS IF NEEDED)
Existing/Most Recent Use(s):__PATTFNT r.ARE
Neighboring Uses:
pATIENT _CARE__
Existing Fleor Area:
SOUTH WING
WEST_WING
216~OOO S,F.
65..,000 s, F.
Fleer Area to be Re~oved:
Flcor Area to be Added:
NONE
ZLf;i8b S.F.
Proposed Fleor Area:
(CC~7I~UE O~ NEXT PAGE)
- 1 -
PREVIOUS CITY AI?PROVALS:
NONE
Ac::::.-:.ional
mar~<s
c~-_~::.ss lon
A.R.B.
Other
Lar:d-
Re~~~=ed Revlews: Ci~y
CC~~:'sslcn Coastal
C......nc' 1
'Vu.. ___
Pr~c= to su~~:.~tir:S this applicatl.cn, t~e appl~cant should
CC:1SU 1 t with P lar:.:ung and Zon:.ng Dl VlS loon st.a== to ceter::'J.::e
wh:.c~ of the fcllowlng addJ.t~cnal l~C~S \vlll be needec:
--Photographs of Project Site/ExlstJ.ng Bu:.ld:.ng{s)
--Environnental In=or~ation For~
--Plot Plan and/or Parking Plan
--Exterior Eleva~~ons
--Floor Plans
--Rent Ccnt=ol Exe~?tion/Removal Per~it
--Such other infcr~atlon as is deemed necessary
I CERTIFY THAT THE INFO&~TION CONTAI1~D IN THIS APPLICATION
CO~~CT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND THAT THIS APPLIC~TION
MADE WITH THE KNOWLEDGE AND CONSE...'IT OF TEE PROPERTY OWNER..
. ~. -]--;:Y7 A ~ ,
App11cantls sl.gnature:~/"y~<_1""" ,_?.-7_~__ Date:
FOR S~"L''''' USE OULv (/FRED M, BRIGGS'/
. ~~r U - DIRECTOR OF CONSTRUCTION
,
IS
IS
11/4/85
.J< Acn~nist~atively Approved per Sectlcn 2___, Ord. 1321 (CCS)
Subject to Separate AC~ln.:.strat~ve
Condit~ons Spec~fled Thereon
Deter~~nat~on anc
Reqcires Develop~ent Per~it per Sec~ion 4, Ord. 1321(CCS)
Ot::.er
DeteLIlina tion by: -3/~ '1ML--
,
Tit~e:~liV 'f'?H.bl~ 'flA.w~
Date: 'I 'j..7~
~mplJ7
,
The. lJSC. DF 1fI8" ~ (..oJ)lrLI:::wJ<\o'(? ~ 13g LI"iht::"~ To "'f~1r1J
t:-1l::"ol.J'l11cLl O~.lL'1. 1Jo o~ lfi.E'" ~ #, o~ ~ v-t~Wl- ~
~ G+lPrt...L"W ~1TTE'D Wli\4-t)J. -rwe Ilew ~DJJ ~ ~L~
A ~6}l.j ~Iew ~ff"' i? A~Vl5'P 17'1 1fl'E" jI.AlJl..ll~ t:D4141~tll.J
.)
o~ A:~ AJ:crpno,J or Pit 'S1"ei::.o, fk::.- 'F'lA1.J ~ l.>Se I ~ &?U~,~ w 1m
I
Ttre Vt:Vl3-Df)-\elJi v12:ntlZ1A .A\Jp ~E'7 "7eT ~ l ~ "rue ~ftX,1 Au 'F\Ai.t.
aaappvr
Plannlng and Zcnl.:1g Di v~sion,
Monica, CA 90401.
1685 ~aln St=eet, Room 212, Santa
(213) 458-8341
- 2
~
/10 P 70
< \ ~- . ~
Q-B
AUG t 2 1936
r" ,- . ,-
'.)~ i li.-I : i Ii
['ITY f" [c"'
v v- i_
.86 AUG -7 P2~16
william F. Weingarden
1234 Seventeenth Street
Santa Monica, CA 90404
SANT A M0iHvn, ...,~-,
August 7, 1986
The Eo~orable City Council
Santa Monica City Hall
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Dear Councilmembers:
I submit this as an individual for your consideration in
evaluating the appeal of Development Review application DR 327,
submitted by St. John's Hospital and Health Center (SJHHC) and
appearing on your agenda for Tuesday night's meeting as Item
12-B. I am respectfully reco~ending a remand to the Commission
with directions to staff and the Commissioners.
This case involves a fascinating juxtaposition, unique in my
experience, of planning staff incorrpetence combined with
repeated and substantial misrepresentations by the applicant.
Misinformation has been supplied to the City, the Planning Com-
mission, and to the neighborhood representatives at virtually
every opportunity. Additionally, every effort seems to have
been made to prevent the public from being involved in the
planning process of the subject construction.
As a result, the history and analysis contained in this letter
will be somewhat lengthy, in an effort to ensure that the City
Council, unlike the Planning Co~~ission upon original review,
has in front of it sufficient information to reach an informed
decision in the roa~ter. Following non-chronological histories
of the hospital planning process generally, the instant
application for Development Review, and the construction of the
project (which actually preceded the application to the Planning
"'~D ~D /~-..8
AUG j 2 1!86
City Council
August 7, 1986
page 2
Commission}, I will undertake an analysis of the proceedings to
date generally and conclude with a step-by-step examination of
some of the various issues being raised by the appeal. I begin
by outlining some personal background details.
PERSONAL BACKGROUND
My faniliarity with the applicant hospital could
standing, inasmuch as I was born there in 1953.
in the vicinity of SJHHC at the address appearing
of this letter for nearly thirteen years.
not be longer-
I have rented
at ~he outset
I have been active for some while in the community organization
serving the neighborhood in which SJHHC lies, Santa Monica Mid-
City Neighbors, and am currently enjoying my second term on its
Board of Directors. I attended a series of community meetings
regarding hospital-neighborhood issues in ge~eral conducted by
Mid-City during the su~~er of 1984 preceding the City Council
LUCE hearings and subsequently became one of a team of four
negotiators assigned by the general membership of Mid-City at
its October, 1984 Annual Convention to engage in discussions
with SJHHC pursuant LUCE Policy 1.13.1. In this capacity I have
met frequently (albeit on an off-and-on basis) with represen-
tatives of SJHHC during the last two years for the purpose of
negotiations and subsequent renegotiations regarding their
Master Plan.
Additionally, beginning on August 21, 1985, I organized the
residential tenants of SJHHC at their (the tenantsf) request
and served as their representative with respect to SJHHCfs Rent
Control Removal Permit application 156R-D through December of
that year.
City Council
August 7, 1986
page 3
APPLICANT-NEIGHBORHOOD RELATIONS BACKGROUND
The relationship between St. John's Hospital and Health Center
and its surrounding residential neighborhood has virtually
always been rocky at best, to put it mildly. Prior to the
initial announcement in August, 1984 of what ultimately evolved
into LUCE Policy 1.13.1, SJHHC had for some while categorically
refused to meet with residential neighborhood representatives
to discuss community planning issues as well as other matters of
concern to people living in the immediate area.
Only when it had become clear that the City Council was likely
to incorporate a co~~unity-participation hospital master
planning process into the LUCE, SJHHC begin meeting with a team
of preliminary negotiators from Mid-City 's membership and
staff for the purposes of information exchange. At its October,
1984 Annual Convention, the general membership of Santa Monica
Mid-City Neighbors authorized a team of four negotiators to meet
with representatives of SJHHC for the purpose of achieving
submission to the City of a Master Plan by S0rlHC which would be
mutually agreeable to the Hospital and the neighborhood. Mid-
City's membership additionally gave the negotiators direction in
the form of a series of explicit objectives to be achieved
during the course of these negotiations.
After frequent meetings during the fall of 1984 at great
inconvenience to Mid-City's negotiators (who were generally
serving in a volunteer capacity) so that SJHHC's timeline could
be accommodated with respect to the master planning process,
the Hospital submitted to the City a Master Plan which, after
significant compromise, probably represented a 95% level of
agreement between the two parties. Following receipt of this
Master Plan, City staff began processing of an application by
SJHHC to erect a five-story Medical Office Building on the
southeast corner of Twentieth Street and Arizona Avenue. This
application for Development Review was approved by the Planning
City Council
August 7, 1986
page 4
Commission in March of 1985 with support from Donald Lewin
Nelsonl one of Mid-City's four negotiators.
Almost immediately following receipt of this approval, SJHHC
began exploring with City staff the possible usage of a major
portion of land on Arizona Avenue between Twenty-First and
Twenty-Second Streets in a fashion incongruous with that
anticipated by the Master Plan already subMitted, representing a
contravention of the only major concession sought or received
by the Mid-City negotiators during the discussions the previous
fall. Shortly thereafter, SJHHC let Mid-City representatives
know that it had no intention of fulfilling previously agreed-to
obligations specified in writing in its Master Plan and asked
to reopen discussions for the purpose of renegotiating those
portions of the Master Plan dealing with housing relocation and
Arizona site usage matters.
On July 25, 1985, SJHHC submitted to the Rent Control Board an
application for a Category D removal of all of its rental
housing which completely contradicted the terms of its Master
Plan. Following protracted and heated discussions with Mid-
City negotiators, as well as substantial opposition from an
organization containing the vast majority of its residential
tenants, SJHHC in December of 1985 amended this application to
reflect a new agreement reached with the Mid-City negotiators
which was somewhat more, albeit by no means totally, in keeping
with the original Master Plan. This agreement, which, after
being originally drafted by SJHHC's attorney, had undergone
substantial revision as a result of the negotiating process,
was ratified by Mid-City's Board of Directors on December 18,
1985, in the form of a Memorandum of Understanding between
SJHHC and Santa Monica Mid-City Neighbors. On January 9, 1986,
the Rent Control Board approved the amended application after
receiving in public hearing support from some of SJHHC's tenants
and vehement opposition from others.
City Council
August 7, 1986
page 5
HISTORY OF DR 329
On April 8 and 9 of this year, SJHHC filed three applications
for Development Review with the City without first informing
Mid-City Neighbors that this would take place or discussing the
nature of these applications with any segment of the residential
co~~unity. All three applications were miraculously scheduled
for Planning Commission review the night of June 2 (I say
miraculously in view of the fact that the normal processing
delay for most DR applications these days seems to be ap-
proaching six months). Neither the applicant nor the Planning
staff made any effort whatsoever to inform the community
organization that these matters were pending until Mr. Tom
Pyne, Special Assistant to the President of SJHHC, contacted Mr.
Paul Rosenstein, Chairperson of Mid-City's Board, only six days
before their scheduled public hearing. (I have always been
curious, incidentally, as to why Mr. Pyne contacted Mr. Rosen-
stein--who lives in a portion of the neighborhood distant from
the Hospital and is consequently not entirely acquainted with
the hospital planning issues in detail--and avoided communi-
cation with any of the four negotiators from Mid-City who had
been working with the Hospital on community planning issues for
nearly two years.)
Furthermore, staff seemingly endeavored to see that the public
in general was entirely unaware of the existence of the DR 329
project as well as its public hearing. An improperly drawn
radius-of-notification map (violating the terms of Section 1 of
Ordinance 1230) resulted in not a single resident of the
Hospital campus area being noticed of the June 2 public hearing
before the Commission. Additionally, the matter was placed not
under the Commission's Public Hearings agenda item but on their
Consent Calendar, in violation of Rule 3(d) (5) of the Planning
Commission rules mandating that no item requiring a public
hearing be placed on the Consent Calendar.
City Council
August 7, 1986
page 6
After several members of the public who fortunately happened to
be in attendance pointed out the notification irregularity to
staff, the COIT~ission decided to continue the matter to its
July project review night so that the public could be adequately
noticed. The other two St. John's applications were continued
also, so that environmental review could be provided.
The Commission then evinced an intent that no more hospital
projects come before it until such time as it had been provided
with the opportunity to review the draft Hospital Area Specific
Plan. At this point in the evening Planning staff announced
that they had administratively abandoned the idea of preparing
a Specific Plan despite clearcut language in the Land Use
Element mandating its adoption. After several members of the
public in attendance exploded (figuratively speaking, fortu-
nately) and following a series of meetings later in June, staff
ultimately reversed its decision and returned to the original
concept of Specific Plan preparation. At the conclusion of the
June 2 Hospital discussion! the Commission scheduled a St.
John's Hospital Master Plan workshop for July 7, coincidentally
the night when DR 329 had been rescheduled for review.
During the intervening month I made an inspection of the pro-
posed project site and was shocked to discover that the con-
nector corridors envisioned by the DR 329 application had
already been built. When I confronted the applicant's represen-
tative (Mr. Pyne) with this fact, he informed me that the
corridors had been built under authority granted by some piece
of state legislation specifically regulating the construction of
hospital corridors and preempting local zoning authority. He
additionally told me that the only necessity for the application
for Development Review was to obtain City permission for
certain office usage internal to the corridors--that the
exterior construction had already taken place and was not at
issue.
City Council
August 7, 1986
page 7
Based upon this representation and following a guided tour of
the project area, I agreed to support DR 329 on the condition
that St. John's stipulate to parking space provision terms other
than those suggested by staff (who had recommended that three
parking spaces be provided on a parking lot which not only was
tandem-striped to the max, therefore having no room for extra
spaces, but also was identified in the Hospital's Master Plan as
a site for future construction of replacement residential
housing). The applicant's representative agreed, and I addi-
tionally acceded to his request that I offer a few words on St.
John's behalf at the July 7 Planning Commission Hospital Master
Plan workshop.
The July 7 staff report was identical to the June 2 staff
report except for the fact that it did not include an attached
radius-of-notification map (apparently so that members of the
public would not be able to discover any additional errors which
might have occurred along those lines). I took it upon myself,
with staff's cooperation, to verify that things were kosher this
time and that, unlike the previous month, the public was indeed
aware that a hearing was taking place.
I should mention at this point that the staff report was defec-
tive in a variety of other respects, including poor mathematics
(the division of 300 into 2572 was somehow represented as
resulting in three parking spaces rather than nine), miserable
grammar, misidentification of the applicant, a failure to state
the project history to that point (continuance due to inadequate
public notification), and, most significantly, a failure to
provide the Commission with even the slightest of indications
that the construction for which permission was sought had
already taken place.
Following the St. John's Hospital Master Plan WorkShop before
the Commission, during which time I made good on my promise to
speak favorably about the Hospital and its representatives,
City Council
August 7, 1986
page 8
DR 329 came before the Commission during the course of the
project consideration portion of the evening. Immediately prior
to the commencement of its public hearing, the applicant's
representative aproached me to verify that I still intended to
speak in support of the project, which I confirmed.
Neither the oral staff report nor the applicant's represen-
tative's presentation to the Commission gave even the slightest
indication that the subject construction had already taken
place, so when it was my turn to speak and I stated that I had
seen the corridors and that they had already been built, a
number of jaws dropped. I spoke in support of the application
based upon the belief (erroneous as it turns out) instilled in
me by the applicant's representative that the corridors had been
built as the result of some state statute which superseded the
ability of local zoning authority to regulate hospital corridor
construction. As it was my considered opinion after two years
of work on the Hospital master planning process that the
Hospital Area Specific Plan was unlikely to regulate internal
uses of Hospitals in regards other than the provision of parking
which might be necessitated by such uses, I testified that
DR 329 could be approved without prejudicing the adoption or
implementation of the Hospital Area Specific Plan and suggested
appropriate findings which the Commission could adopt in doing
so.
Immediately following my testimony the applicant's attorney,
Mr. Sherman L. Stacey, approached me to inform me that the
corridors had not been built as the result of a superseding
state law but instead pursuant to an Administrative Approval
which had been granted by staff sometime during the past winter
or fall. As it is my belief that the Land Use Policy regarding
the CP zone explicitly prohibits ministerial approval of
Hospital projects prior to the adoption of the Specific Plan, I
nearly hit the ceiling.
City Council
August 7, 1986
page 9
I wasted no time in writing a request to the Chairperson that I
wished additional time to speak in light of this unexpected
development and was granted an extra sixty seconds. In the
meantime Mr. Stacey had told the Commission what he had told me,
and two members of the public spoke in opposition to the
project on the grounds that it would prejudice the adoption of
the Specific Plan.
In the brief time allotted to me to speak a second time I
stated why such an A~~inistrative Approval was unequivocally
impermissible under the Land Use Element and opined that, under
the circumstances, I had no idea as to what the appropriate Com-
mission action should be and that it would therefore be best to
continue the matter so as to acquire more information. Com-
missioner Israel asked what my recommendation would be if it
turned out that the corridors had been validly built under a
proper Administrative Approval, and I indicated that, although
such a situation was clearly impossible, if I accepted the
premise of his question then my initial recommendation would
hold true, at least in the informational vacuum in which I was
then operating.
The public hearing was then closed and the matter was before
the Commission. One of the Commissioners asked staff about the
history of the corridors, and at that point staff for the first
time acknowledged that they in fact had been built, pursuant to
an A~~inistrative Approval issued some time in the past by the
Acting Principal Planner. Copies of the file for that Adminis-
trative Approval were not made available to the Commission as
staff did not have them handy at the time.
When asked by one of the Commissioners about my objection that
such Administrative Approval could not possibly be valid, the
Acting Principal Planner stated that it was her feeling that
the Land Use Element requires hospital development to be re-
viewed by the Planning Commission only if it is medical or
City Council
August 7, 1986
page 10
medical-related, and that in her oplnlon, a connector corridor
for patient transportation between two cancer wards was neither
medical nor medical-related.
During the ensuing discussion, Commissioner Israel moved
adoption of the staff recommendation with modifications to the
Findings and Conditions essentially identical to those which I
had suggested during my initial testimony. He opined that as
far as he could determine, the inadequacy of the information
presented to the Com~ission was the fault of staff and involved
no bad faith on the part of the applicant. He appeared to rely
upon my answer to the hypothetical question which he had asked
during my second turn at the podium, in tandem with the Acting
Principal Planner's representation that the earlier Adminis-
trative Approval was legitimate, in reasoning that no prejudice
to the adoption of the Hospital Specific Plan would occur were
DR 329 to be approved.
Commissioners Hecht and Kirshner both spoke in favor of con-
tinuing the proceedings to a later date, indicating that they
would be uncomfortable supporting the project in view of the
sketchy information then available and the variety of questions
which had been left unanswered. Commissioner Perlman suggested
that the question be called in view of the fact that this
seemingly inoffensive first agenda item was taking up an
inordinate amount of time on a night with a crowded agenda. The
Chairperson called the question, and Commissioner Shearer was
denied the opportunity to speak.
Commissioner Israel's motion to approve the project with
direction to staff to prepare a set of explicit Findings and
Conditions to be returned to the Commission for subsequent
adoption passed on a four-three vote (Commissioners Israel,
Farivar, Hebald-Heymann, and Perlman voting yes; Commissioners
Kirshner, Shearer, and Hecht voting no) .
City Council
August 7, 1986
page 11
Later that night Commissioner Shearer appealed the Commission's
action to the City Council on three grounds, including inaccu-
racies appearing in the staff report, an erroneous finding of
non-prejudice to the adoption of the Hospital Area Specific
Plan, and an inadequate parking condition.
A draft set of Findings and Conditions for DR 329 (included
with this letter as Attachment A) appearing on the August 4
Planning Commission Consent Calendar were inadequate in a
variety of regards, principally in their failure to reflect the
findings actually made by those Commissioners voting to approve
the project on July 7 (please see my letter to the Planning Com-
mission dated August 4, included as Attachment C). With only
five Commissioners present, including a new Commissioner who
had not been present at the original hearing and had conse-
quently not heard any of the previous public testimony and
Commission deliberations, the Commissioners voted three-two in
favor of not adopting the proposed Findings and Conditions.
Later in the evening, after obvious prompting from Commissioner
Israel, the new Commissioner offered a motion to reconsider her
vote. Following a three-two vote to reconsider, Commissioner
Israel introduced a second motion to adopt the proposed Findings
and Conditions for DR 329. This time he blatantly prompted the
vote of the new Commissioner, who appeared confused to the
point of not having the slightest clue as to upon what she was
voting. (Those Councilmembers doubting my account of vote
prompting are strongly and respectfully urged to review the
taped transcript of the August 4 Planning Commission meeting to
verify that this in fact occurred--I couldn't believe my ears
either, so I reviewed the tapes myself the following day, and
the vote prompting is clearly there for the whole world to hear.
The Council is respectfully requested to exercise a little more
caution the next time an opening exists on the Commission.)
City Council
August 7, 1986
page 12
The new Commissioner changed her vote based apparently only
upon Commissioner Israel's vote prompting, so that the second
motion to adopt the proposed Findings and Conditions received a
three-two vote favoring passage. For a host of reasons, this
did not constitute valid adoption of the Findings and
Conditions, so that no Statement of Official Action by the
Planning Commission presently exists (please see my letter to
Suzanne Frick dated August 7, included with this letter as
Attachment B) .
TEMPORARY CONCLUSION OF LETTER
So that I may be able to submit this letter in a fashion
sufficiently timely for its inclusion in the Councilmembers'
packets, I will conclude here for the moment. With any bit of
luck I will submit the conclusion to the Mayor's office tomorrow
shortly after noontime. As a great deal more material is yet
to come, I would respectfully urge Councilmembers to try to come
by the Mayor's office late Friday afternoon so as to be able to
have the completed letter for edification over the weekend.
Sincerely, f\
Il/01- LlK.
t-1111iam F. Weingarden
~TTf)-(Jr(n~tVT
It
(;,6
STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL ACTION
PROJECT
NUt-mER: DR 329
LOCATION: 1328 22nd Street
APPLICANT: St. John's Hospltal and Health Center
REQUEST: Add1t1on of a 2,572 sq.ft. Connector BUlldlng to
J01n the EX1sting West W~ng and South Wlng at St.
John's Hospltal and Health Center
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
7-7-86
Date.
x
Approved based on the followlng flnd1ngs and
subject to the condltlons below.
Denled.
Other.
FIKDlliGS
1. The development 1S conslstent W1 th the flndlngs ana. pur-
pose of Ordlnance 1321 as set forth below.
2. The physlcal locatlon and placement of proposed structures
on the slte are compatlble wlth and relate harmonlously to
surround1ng sites and neighborhoods 1n that the 2,572
sq.ft. connector/walkway w1ll be located completely wlthln
St. John's Hosp1tal and Med1cal Center campus and w1ll be
deslgned to be compatible wlth eXlstlng ca~pus bU1ldlngs.
3. The existlng and/or proposed rights-of-way and facilltles
for both pedestrlan and automoblle trafflc w111 be ade-
quate to accommodate the antlclpated results of the pro-
posed development lncludlng off-street park1ng facllltles
and access thereto 1n that three park1ng places wlll be
leased off slte.
4. The eXlstlng and/or proposed publlC and/or prlvate health
and safety fac1lities (lncludlng, but not llffi1ted to,
sanltat1on, sewers, storm dra1ns, f1re protection devices,
protectlve serVlces, and publlC ut1ll. t1es) wlll be ade-
quate to accommodate the antlclpated results of the pro-
posed development.
- 1 -
ftTffKJffnWf ~
5. The proposed development lS cons1stent Wl th the General
Plan of the C~ty of Santa Mon~ca and the Zon~ng Ordinance
~n that the proJect w~ll not preJud1ce the adopt~on of the
Hosp~tal Specif1c Plan specified ~n the Land Use Element
of the General Plan and conforms to the appropr~ate CP
standards contalned ~n the Zonlng Ordlnance.
SPECIAL CONDITIONS
1.
The Architectural Rev~ew Board, ~n the1r reVlew, shall
part1cular attentlon to the scale and artlculat10n
des1gn elements, exter10r colors, textures, materlals
wlndow treatment to ~nsure ~ts compat~b~l~ty with the
lst1ng hosp1tal bU1ldlngs.
pay
of
and
ex-
2. Three parklng spaces shall be prov1ded for thlS new add~-
tion w1ll be leased off s~te.
STANDARD CO~DITIONS
1. Mlnor amendments to the plans shall be subject to approval
by the Dlrector of Plannlng. An lncrease of more than 10%
of the square footage or a slgnlf1cant change ln the ap-
proved concept shall be subJect to Plannlng CommlsS1on
ReVlew. Construct1on shall be 1n substant1al conformance
w1th the plans submitted or as mod1f1ed by the Plannlng
CO~~lsslon, Arch~tectural Rev~ew Board or Dlrector ot
Plann1ng.
2. The rlghts granted hereln shall be effect1 ve only when
exerclsed Wl th1n a perlod of one year from the effective
date of approval. Upon the wrltten request of the appll-
cant, the Dlrector of Plann1ng J""lay extend th~s perJ..od up
to an add1t~onal SlX nonths.
3. The appllcant shall comply Wl th all legal requ1rements
regarding prOV1Slons for U1e dlsabled, lncludlng those set
forth ~n the Cal1.tornla Adran1.strat1ve Code, Title 24,
Part 2.
4.
Refuse areas,
be screened
Refuse areas
need.
storage areas and mechanlcal equlpment shall
1n accordance Wl th See. 9127J. 2-4 (St-lHC).
shall be of a Slze adequate to meet on-site
5. ThlS determ1nat1.0n shall not become effectlve for a per~od
of twenty days from the date of determ1natlon or, lf ap-
pealed, unt1l a final determ1nat~on 15 made on the appeal.
- 2 -
AT/A C H f((wr t4
VOTE
Ayes:
Nays:
Absta1n:
Absent:
Far~var, Hebald-Heymann, Israel, Perlwan
Hecht, K1rshner, Shearer
I hereby certify that this statement of
accurately reflects the final determination
Commission of the City of Santa Monica.
Official Action
of the Planning
date
slgnature
prlnt name and t~tle
KR:nh
STDR329
07/24/86
- 3 -
~ rrA cHfncrVr B
William F. Weingarden
1234 Seventeenth Street
Santa Monica, CA 90404
August 7, 1986
Suzanne Frick
Acting Principal Planner
Santa ~onica City Hall
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Dear Ms. Frick:
Please be advised that after considerable reflection and some
legal research I have come to the conclusion that, despite the
presence of some appearances to the contrary, the Planning
Co~mission failed to adopt validly a Statement of Official
Action for DR 329 last Monday night, August 4.
I accordingly therefore implore you not to include any such
Statement in the Councilmembers' packets (slated for distribu-
tion today) and not to represent in the staff report on the
DR 329 appeal that such a statement was adopted.
Additionally, I respectfully request that staff administratively
continue the corresponding appeal hearing presently scheduled
for next Tuesday evening until such time in the future as the
Planning Commission has validly adopted a statement of the
action which it has taken on this project, so that the Council
may have in its possession a record of such action at the time
it considers the matter.
Following a su~ary of the relevant facts I will offer several
arguments in support of my contention that the Statement of
Official Action has yet to be validly adopted.
SUMMARY OF FACTS
On July 7, 1986, the Planning Commission approved DR 329 on a
four-three vote (Commissioners Israel, Perlman, Farivar, and
Hebald-Heymann approving; Co~~issioners Hecht, Kirshner, and
Shearer opposing) with a direction to staff to make several
explicit revisions to the suggested Findings and Conditions
appearing in that night's staff report and to return them for
adoption by the Comrrission at a subsequent meeting.
Suzanne Frick
August 7, 1986
page 2
ATIA-({tlll~A)T t
Staff returned a set of Findings and Conditions for the Com-
mission's review last Monday night, August 4. Commissioners
Hecht and Farivar were absent, and during the time intervening
since July 7, Commissioner Hebald-Heymann had been replaced by
newly-appointed Commissioner Burns.
The Findings and Conditions drafted by staff and appearing on
the August 4 Consent Calendar neither carried out the Com-
mission's explicit directions regarding revisions nor reflected
their actual decision, based upon the substance of their dis-
cussion immediately following the July 7 public hearing (please
see my attached letter to the Planning Commission dated
August 4, paying special attention to the second and third
paragraphs appearing on page two thereof) .
Following the Commission's receipt of a letter by this author,
Commissioner Shearer removed the Adoption of the Statement of
Official Action from the Consent Calendar, stating that he was
doing so because it did not reflect the Commission's apparent
assessment on July 7 that the subject connector corridors had
already been built.
Commissioner Perlman suggested that tenses of certain verbs in
vario~s of the Findings and Conditions be altered to reflect
this reality. Commissioner Israel then made remarks to the
effect that, although errors may have been made at the July 7
meeting, the Statement of Official Action should duplicate such
errors.
Commissioner Shearer suggested that it would be acceptable to
him to adopt the proposed Statement of Official Action provided
that the Commission directed that my comments were to be
forwarded to the City Council along with it. Commissioner
Israel found this unacceptable, believing that it would impart
some sort of official Commission imprimatur to my allegations
that the Statement of Official Action was defective.
Following an off-the-cuff opinion by Deputy City Attorney Horne
that adoption of a Statement of Official Action was not a
substantive action and therefore did not require a majority
vote of the full Commission, Co~~issioner Israel offered a
motion, seconded by Co~~issioner Perlman, to adopt the staff-
drafted Statement. The motion failed on a two-three vote
(Commissioners Israel and Perlman voting yes; Commissioners
Burns, Shearer, and Kirshner voting no). The Commission then
proceeded to the next item on its agenda.
Immediately after the conclusion of Item 7-A, Commissioner
Burns offered a motion to reconsider her vote on Itltem Six."
Corrunissioner Israel then prompted her to say "6-C," although my
recollection is that she in fact never quite corrected herself,
Suzanne Frick
August 7, 1986
page 3
ITTTALftrrJUJT
f3
if that was legitimately her intention. Commissioner Perlman
seconded, and without any discussion, the Commission voted
three-two in favor of reconsideration.
Commissioner Israel immediately moved adoption of Item 6-C, and
Commissioner Perlman again seconded. The roll was called
without discussion. After some hesitation by Commissioner
Burns (who had voted unequivocally during the roll callan Item
6-C earlier in the evening), Commissioner Israel prompted her
by saying the word "yes." She immediately voted yes, as did
Commissioners Israel and Perlman; Commissioners Shearer and
Kirshner voted no.
The above circumstances do not constitute an Adoption of a
Statement of Official Action, for each and every of the
following reasons:
REASON 1: SUBSTANTIVENESS
Contrary to Mr. Horne's opinion, the adoption of the Statement
of Official Action under these circumstances is substantive,
meaning that Commissioner Israel's second motion to adopt
failed to meet the voting standard for passage imposed by Rule 2
of Resolution Number 85-001, the Rules of Order and Procedure
for the conduct of Planning Commission meetings. The pending
matter, specifically, adoption of the Statement of Official
Action, was therefore deemed automatically denied.
Although it seems to me obvious on its face that adoption of
Statements of Official Action is a substantive matter, I shall
offer several arguments, legal and logical, to counter Mr.
Horne's claims to the contrary.
Section 4(c) of Ordinance 1321 (CCS) provides in relevant part,
with emphasis mine, that "[i]n approving, conditionally
approving, or disapproving of an application, the Planning
Commission . . . shall make written findinos of fact . . . II
Additionally, Section 4{b) provides that following Commission
conditional approval of an application, "rwlritten notice of
such decision, inc1udina findinas of fact in suonort of such
Qecision. shall be provlded to the applicant and-appropriate
city officials."
Controlling authority exists in California deeming the promul-
gation of such written findings of fact--and consequently in
this case the adoption of the Statement of Official Action--to
be a substantive matter. liThe presumption that an adminis-
trative agency's rulings rest on the necessary findings and
that such findings are supported by substantial evidence does
not apply to ?gepcies which must exoresslv state their findinas
Suzanne Frick
August 7, 1986
page 4
ATr~Hm~ ~
~nd must set forth the relevant supportive facts.U aroadway,
L~g~na, Vallejo Ass'n v. Board of Permit Appeals of City and
Count v of San Francisco, 427 P.2d 810, 59 Cal. Rptr. 146,
66 Cal.2d 767 (emphasis mine) .
Furthermore, the decision in r~rg~ount Rack Co. v. San Diego
County, 15 Cal. Rptr. 7, 194 Cal. App. 2d 409, clearly
identifies actions such as last Monday's as the adoption of
Findings of Fact (as opposed to some sort of procedural
ratification of findings which had already been adopted) .
P~tterson v. Central Coast Regional Coastal Zone Conservation
Commission, 130 Cal. Rptr. 169, 58 Cal. App. 3d 833, holds that
the adoption of findings requires the same voting standard as
permit approval, in this instance, four votes. This standard
clearly was not met, and so the Findings of Fact, and conse-
quently the Statement of Official Action, were not adopted.
Lest it be claimed that Monday's action did not somehow contem-
plate actual adoption of Findings of Fact, permit me to point
out that the motion to approve DR 329 last July 7 specifically
directed staff to prepare Findings and Conditions and to return
them to the COITmission for adoption. From Patterson we see that
such adoption did not occur.
Legal arguments aside, as a strictly logical matter it can be
seen that it is ludicrous to permit Statements of Action to be
adopted with less than a substantive vote. Consider the fol-
lowing hypothetical situation:
Suppose a project had been deemed approved by a four-three vote
and that two of the approving Cowmissioners were absent from the
meeting at which adoption of a Statement of Official Action was
to be considered. If a vote of fewer than four Commissioners
were required to adopt a Statement of Official Action, it would
be perfectly possible that the three dissenting Commissioners
could collectively muster the votes for a Statement reflecting
denial by outvoting the only two project proponents present.
Under Rule 6 of Resolution Number 85-001 (incorporating Rule
12(g) of Resolution Number 7212 (CCS) by reference), it would
more than likely be a year before a Statement of Official
Action reflecting the actual project approval be adopted. This
of course could occur after the appeals period to the Council
(which runs from the original decision date) had expired,
meaning that the project applicant would be effectively delayed
for one year from getting Architectural Review, Building Per-
mits, etc. by the variety of City officials receiving erroneous
written notices of decisions per Ordinance 1321 Section 4(b).
Although the situation described in the preceeding paragraph is
no doubt sufficiently ridiculous to illustrate the senselessness
of approaching the adoption of Statements of Official Action as
Suzanne Frick
August 7, 1986
page 5
~TTA- cft fftiVT I>
being non-substantive, the legal arguwents cited previously are
manifest, and the conclusion is inescapable that no Statement of
Official Action for DR 329 was adopted, even upon reconsidera-
tion, last Monday night.
REASON 2: INVALIDITY OF NEW COMMISSIONER'S VOTE
As pointed out in my attached August 4 letter to the Commission,
Commissioner Burns, who had not attended the July 7 meeting, had
not listened to the Public Hearing, and had neither observed
nor audited the Commission's deliberations and actions that
evening, was not in the remotest position to sit in judgment on
the accuracy of the draft Statement of Official Action as a
reflection of the events actually transpiring on July 7. Since
Statements of Official Action must by necessity conform to
reality (this should be manifest, although case law certainly
exists to support it), Corrmissioner Burns had no way of knowing
what the "reality" of the matter was, and any votes which she
may have cast (other than abstentions) on motions to adopt such
statements were improper.
The impropriety and invalidity of such votes by non-present
Commissioners is implicit in the Paramount Rock decision, cited
above. Additionally, past action by Commissioners is indicative
in this regard, including action as recently as earlier in the
meeting last Monday night with respect to the items appearing
as 5-A and 5-B on the agenda.
Even were the matter of adoption of the Statement of Official
Action non-substantive, the invalidity of Commissioner Burns's
vote renders the vote tally on either of the two motions to
adopt a two-two tie, which under Rule 6 of Resolution Number 85-
001 (incorporating by reference Rule 22 of Resolution Number
7212 (CCS)) represents a lost motion. By this line of rea-
soning, it is again seen that no Statement of Official Action
was adopted.
REASO~ 3; JNCOMPETENCE O~ NEW COMMISSIONER'S VOTE
Even were it proper for Commissioner Burns to vote on a State-
ment of Official Action regarding a meeting which she had not
attended, she was quite clearly incapable of doing so in a
competent fashion last Monday evening. Despite voting Uno"
unequivocally when the question was first called, she later
appeared to request that her vote be reconsidered, offering no
reason for so doing. Upon reconsideration, she hesitated during
the roll call and voted only after being prompted how to vote
by Commissioner Israel.
Suzanne Frick
August 7, 1986
page 6
~ TTftcJ11f7eJiJr B
My conclusion is that she didnlt have the slightest idea what
she was voting on either time the question was called. As such,
her vote cannot be regarded seriously and should not be tallied,
resulting in a tie vote and a failure to adopt via the reasoning
at the conclusion of the previous section.
Perhaps the Council will be more careful with its appointments
next time around.
REASON 4: INVALIDITY OF MOTION TO RECONSIDER
Even if Commissioner Burns's vote and the voting standard were
sufficiently legitimate the second time the question was called,
the motion to reconsider the question was invalid, meaning that
the original two-three failure of the motion to adopt the
Statement of Official Action is the prevailing resolution of
the matter as of the present time. The motion to reconsider was
invalid with respect to item 6-C for several reasons.
First, Commissioner Burns actually moved to reconsider her vote
on Item 6, not Item 6-C. Although Commissioner Israel inter-
jected t16-Cn as she was stating her motion, his remarks were out
of order and he was incapable of making a motion to reconsider
the vote since he had not been on the prevailing side of the
vote (Rule 6 of Resolution Number 85-001, incorporating by
reference Rules 12(c) and 12(9) of Resolution Number 7212 (CCS)
respectively). The vote taken therefore was one to reconsider
Item 6, which was adoption of the Consent Calendar. Com-
missioner IsraelIs immediately subsequent motion to adopt Item
6-C was therefore out of order, or, alternatively, Commissioner
Burns's casting of a vote other than that which she cast
earlier in the evening represented a violation of Rule 23 of
Resolution Number 7212 (CCS) (incorporated by reference by Rule
6 of Resolution Number 85-001). Either interpretation
invalidates the results of the second calling of the question
and lets stand the results obtained earlier in the evening,
namely, a failure to adopt the Statement of Official Action.
Even if the motion to reconsider had been regarding Item 6-C,
it failed for lack of four votes, since a motion to reconsider
is itself a substantive motion. This seems clear due to the
General Comment which precedes Resolution Number 85-001, stating
that "for purposes of consistency, clarity and convenience,
these rules are patterned after the City Council Rules of Order
and Procedure, and in fact incorporate major sections thereof
by reference." Rule 12{g) regarding motions to reconsider is
one such section directly incorporated into the Planning
Co~~ission rules, and the motion to reconsider procedure set
forth therein is in turn governed by the clause contained in
Rule 2 to the effect that II [e]xcept as otherwise provided in the
Suzanne Frick
August 7, 1986
page 7
ftrrf}(Jfffltf'l T IS
Charter, or by law, action taken by the City Council shall be
taken by a majority vote of the entire membership of the City
Council."
Ironically, one of the Commissioners benefiting from the bogus
reconsideration clearly agrees with me that reconsideration is a
substantive matter. Kindly observe that portion of the proposed
Rules for Reconsideration appearing in Commissioner Israel's
July 30 letter to Ann Siracusa, suggesting that t1[a] motion to
reconsider is substantive, and hence requires four votes to
carry."
Since the reconsideration motion failed by virtue of not
reaching a substantive vote standard, the original vote on Item
6-C was not properly reconsidered, and, by the reasoning ap-
pearing above, no Statement of Official Action was adopted.
GONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION
Under any or all of a variety of theories outlined above, the
Planning Co~~ission has failed to adopt a Statement of Official
Action on DR 329. It therefore seems appropriate that you not
include the draft considered by the Commission last Monday in
the Council's packets for next Tuesday. Additionally, the
staff report on the appeal of DR 329 should clearly indicate
that no Statement of Official Action has been adopted. Lastly,
it seems logical that the hearing on the appeal of DR 329 be
ad~inistratively continued until such time as a Statement of
Official Action has been adopted so that the Council may have in
front of it a clear indication of what decision the Planning
Cow~ission reached last July.
Very Cordially Yours,
(U.1!J1 [j)~
William F. Weingarden
It rjftC ff i11 LA) J C
william F. Weingarden
1234 Seventeenth Street
Santa Monica, CA 90404
August 4, 1986
The Honorable Planning Corrmisslon
Santa Monica City Hall
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Dear Cowmissioners:
I offer this as an individual for the Commission's consideration
in its prospective adoption of the Statement of Official Action
for DR 329, appearing on tonight's agenda as Item 6C.
I do not herein take issue with the wisdom of the action which
the Commission has already taken with respect to this particular
project, merely with whether the draft Statement of Official
Action is truly reflective of the action which was taken. I
respectfully suggest that it is not.
It was my distinct understanding that those Commissioners voting
on July 7 to approve this project did so in the belief that
construction of the exterior of the connector building in
question had already been completed, following testimony to
that effect from staff as well as from members of the public
during the course of the public hearing. If my understanding
is in fact correct, then the Commissioners should adopt a
finding to that effect and eliminate language appearing in any
of the other proposed findings and conditions which may be
inconsistent with that belief.
FINDING 2
One such inconsistency appears in Finding 2, which in its
present form states that the "connector/walkway will be located
. . . and will be designed. . . " (emphasis mine), expressly
implying that it does not yet exist, contrary to what appeared
to be the Commission majority's determination four weeks ago.
If the Commission wishes this finding to conform with the
decision which it actually reached, these two "will bens should
be replaced with "is" and "has been" respectively.
'JI
ft rT1JCl1 mE-NT L
Planning Commission
August 4, 1986
page 2
Additionally, I respectfully point out that this finding con-
fuses the names of the City's two hospitals, and therefore, for
the sake of clarity, the Cormnission should change "St. John's
Hospital and Medical Center" to the institution's actual name,
"St. John's Hospital and Health Center."
fINDING 5
Here staff has failed to implement properly the direction,
which the Commission included in its motion to approve this
proJect, to modify the language appearing in the original staff
report. Although staff has succeeded insofar as adding a
reference to a finding of non-prejudice of the adoption of the
Hospital Specific Plan is concerned, it is my distinct
recollection that the Cowmission articulated a reason for
reaching that finding. Such reason should be included in the
Statement of Official Action.
If my memory serves me well, the Commission adopted a reason
for making this finding which I had suggested during my initial
three minutes of testimony. Those Commissioners who voted for
approval of the project should add this reason to Finding 5
before approving the Statement of Official Action.
In any event, it is ludicrous on its face to make such a finding
without offering at least some sort of reason for doing so, and
the Commission should remedy this situation prior to adoption of
the proposed Statement.
SPECIAL CONDITION 1
As presently worded, this condition, like proposed Finding 2,
belies the Commission's apparent belief on July 7 that the
exterior of the walkway/corridor had already been constructed.
It certainly makes no sense whatsoever to instruct the ARB to
review the exterior design elements and features of a building
improvement which already exists.
Additionally, the word "ensure" is misspelled, and good grammar
dictates that it be followed by the word "their" and not "its".
It flitCH f)f(lj r c
Planning Commission
August 4, 1986
page 3
SPECIAL CONDITION 2
This is not a grammatically correct sentence, at least not in
the English language, and the Commission1s intent in imposing
this condition is therefore ambiguous. Although this flub
typifies the low quality of staff work which has attended every
phase of this project thus far, beginning with an inadequately
drawn radius of notification map and culminating with a staff
report which indicated that construction had not even begun
much less was nearly completed, it presumably will be a fairly
easy flaw for the Commission to correct.
CONCLUSION
This Development Review, which is now about to be reviewed by
the City Council on appeal, has been surrounded by nothing but
misinformation from Day One as the result of a combination of a
duplicitous applicant with an incompetent Planning staff. The
Commission would do well not to add to the confusion which the
Council is already facing in its consideration of this project
by promulgating a Statement of Official Action which bears no
real relation to the action actually taken.
The draft Statement of Official Action submitted by staff
should therefore be reworded so as to be genuinely reflective of
the events which transpired four weeks ago.
Those co~issioners who either opposed aooroval of DR 329 or
were not in attendance at the Julv 7 meeilna are not in a
position to interoret the actions-of those who did vote for
aooroval and should therefore. of course. abstain from votina
- - -
on the Statement or Official Action.
If it is the Commission's pleasure, I would welcome the
opportunity to offer oral arguments in support of the points
contained in this letter.
&1: 6tf )w--lte- {tj/
9 tUr~1 u/
fl~-v~n-?" J (r /
Sincerely,
L(.f/ff} '1 fj);;~
William F. Weingarden
~.
~- ,
IJd~ 10
(2-8
" -,
AU, 1 2 1:j.~
william F. Weingarden
1234 Seventeenth Street
Santa Monica, CA 90404
p.~ugust 8, 1986
The Honorable City Council
Santa Eonica City Hall
1685 Main Street
Sa~ta Monica, CA 90401
Cear Councilmerr-bers:
Attached please find my cOffi?leted letter =egaral~g I~e~ :2-=
Tuesday night's agenda.
~-
...... -.
Those of you w~ho read the lette~ 1vhich I dropped -=-r:.~o -"'25-:2::--
day.s packets should feel f~ee to ig~o=e the firs~ t~~~= c:
~~e acco~panying epistle, beglnr.ing if you will a~ ~~e ~2~~:~
of page 12 vvith "History of p..f.~ 258."
T~ose of you who have not yet read the le~ter co~~a~~e~
yesterday's packets shou~d feel free to discard iLr as ~~3
conter.ts are co~tained e~tirely within t~e letter a~~a=~ec _~
this.
Please accept my gratitude for your attent~on to
~::.::..s
-;:::;;--:=;,.""""
. -"- --- ..
Si~ce:.::-ely,
LtH!ll iti?
Willian F. Weingarden
-
- -j-...
A)d~ /21;
.>. . III&U- j
.,. - ~~ =:..... R"', ..,.... _ ... ~~ ~.o- ~ _ < -- - - <
~ __....~~. ~- ~"'.~. ;;-3- ~-ill -, <!>~.... _ii"
William F. Weingayden
1234 Seventeen~h St~eet
Sar.ta Monica, CA 9040~
Pmg"Jst 7,
1 0 Q;:::;
__../.'OJ v
The Ho~orable City Co~ncil
Santa Monica City Hall
1685 Main Street
Sar.ta Xonica, CA 9J~O~
Dea~ Co~~cil~ex~e~s:
I s~bnit th~s as an individ~al for your consideration ~~
evaluat2.r.') the
327, sc.:::r-itt:ec.
appes.l
of Develop~ent ReVlew applicatio~
D3.
( S ----~}
c;,:::'::'l..,.
. ~.
::,- 'f:l ~ -= .
~o~n's Hosnital and Health Cente~
a~d a?~2a~~~~ O~ yo~r age~c~ for Tuesday ~ightls reet~~g as
Iten :2-3.
I a~ respect=~l~y reco~~ending a remard ~o L~e
Cor~iss~Qn ~~t~ d~recticns ~o staff and tee CO~lss~or.ers.
Th~s case ~~volves a =asclnat~ng j~xta?osi~ior., ur.lque ~~ ~v
ex~~~~"""~~= ,....,.c ~"-,.....~'n~ c:t"';':;:: ,~- . ~ t = cc"""b~ned -T~-~
::''='~-~~-'~~, ~2- .~..;';"~L~Hl ''::I ~ ~~_ -~.,-o:rl:"e enc~ .L1...L . ...._~_L
repeated a~d su~stan~ia: risrepresentations by the app:~ca~L.
MiSi!1fornatic~ has bee~ supp~ied to the Ci~y, tie Planning
Co~ission, a~d to the ~e~ghDorhood representatlves at
vir~ually every o~?ortuni~y. Additionally, every effort see~s
to h~ve bee~ ~ad2 to ~reve~t the public from being 1nvolved In
the pla~ni~g ~rocess 0= t~e s~bJect construction.
As a res~~~, the ~lstory 2~d a~alysis contai~ed in thlS ~etter
'.......ll ::...
. .
be sorre.;n.at
l.eng~ty,
In a~ effort to ensure that ~he Cl~Y
'-'.... ...,;;...c .......-~_'1.1
..
C1ty Cour.cll
Augus"t 7, 1986
page 2
pro]ec"t (w~ich ac~ually ?~$ceded the a??licat~on to the
Planni~g Comnission), I will under~ake an analysis of the
proceedings to date generally and cor;cl~de with a step-by-step
exa~ination of so~e of the various issues being raised bv ~ie
appeal. I begin by outli~ing some persona~ backg~ound
detail s.
?E~SOYA~ BAC~G~O~~D
My fa~~liarity with the appl~cant ~ospi~al could not
,
no.
...,~
longer-s~anding, inasm~ch as I was Dorn ttere in :953. I r.ave
re~ted in the vicinity of SJ3~C a~ the address appear~~g a~
the outset of this let~er for nearlv thlr~een years.
I have been ac~ive for sc~e w~ile in the co~~nity
organization se~ving the neis~~o~io0d in wh~ch SC~?-C ~ies,
Santa Mc~ica Eid-C~ty Neigtcors, a~d a~ cur~en~:y enjoying iV
second terrr en its
Board of Jirestors.
I a~"te:lded
. -
a serles 0=
cor~cnity ITeet~~gs ~egardir.g hosp~ta:-neig2Dorhood iss~es In
general cond~cted by ~id-Ci~y duri~g t~e S~7~er or 193~
preceding ~he C~~y Co~nc~l L~C~ ~ea~lLgs a~d subseque~~ly
became one of a tearr of fo~r r.egct~a~ors assigned by ~~e
gene~al rreMbershi? of ~~d-City a~ its Oc~ober, 1984 Ann~al
Convention to engage i~ discussions ~it~ SJH~C ?ursua~t LUC~
Policy 1.13.1.
In this capac~ty I ~ave ~et frequently (al~ei~
on an off-a~d-on basis) w~~h rep~esenta~~ves or SJH~C durl~g
the last two years for ~he p~rpose of negotia~ions and
subsequent renego~ia~io~s resarding t~eir ~aster ?lan.
Additionally, begir.nir.g o~ Aug~st 21, ~985, I organized the
reside~tial ter.an~s of SJE~C at t~elr (~he tenants') request
and served as t~ei= representative with respect to SJHHC's
Rent Control Rerroval Permit applicatlon 156R-D through December
of that year.
_" ""ca
,. .wr~~""'-"W'~~ ~vv,j- ....J"o!
. 'v-
,
''I'
:'~
>.;~~-
!
j
City Cou~cil
At:g'..lst 7, 1986
page 3
APP~=CA~T-N~IGE30P~OO~ PSLATIONS BAC~G?C~~D
The rela~ionship be~ween St. John's Hospital and Eealt~ Ce~~e~
a:ld its surrounding resident.ial neighborhood has virtt.:e.=--=- '/
always been rocky at best, to pu~ it mildly. Prior to ~~e
initial ar.nouncement in August, 1984 of what ult~Date=-y
evolved into LUCE Policy 1.13.1, SJEHC had for so~e w~~le
categorically refused to meet with residential neighbo=~ood
represe~~atives to discuss COITQunity planning iss~es as he:: __
other matters of cor.cern to people living in the ~~~e~~a~e
area.
Only when it ~ad beco~e clear tha~ tb-e City Cou:lcil was :~<e=-:'
to i~corporate a cor.~unity-participation hospi~al ~as~er
planning process into tte LUCE, SJEEC begi:l rreet~~~ ~~~~ _ ____
of preli~i~ary negotiators fro~ ~~d-City 's ~e~ers~i~ a~~
staff for the purposes of i:lEormation exchange. ~~ ~~s
Octoberl 1984 A~:l~al Convention, t~e general ~e~ers~~~ ~-
Santa Monica Mid-City Neighbors authorized a _C~.
nego~iators to rreet with re?rese~tative3 of SJE~C
c= ==...::~
- .
:0:: -:.~e
purpose of achievlng sub~ission to t~e City of a :~s~e= ?:2~
by SJH~C whic~ would be mutually ag::eeanle to t.~e ~OS~~-:'2: ~~~
the neigh~or~ood. Mid-City's renbe~shi? adciltior.~::y ;=_e ~~e
negotiators direction in the for~ of a series of ex?l~=~~
objectives to be ac~ieved durl~g the course of ~tese
negotiations.
After frequent weetings during the =a1l of 198~ a~ qre=-:.
inconve~ience to Mid-City's regotiators (w~o we~e ~e~era~:y
serving in a volunteer capacity) so t~at SJHEC's =~;,e:~~e
could be acco~odated with respect to the naster plan~~~g
process, the Hospital sub~itted to the City a Master P:an
which, after significant compromise, probably represer.~ed a
95% level of agreement between the two parties. Followir.g
receipt of this Master Plan, City staff began processing of an
~---
..J
_"- ~_~ ",,""'~-'-:r~~{;~."'-~"'"
~~ -~~
".
City Council
August. 7, 1986
page 4
application by SJEHC to erect a f1ve-story Medica~ Offlce
Building on the southeast co=ne~ of Twentieth S~reet a~d
Arizona Ave~~e. T~lS applicatio~ for Development Rev~ew was
approved by the Plan~ing Commission in March of 1985 WlLh
support from Dor.ald Lewin Nelson, one of Mid-CiLY's fo~r
negotiators.
Almost immediately following receipt of this approval, SJH~C
began explorlng with City staff the possible usage of a maJor
portion of land on Arizona Avenue be~ween Twenty-?irst and
Twenty-Second Streets in a fashion incongruous witn ttat
anticipated by the Master Plan already submitted, represer.~~ng
a contravention of the only major conceSSlon soug~t or
received by the Mid-City negotiators during the discussions
the p~evious fall. Shortly thereafter, SJE3C let ~ic-:ity
representatives know that it had no intention of =~l=i~~~~g
p~eviously agreed-to obligations specified ~n wr~~lng ~~ l~S
~aster Plan and asked to reopen discussions for t~e 9~=pose 0=
~enegotiating ~r.ose portio~s of tte Master Plan cea~l~~ ~~~~
housing relocation and A~izona site usage ratters.
On July 25, 1985, SJ~HC sub~itted to the Rent Cor.trol 3oa=~ a~
application for a Category D ~e~oval of all of i~s rer.~al
housing which co~pletely contradicted the terns of i~s ~aSLer
Plan. Followir.g pro~racted and heated discussions wit~ Mid-
City negotiators, as well as substantial opposit~on fr~~ a~
organization containing the vast majority of its reside~t~al
tenants, SJHHC in Dece~ber of 1985 arended this a9pllca~lo~ to
reflect a new agreement reached with the Mid-City negctiato~s
which was somewhat more, albeit by no means totally, lD keepir.g
with the original Master Plan. This agreement, which, after
being originally drafted by SJHHC's attorney, had undergone
substantial revision as a result of the negotiating process,
was ratified by Mid-City's Board of Directors on December 18,
1985, in the form of a Memorandum of Understanding between
.~.~-~-
.... ~-:=~e~,._...J.. ~- ~l _.:::.~..:... ..A
~
j
t
~~~,-j
City Council
August 7, 1986
page 5
SJHHC and Santa Monica Mid-City ~eighbors. O~ Ja~uary 9,
1986, the Rent Control 3oa~d approved the ame~ded a?pl~~at~o~
after receiving in public hear1ng support frc~ so~e 0= SJP.~cts
tenants and vehemen~ OP2os~tion fro~ othe~s.
HISTO?Y OF DR 329
On April 8 and 9 of this year, SJHHC filed three applications
for Development Review with the City without fi~s~ infcr~ir.q
Mid-City Neighbors that this wo~ld take place or ClSC~SSlr.g
the nature of these applications with any segment of t~e resi-
dential corr~unity. All three appllcations we~e ~lrac~~o~s~~'
scheduled for Planning CO~~lssion review the night of ~une L (=
say miraculously in view of the fact that the nor~al
processing delay for most D~ applications these cays see~s ~o
De approaching six wonths). Neither the applica~t nor ~he
?lanni~g staff wade any effort whatsoever to in=o~~ t~e CC7:~-
ni~y o=ganization that these ~atters were pending ~n~~: ~~.
To~ pyr.e, Special Assistant to the President 0= S~~HC,
contac~ed M~. Paul Rose~stein/ Chairperson of ~ld-Clty'S
302ro, only six days be=ore their sched~led public he2=l~g. (=
have always been curious, lr.cidentally, as to why ~r. ?yr.e
contacted Mr. Rosenstein--~ho lives in a portion of t~e
nelohborhood distant from ~he Hosnital and is co~sec~e~tlv ~ot
-' .1,. ~ ~
entlrely acq~ainted with the hospltal planning issues ~n
detail--and avoided cOIT~unication with any of the four
~egotiators fron Mid-City who had been working Wl~~ t~e
Eospi~~l en co~~unity plannl~g issues for nearly t~o years.)
Further~ore, ~~aff seemingly endeavored to see that the publ~c
in general was entirely unaware of the existence of the DR 329
project as well as its public hearing. An improperly drawn
radius-of-notification map (violating the terms of Section 1 of
Ordinance 1230) resulted in not a single resident of the
-____IJ- ..,...,......;-..-~ - .~ T> ~-_.~ ~~
,
-'" J
-_.~.. .
City Council
August 7, 1986
page 6
Hospital ca~pus area being noticed of the June 2 public hea~~~g
before the Co~missio~. Additionally, the matter was placed
not under the Commission's ?cblic Searings agenda ite~ Dut O~
their Consent Calendar, in violation of Rule 3(d) (Sf of the
Planning Cor-mission rules ma~dating that no item requ~~lng a
public hea~ing be placed on t~e Co~sent Calendar.
After several members 0= the public who fortunately happened
to be in attendance pointed o~t the notification irre~Jlarl~Y
to s~aff, the Commission decided to continue the matte~ to i~s
July projeCt review night so that the public could be
adequa~ely noticed. The otte~ two St. John's applicat~ons
were contin~ed also, so that envlronr.ental reVlew could be
provided.
The Corrniss~on then evinced a~ intent that no more hOS?ltal
projects co~e Defore it unti: suc~ tiQe as it had bee~
provided ~~th t~e O?po~t~n~~y to review the draft Rospital
Area Specific ?:an. At this point in the evening Plan~ing
staff announced that they had admin~stratively abchdo~ej t~e
idea of pre?ar~~g a Specific Plan despite clearc~t la~guage ~n
the Land Use Elenen~ manda~ing its adoption. After several
~embers of the p~blic in attendance exploded (figuratively
speaking, fort~~ately) a~d follohing a series of meet~~qs
later in ~une, staff ulLimately reversed its decision a~d
retur~ed to ~r.e origir.a~ co~cept of Specific Plan preparatio~.
At the co~clusion of t~e JUhe 2 Eospital discussion, t~e
Co~~issio~ sc~ed~led a St. Joh~'s Hospital Maste~ Pla~
works~oo =or Julv 7,
. ~
been resched~led for
ccinc~de~tally the night when DR 329
review.
haa
During the intervening month I made an inspection of the pro-
posed proJect site and was shocked to discover that the con-
nector corrldors envisioned by the DR 329 applicatlon had
already been built. When I confronted the applicant's
.-:::_- -!
.J
.~~"11- ~~......,.."'i ---L~ ~~.. 7~
.....
'-.
~ ~~
.~~,
City Councll
lmgust 7, 1986
page 7
representative (Mr. Pyne} w~th this fact, he in=ormed ne that
the corridors had been built under authority g=anted by sore
piece of state legislation specifically regulating the
construction of hospital corridors and pree~pting local zoning
authority. He additionally told me that the only necessity =o~
the application for Development Review was to obtain C1ty
permission for certain office usage internal to the cor~idors-
-that the exterior construction had already taken place and
was not at issue.
Based upon this represe~tation and following a guided tour c=
the project area, I agreed to support DR 329 on the CO~dltlC~
that St. John's stipulate to parki~g space provision te~ms
other than those suggested by staff (who had reco~uended that
three parking spaces be provided on a parklng lot whic~ no~
only was tanden-striped to the rrax, therefore having no recr
for extra spaces, bu~ a~so was ide~tified in the HOspltal's
Master Pla~ as a site for fu~~re construct1on of replacemer.~
residentia~ housir.g). The ap?l~cant's representative agreed,
and I additionally acceded to ~lS re~Jes~ that : offer a =e~
words on St. John's behalf a~ the Ju:y 7 ?lanning Co~~ission
Hospital Maste~ Plan workshoD.
The July 7 staff ~eport w~s identical to the June 2 staff
report except for the fact that it did not include an attached
radius-of-notlfication ~ap (apparently so that meITDerS of the
public would r;ot be aDle ~o discove= any additional er~ors
which might have occurred along those lines). I took it upon
myself, wit~ staff's cooperation, ta ve~ify t~at things were
kosher this tlme and tha~, unl~ke the previous month, the
public was indeed aware that a hearing was taking place.
I should mention at this poin~ t~at t~e staff report was
defective in a variety of other respects, including poor
mathematics (the division of 300 into 2572 was somehow
.......__>-"-,._~_ __;;.. ..-J-1.I~."""" - --. _.- -
..~ ~:."'-~r-
j
.......
City Council
August 7, 1986
page 8
represented as resulting in three parking spaces rather tha~
nine), miserable grammar, miside~tification of the applica~~,
a fallure to state the p~oject history to that point
(continuance due to inadequate p~Dlic notification), and, mos~
signiflcantly, a failure ~o provlde the Commission wit~ even
the slightest of indications tha~ the construction for which
pernission was sought had already taken place.
Following the St. John's Hospital Master Plan Workshop berore
the Co~~ission, during which tiITe I made good on my pro~ise to
speak ravorably about the Eospital and its representatives,
DR 329 came before the Commission during the course of the
project consideration portion of the evening. IIT~ediately
.....' t f' t b" h ' . . l'
prlor to _Lne com~encemen 0 1 S pu L1C ear lng, tne app l-
cant's representative a?~oac~ed ne to verify t~at I stl~l
intended to speak in support of the project, WhlC~ I co~=ir~e~.
Neither the oral staff report ~or the applicant's re?resen-
tativels p~esentatlon to ~~e Co~~issio~ gave everr t~e
slightest i~dication that the subJec~ construc~ion had alre2dy
taken place, so when it was my t~rn to spea~ ar.d I sta~ed that
I had seen the corrldors and that they had already bee~ bUllt,
a number or jaws dropped. I spoke in suppo=t of the
application based upon the belief (erroneous as Lt tu=~s out)
instilled in rre by t~e applicant's representative tha~ t~e
corridors had been built as the result of sorre state s~atute
which superseded the ability of local zoning authority to
regulate hospital corridor construction. As ~t ~as my
considered opi~lon after two years or work on the Hos?~~al
master planning process that the Hospltal Area Specific ?lan
was unlikely to ~egulate internal uses of Hospltals in rega=ds
other than the provision of parking which might be necessitatec
by such uses, I testified that D~ 329 could be approved
without prejudicing the adoption or implementation of the
~......... ~ -_.~ ~~::.~ + ~ :,..-
_-r-..~
{,~ ~ .~~..
j
Ci.ty Council
August 7, 1986
page 9
Hospi~al Area Specific Plan and s~ggested app=opr~ate flndirss
which the Co~mission cou~d adopt in doing so.
Immediately following ~y testi~ony the applicant's attorney,
~r. Sherman L. Stacey, app=oached ~e to inform me that ~he
corridors had not been bUllt as the result of a superseding
state law but instead pursuant to an AdMinistratlve App=oval
which had been granted by staff sometime during the past
winter or fall. As it is my belief that the Land Use ?olicy
regarding the CP zone expllc~tly prohibits ministe=lal
approval of Hospital projects p=~or to the adoption of ~he
Specific Plan, I nearly hit the celling.
I wasted no tiffie in writ~ng a request to the Chairperson t~a~
I wished additional time to speaK In light of t~is ~~ex?ec~ed
develop~ent and was gran~ed an extra
sixty seconc.s.
tr~e
meantime Mr. Stacey had told the Co~~ission wha~ ~e hai to:d
me, and two mer~ers of the pu~lic spoke in oppositlc~ ~o ~he
project on the gro~~ds t~at it ~culd prejudice the acc~~~o~ c=
the Specific Plan.
In the brief time allo~ted to rr-2 to speak a second tine I
stated why such an Ad~inistrative Approval was une~ulvocally
impermissible under the Land Use ~leITent and cpi~ed t~a~,
under the circu~stances, I had no idea as to wha~ the
appropriate Cor~ission action should be ar.d that it wo~ld
therefore be best to continue the matter so as to ac~c~~e r.ore
inforrration. Coxmissioner Israel asked what wy reccrr.~e~dat~c~
would be If it turned out that the cor~ldors had bee~ 7alid1y
built under a proper A~Linistrative Approval, and I lndicated
that, although such a situation was clearly impossib~e, if =
accepted the premlse of his ques~ion then my initial
recommendation would hold true, at least in the informational
vacuum in which I was then operating.
-=-..-~--. ~_ ...~Ii ~~.
:--_~ iI~~ ... ......
-l: Jl
-' ~",,""~..-
City Council
August 7, 1986
page 10
The public hearing was the~ closed and the matter was before
the Commission. One of the Com~issioners asked staff about
the history of the co~ridors, and at that po~nt staff for the
first time acknowledged that they in fact had been built,
pursuant to an Administratlve Approval issued some time ~n the
past by the Acting Principal Planner. Copies of the file fo=
that Administrative Approval were not made available to the
Co~~ission as staff did not have them handy at the time.
When asked by one of the Cowmissioners about MY obJect~on that
such Administrative App~oval could not possibly be valid, the
Acting Principal Planner stated that it was her feeling that
the Land Use Element requires hospital development to be re-
viewed by the Planning COIT~ission ?nly if it is medical or
rr.edical-related, and that in her opinion, a connector corridor
for patient tra~sportation between two cancer wards was neit~e=
medical nor medical-related.
During the eDsulng discussic~, Co~~issioner Israel moved
adoption of the s~aff recoITmenda~ion with modiflcatlons to tte
Findings and Conditions essentially identical to those which I
had suggested during my initial testimony. He opined tha~ as
far as he could determine, the inadequacy of the information
presented to the Corrmission was the fault of staff and
involved no bad faith on the part of the applicant. He
appeared to rely upon my answer to the hypothetical question
which he had asked during my second turn at the POd1UW, In
tandem with the Acting princlpal Planner's represe~tatlo~ ~hat
the earlier Ad~inistrative Approval was legitinate, i~
reasoning that no prejudice to the adoption of the Hospltal
Specific Plan would occur were DR 329 to be approved.
Commissioners Hecht and Kirshner both spoke in favor of con-
tinuing the proceedings to a later date, indicating that they
would be uncomfortable supporting the project in view of the
. _ ~~~,-t3 ~ ~i-~~ .r-~.~-..L-~ ~
.
" j
...""
. r ..... '-
~ ~
~~~>-
~~~-._h ~~~-~ "-
", ~ r
~. . h:;;".~
~ ---
City Council
August 7, 1986
page 11
sketchy infor~ation then available and the variety of
questions which had been left unanswered. Commissioner
Perlman suggested tha~ the questior. be called in view of the
fact that this seemingly lnoffensive first agenda item was
taking up an inordinate amount or time on a night with a
crowded agenda. The Chairperson called the question, and
Com~issioner Shearer was denied the opportunity to speak.
Co~issioner Israelis motio~ to approve the project with
direction to staff to prepare a set of explicit Findings and
Cond~tions to be returr.ed to the Co~~ission for subsequent
ado?tion passed on a four-three vote (Conrnissioners Israel,
Farivar, Eebald-Heymann, and ?erlrr-an voting yes;-Commissioners
Kirshner, Shearer, and Hech~ voti~g no) .
~ater that night Co~missioner Shearer appealed the Co~~issio~'s
action to the City Cou~cil on three grounds, includlng inacc~-
racies appearing i~ the staff re?ort, an erroneous findi~g of
non-prejudice to the adoption of the Hospital Area Specific
Plan, and an inadeauate Dark~~a co~dition.
... .. J
A draft set of Findings and Conditions for DR 329 (inc~~dec
with this letter as Attachment A) appearing on the August 4
Plan~i~g Commission Consent Calendar were inadequate in a
variety or regards, principally in their failure to reflec~
the findings actually made by those Co~~issioners voting to
approve the project on July 7 (please see my letter to the
Planning Co~~ission dated August 4, included as Attac~~ent C) .
With only five Comrissioners prese~t, including a new
Corrmissioner who had not been present at the original heari~g
and had conseq~ently not heard any of the previous public
testimony and Corrmission deliberations, the Commissioners voted
three-two in favor of not adopting the proposed Findings and
Conditions.
. ~r;-~
... c'''.-;;''>~_~"oi''ilIoIJj'_.............z~_:-i...>:-t.-
~~ -J.
~. !"'JI"'~""~__h"--'" - -.-....r...'-.......~- '1---
1
City Council
August 7, 1986
page 13
approval for them. Although I have received a diffe~e~t
answer to the question or what process led to the~r co~s~ru~
tion every time I have asked the question of the applicanL's
representative and, after three different answers, am growing
weary of the discussion, on this occasion I was provided with
written documentation of past events leading me to believe
that at long last I was getting close to the truth of the
matte~. I have attached these documents at the conclusion of
this letter.
At this juncture I de?art fro~ the chronological sequence
followed thus far and recount events occurring beginni~g in
the surr~er of 1985. Offering any apologles which ~ay be
necessitated by this non-chrono~ogical account, I wish to pOlnt
out that I an simply explaini~g t~e pertinent even~s in the
order in wnich I beca~e awa~e 0= ~hem. As far as I can
determine, none of the Planning COIT~issioners part~cipa~ing in
the July 7 hearing were aware of the events which I a~ abo~t
to descrlbe at t~e ~ine of reac~ing their orlgina~ decision,
and none of them are aware of ~hese matters today.
In late 3~r.0er of las~ year, S~. John1s filed an appl~catio~
(included at tte e~d of this ~etter as Attachment 0) with t~e
State of Califo~nia to constr~ct the subject corridors pursuant
to the Ho<::o~ +-al C:::::>; s....,~ ~ C:af"""-u nc.... of 1983 (C"L E!;'""L",q "ND
..L. ............1...- ................- +;L";"~..... --1...... ___ rl.. ...........rt .......... r+.&.
S~2ETY COuE 5 15000 et seq , excerpted in Attachment E). T~e
State advised ~~e City CL the ex~s~ence of this application ~n
September (pleased see ~e~ter of Nlcholas L. Parris to the
Santa Monica Depar~~e~~ of B~~ldl~g and Safety dated Septem-
ber 19, 1985, included as Attac~~ent F) .
It should be no~ed ~tat, contrary to the account initially
furnished to r.e by the applicant's representative, this State
law did not and does not supersede any local authority to
restrict or to reg~late the existence of hospital corridors.
~...~..~.._ -..III-:1-:"-t r-~-::t~~:::.~. -"'~u'~___. _ ......;...a.".__p-. "--
1
f
~~_ J
-.;.-
City Council
August 7, 1986
page 14
It is merely intended to e~su=e tr.a~ whatever hospital con-
struction may be pe~mitted locally is built to nini~un
standards of safety estab~is~ed by and enforced by the State
(a detailed analysis of this poir~ will appear later in this
letter) .
Prlor to issuing a Building Permit for construction of these
corridors, the State in fact inquired as to the permissibillty
of construction of the corr~dors under local zoning laws
(please see point 1 appearing near the bottom of page one of
the October 31, 1985 letter from ~dward Wong to Leo A. Daly,
included as Attac~~ent G). This resulted in St. John's
applying for and rece~ving ~lnisterial approval frem the
Planning Depar~nent for the corridor project, with the
application having been submitted last November 9 by, among
ot~ers, the c~rrent ap?lica~t's representative, and apparently
being approved shortly therea=ter (please see Applicat~on for
ACr..inistrat~ve Acoroval ~~ 258, incl~ded as Attacr.ment 3) .
Although staff a~tached a s~ngle condition to the approval
ma~dating that Lr.ere be ~o of=ice use within the corridors,
the plans approved by staff in tee context of gran~ing the
Administrative Approva~ clear:y show that interior space was
intended to be use for office ?~rposes (please see Sheet T-2
from Leo A. Daly Architects dated Cc~ober 16, 1985, on file
with the Plan~~~g DepartDe~t--:'m afraid it was too large to
attach to t~is ~et~er--~i~dly pay soeclal attentlon to the
area inter~al -:0 the corr::.c.ors :rarked "Open Office Aree. "). No
condition requiring Architect~ra: Review was attached; neit~er
was any provis~on for parkl~g req~ired.
Central to disc~ssion of this case is the propriety and
validity of ~P. 258, WhlCh will be analyzed later. Suffice it
for the moment to say that this author is unequivocally
"",o.-~~-.f;..""'';'"'' ..Ar~ ~....',;~..at~
j
,.~~J
~ _ :o-..-__-:.'L...-~.. "'-
.,"--...
City Council
August 7, 1986
page 15
convinced that such approval was iropermissible under t~e La~d
Use Element and the Interim Zoning Ordinance.
Following the State's receipt of evidence that F~~ 258 had bee~
approved, the State issued a Building Permit for the co~-
struction of the co~rido~s on Dece~er 16, 1985 (~ncluced as
Attachment I). According to the most recent story suppl~ed ~o
me by the applicant's representative, construction corr~enced
some time thereafter and the exteriors of the corridors were
completed and in place around the beginning of Apr~l.
The Councilrne~bers should be aware that at no ti~e dur~ng a~y
of this process were any of the people from Santa Monica ~ic-
City Nelghbors, incl~ding the rrerrbers of its Hos?i~al Easter
Plan Negotiating Teah., advised by anyone, either from t~e
Hospital or fro~ City staff, of the appllcations, bot~ at ~~e
State a~d at the local level, last s~mrLer and fall for ~~e
construction
of these corridors,
despit~ th~ fac~
~:--?t
-........0
'!L.r.. .rl_
- -----.........
Citv reaotiators we~e
- -
'Teeti:1c C1
~~ alrost wee<~y
h;;-c::-. ~ -r"i~""
.................... ---- --- . - -,r--
the represe~t2tive a~d 2t~0~~ey of St. Jo~~'s t~~oeahc~~ r~~~
period at t~eir reqJest for t~e Durnose
of re~eao~ia~i~a t~e
- -
Master P12~ in a fashion less favo~able to t~e ~ela~bcr~ood.
Additionally, no o~e fro~ Mld-City Neighbors was infor~ed 0=
either the corr~ence~ent or t~e cCT?letio~ of tr.e constr~ctio~
of the corridors. Tney -....ere s:..:rply "sneaked in" .:rom star::. <:0
finish.
As mentioned earlier, Mid-City was also r.ot lr.for~ed w~e~ t~e
instant application for DR 329 was flied last April 9. In
fact, Mid-City was not even TIade aware of this applicatlon's
existence until six days before the originally scheduled
Planning Commission review nate.
The application was apparently filed so that St. John's could
weasel out of the condition proscrlblng office space that
apparently made it possible for them to receive permission to
~.;........ "tIf""".:A~-4""lA4. Iii;t-
t
"-," I
< - - -I'
~~r~ _~_~ J
~....- ........~.....l-~ .~...._. n ::_.::-:r_. ~~ .~ j'-
-4'if
City Council
August 7, 1986
page 16
construct the connecting corrdiors in the first place. None-
theless the application clearly and unequivocally represented
to the City that construction of the corridors had yet to
commence (please see "Floor Area to be Added" listing on the
second page of the Application form for DR 329 included as
Attachment J; also see the answers to questions 11.4 ar.a III.3
on the adjoining Environmental Information Form; also see tte
final three paragraphs on the Attachment A which corresponds to
that application as well as the statistics on its Atta~h-
ment B).
That concludes the somewhat convoluted history of this ~ess, at
least as I presently understand it. I of course would not 8e
surprised in the slig~test at this point to discover an
entirely new set of facts which ~ave th~s far Deen concealed
from me.
ISSv~S PArSED 3Y AP?~AL
Five issues a~e raised foy the Cou~cil's cons~ce~2~ion by t~lS
appeal, three by the appellant hir-self, two by this aut~or.
They are:
1. Should the City Council cor.sider this appe~l in the
absence of a clear account of the action already ta~en by
the Planning Comroission, either i~ the for~ or a Statement
of Official Action or in some other ~ediu~?
2. Did the Plan~ing Comwissio~ reach lts decisio~, whatever
that may have been, on the basis of lnsufflCle~t i~for-
mation?
3. Will approval of DR 329 prejudice the Clty'S abillty to
develop and to implement a Hospital Specific Plan?
t
-~__,.-,r-.c...&"~~..;!~\;! .>oyrJ:....Ii!~__.,.- - ~'l.~~
, '
City Council
August 7, 1986
page 17
4. Is approval of DR 329 at this time proper in view of the
behavior of the project applicant?
5. Were the Findings and Conditions adopted by the Planning
Cor.mission, whateve~ they may have bee~, sufficient for the
purposes of approval or DR 329, particularly in the areas
of parking provision?
An analysis follows:
ISSUS 1: LACK OF S~ATS~~~T OF CO~ISSION ACT~ON
Should the City Council consider this appeal in the absence of
a clea~ account of action taken thus far by the Planning
Corr~ission, either in the form of a Statement or Offic~al
Action or in some other ~ediun?
The answer is no.
For a detailed analysis of why _~ is ~hat the CO~~lssion has
failed th~s far to adopt a Sta~enen~ 0= Off~cial Act~on for
DR 329, please see Attachment B to this letter. Even had a
Statement of Official Actio~ been adopted by the Co~~ission on
August 4, as some observe~s will no doubt contend, Attachment
C presents a detailed analysis of why such statewent bears no
resemblance to the action actually taken by the Co~ission.
Either way, the Council is operating In the dar~ as to the
precise reasons why the Planning Cor.~ission too~ the actlo~
which it has taken on th~s project. ~~sent suc~ infor~at~on
from its appointed experts in the field of planning and de-
velopment, the Council should not presume to begin analysis of
the myriad of complex issues raised in this appeal.
The most appropriate action for the time being would be to
stay the hearing of this appeal until such time as the
_ .._-......iI!I. .....-;-~~.,.
-"i"-~~:o:i.;;;;l'-~-
~
r","~"- .J
City Council
Aug~st 7, 1986
page 18
?lanning COITmission adop~s a Statement of Official Action by a
valid vote of fo~r Conmissloners which legitimately reflects
the action taken by the Corr~ission at the conclusion of the
July 7 public hearing.
ISSCE 2: PLA~NING CO~~ISSION IKFOP~_~TIO~AL VOID
Did the Planning Cor.~ission reach its decision, whatever that
nay have been, on the basis of insufficient info~ation?
The answer here is yes.
Although it is unclear in the absence of a legitimate
Statement of Official Action what the basis for the Planning
Co~~ission's July 7 decision was, it is incontrovertible that
they did not have the docu~ents appearing at the end of this
letter as Attachments D, F, G, H, and I in their possession at
that tine. Furthermore, they were at best only vaguely aware
of the existence of Ohe of these docurrents (AttachITent H) ana
were totally unaware of the nature or contents of any of the
others. They hence ~ad little if any information in thelr
possession regarding the history 0= the develop~ent of the
connecting corridors.
Moreover, as the appellant hi~sel= accurately center-as, the
staff report (included at the end of this letter as Attach~e~~
K) made no mention of the prior existe~ce of the proJect which
they thought they were considering. Staff also concealed this
informatio~ from the Corrmission in the oral staff report. The
written staff report was inadequate in several other respects.
The application submitted by St. John's which was available
for perusal by the COITmissioners (Attachment J) not only
contained no information that the connecting corridors had
already been bUllt but also contained reasonably explicit
i
~ .~,~ 1
.~"'~-J '5l....-.----r 1d-''''':'''-_-:'''~-It"{'':'I!i'-i~& ~-.i
". ...-~
City Council
August 7, 1986
page 19
misrepresentations that they had yet to be built. Addition-
ally, the applicant's representative concealed the facts of
the corridors' existence from the CO~~lss~on during his inltial
statement.
On top of all this, staff provided the Co~~ission with errone-
ous information regardlng the parking requirement applicable to
the project as well as with an unfathomable interpretation of
the controlling Land Use Element policy (more discussion on
these points later) .
As the prior construction issue is central to the ability to
make a deter~ination of non-prejudice to the development and
implementation of the Eospital Specific Plan (please see the
next section), it is ~nco~ceivable that the Co~mission on July
7 had in front of it sufficient infornation with which to ~~ke
such a deter~ination (and hence to approve the project). W~a~
little infor~ation they had on the prior constr~ction issue
came to their attention at such a late stage of the proceedings
that the Co~missioners could not possibly have digested it i~
a thorough and intelligent fashion in the relatively shor~
time period which they allotted the~selves for that purpose.
The only concluslon is t~at their decislon must be reconsidered
in view of extra information s~ch as that contained wlthin
this letter.
Although it is perfectly possible that the Council wlll have l~
its possesslon next Tuesday all the inforrration regarding ~~e
instant application which the Corr~isslon lacked as a necessary
basis for its decision, I must respectfully point out that
none of the Councilme~bers attended the July 7 workshop on tte
St. John's Hospital and Health Center Master Plan. As a
deternination of non-prejudice to the adoption and
implementation of the Hospital Specific Plan which will be
drafted based upon the St. John's Master Plan is a prerequisite
-.L-~____~__ ..;.e:..r ~ ! ..,q-c...........~~~
j
,
.-~-ii'- =...J
City Council
August 7, 1986
page 20
to approval of DR 329, the Councilxe~bers must de=er to the
Commission on this point (please recal~ that even the Com-
mission itself was unprepared to deal with this project until
after the concluSlon of the St. John's workshop).
The best, and possibly only, resolution to this matter is to
remand it to the Commission so that they may reconsider it in
view of a more detailed staff analysis which not only acknow-
ledges that construction has taken place but also presents the
project history and a summary of the significant issues raised
thereby. This would enable those in the best position to do
so, namely, the City's appointed planning experts who have
already familiarized the~selves with the St. John's Maste~
Plan context via a workshop process, to rr-ake an informed
decision on the matter, as distinguished from the present
dec~sion WhlCh arose f~om a cor.bir.ation of non- and misinror-
mation.
Such a resolution would have the additional benefit of
ensuring d~e process (which is so critical in the Lar.d Use
app~oval contex~) to certain members of the public, myself
included, who were operating in the sa~e informational vacuun
as the Cor-missioners and wno were also denied the o?portunity
to respond to certain facts, issues, and interpretations raised
by staff and the Co~~ission following the public hearing. Had
I known tr.en what I know now, I for one would have focused rry
initial testimony (and even, for that matter, my reprise
testimony) on a differe~t set of lssues, which conceivably ~ay
have led the Commissloners to a different result.
The first of the appellant's points is well taken and suggests
a remand to the Planning Co~ission.
_...~~..>>:...r- =-<.~.~ .f-k.1i...:lI~~~"'>""__ -~~-'-'.-
~ ,u i
.-~--;J
City COUIiCll
August 7, 1986
page 21
ISSUE 3: PR~JUDICE ~O THE S?ECIFIC PLA~
Will approval of DR 329 prejudice the City's ability to
develop and to implement a Hospital Specific Plan?
In all due respect, the Planning Corrmission is much better
equipped than the Council to make this judgment provided that
they are supplied with the proper facts specific to the
project. Should the Council prefer to make that determinatlon
on its own at this time, I would agree entirely with the
appellant (although not necessarily for the reasons he seems
to suggest) and suggest that the answer to the above qJestion
(particularly in view of circumstances which have come to light
since the original Planning Co~ission hearing) is yes, co~-
pelling project denial.
The analysis of this one is unfortunately somewhat cowplica~ed,
but here goes.
As stated earlier, central to this analysis is the question of
whether t~e connectlng corridors which are already constructed
were done so validly.
In my opinion either of the two possible answers to that
question leads to the same conclusion at this point in ti~e.
~ven if the corridors were constructed validly, the appli-
cation for DR 329 is defective in that in misrepresents
conpletely the per~ission which is being sought, namely,
per~ission for release from the single condition imposed by
F~ 258, not permission to build corridors which already exist.
Appropriate action given that resolution to the key question is
therefore to deny the DR 329 application without prejudlce to
the applicant's subsequent filing of an application for per-
mission to change the use of an existing structure.
... --...;,... j
.".'''' ,"~-ilL~~ -JC 4:!..:~ ~T~~'-!7~,*rl't ~:..-=-- :- ~.._ir"--~;'> .
City Council
August 7, 1986
page 22
If, on the other hand, the corrldors have not been validly, or,
if you prefer, legally built, then the issue of whether they
should be constructed at all is properly before the Council at
this time (meaning that the permission sought by DR 329 is
appropriate, although it misrepresents the facts in seeking
such permission). If this is the case, I believe that, for
reasons to be outlined shortly, it is not possible to make a
determination of non-prejudice to the adoption and the
iIT-plerrentation of the Specific Plan at present and that
sustaining of the appeal and denial of the project is ttere-
fore in order.
After consideranle thought and analysis, it is my confirrr.ed
belief ~hat the existing corridors were not constructed validly
for the reasons that follow:
The Hospital Seisnic Safety Act of 1983, under the auspices of
whic~ the co~~ec~l~g corridors were b~ilt, is not preem?~ive
of :oca~ zo~i~g a~thor~ty in a~y regard other than enforce~ent
0= a state~icie ITlnl~U~ se~ of building standards. Although
the Act does ~o~ explicitly so sta~e, the Legislature only
eVlnces an inten~ to preer-pt local authority only for the
purpose of e:-:suring that hospltals are "designed and con-
structed ~o resist, insofa~ as p~acticalJ the fo~ces generated
by earthquakes, gravity, a~d winds." (Please see Attachment E
for an excerpt in relevant part of the Act.) This is
supported by the explicit language that it "is the intent of
the Leglslatu~e t~a~ where local jurisdiction have more
restrictive requ~rements for tte enforcement of building
standards, oL~er building regulations and construction
supervision, such requlrements shall be enforced by the
sta::e." Further support for this interpretation comes from
the actions of the Office of Statewide Health Planning and
Development in seeking written evidence of conformance to
..
....-".o=-'".&~~---
.~-~ ~;;:,~ooIIto.JIlR"""'''' r~- ,
- - ~
~.L-s iWt
City Council
August 7, 1986
page 23
local zoning requlrements (please see point 1 at the botto~ of
page 1 of Attachment G) .
The building permit included at the end of this letter as
Attachment I is thus only valid if the Ad~inistrative Approval
for AA 258 (included as Attachment H) was valid. I contend
that it is clea~ly invalid, reasonlng as follows:
Ignoring the technicality that the effective date written in
on it is November 25 of this year, not last year (this is one
of the less offensive instances of the enormous amount of
staff incompetence which has accompanied this case from Day
One), it was approved under Section 2(e) of Ordinance 1321
which requires that "the Director of Planning determines t~at
such developme:lt. is consistent with the General Plan "
Policy 1.13.1 of the Land Use ~le~ent of the Ge~eral Plan in
t~rn states, in pertinent part and with e~phasis mine, a
policy to "rflol~onl~a Citv adoDtior of Snecific Plans for tne
area co~prisi~g a~d ir~ediately s~rrounding each 'hospital
ca~pus', allc~ ex?a~sio~s of existi~g hospital buildi~gs and
const~uction of ~ew medical buildings in accordance with the
adopted Specific Plans.
develop~e~t ?rcposed by
n H mnr1; I .,... ~""~;cal-"""'o'at,<:>r'
. ..i1.: _~~ca 0_ ,,"yy_ _~_ ~'-"
eit~er hosnital Drio~ to Citv aDDyoval
- -
of ;~s r~~~~~r1'V~ ~~n~;~~r Pl~~ ~~~'l b,<:> QnbJ'e~t to Sl'~L.. P_
............ ...............~--'-'- "'- ......::----'-----..... -:;::..- ~_.__....... .....~....... ~ ~
review and shall be app~oved only if the development TIelther
prejudices ~he cievelo9ment and implementation of the Specific
Plans, nor ave~sely [sic] affects surrounding neighborhoods.
Neithe~ the S?ec~=~c Plans 0Qr a~y site review s~all be
adooted T,'lit::-.0''':'::. c'..:bllC he~ri~:::r.q."
- -
No chai~ of logic, no matter how irrational, leads to the
conclusion that the deterQination of consistency with Policy
1.13.1 re~Jired by Section 2(e) of Ordinance 1321 could have
been made in tLe case or ~_~ 258.
i
v- ~~.,."~.""........_~.,,r ~~_~~~~r_~ -~.~--l ~
city Council
August 7, 1986
page 24
Responding to a question from one of the Co~~issioners
following the conclusion of the public hearing on DR 329 on
July 7, the Acting Principal planner posited that hospital
connecting corridors do not constitute medical or medical-
related developnent provided that they contain no inter~a~
office space, and that therefore they are exempt from any
requirements for public hearings which may exist in Policy
1.13.1. On this basis she suggests that AA 258, for which no
public hearings were held, was validly approved.
Her reasoning is defective because 1) hospital connecting
corridors are medical or medical-related in nature; 2) even
were they not medical or med~cal-related in nature Policy
1.13.1 precludes AQ~inistrative Approval of non-~edical and
non-medical-related developme~t; and 3) eve~ if a literal
interpretation of the LDE Policy 1.13.1 per~itted such
Ad~inistrative Approval, it would be contrary to the whole
underlying approach lead~ng to 1.13.1's very existence. I
argue as follows:
1) Hospital cO~0ectir.g ccrrioors are ~edical o~ red~cal-
related in Dature.
Frankly, this seems obvious, bu~ since the Act~ng Principal
Planner feels otr.er~ise I'd best p=ese~t some arguments.
If a corrido= to con~ect ~wo ca2cer wa=ds so that doctors,
nurses, and other s~pport staff, ca~ get from patients in one
wing to patients ir. the othe= is~!~ medical-related develop-
ment, then I honestly can't ~rr.agi~e wha~ would be. All the
more so if the function of the cor=ldor is to transport
medical patients fron o~e facility to ar.other.
Furthermore, the State of Callfornia has determined that the
connector corridors are subject to the Hospital Seismic Safety
Act of 1983 (please see AttacTh~ent F), the purpose of which (as
"'-______........._~_ '. f ~~ .~'i- ~ ~ .
...- ~~ f
~ ...... R~~~- _.21
City Council
August 7, 1986
page 25
can be seen from the exce=pt appearing in Attachment G) is to
establish strict building standards for hospitals in that they
"house patier:ts vIno have less than the capacity of normally
healthy persons to protect themselves" and "must be reasonably
capable of providing services to the public after a disaster."
If a portion of a buildlng through which such patients and
such services are to be transported is not seen in light of
the applicability of this law to be medical or medical-
related, then that would be tantamount to saying that
hospitals themselves are neither medical nor medical-related.
A hospital connectir.g corridor constitutes med~cal-related
development, and it is patently absurd to suggest to the
contyary. ~ince ~~ 258 did not have the public hearir.gs
required by Policy 1.13.1 for redical-related developffient, i~
was invalidly issued.
2) Eve~ ~ere the hosoita! ccr~ecti~a corridors ~ct red~cal or
~edical-related ir nat~re,
Po' .; r".7 1 13 1 o....-">rl",...l.,,<:: 210'":1' n~ _<::-
..... -~y..: t t _ -.....Y Lo...........",.......- ..-............ --..---..,...
trative AODroval of ron-~edical arc r.on-~edical-rela~ed
develooment.
Observing the underscored portions of the excerpts of LUS
policy 1.13.1 appear:.r.g above, we see that "expa:lsior.s 0=
existing hospital buildir.gs" are perm.i.tted only .. [f] ollo...".i::g
City adoption of Specific Plans," .....hich has not yet occu~red
and certainly had not occurred at ~he time of the ap?licat~on
for AA 258. An exceptlon was made for med~cal or medical-
related develop~ent, on the appare~t t~eory tr.at lt iliight be
deleterious to the health care cOIT~unity if facil~tles
expansion necessitated by medical reasons were d~layed due ~o
the vagaries of the planning process.
No such exception from the provlsions of the Policy's initial
sentence is made for non-medical and non-medical-related
development. Hence, if the Acting Principal Planner is
, L"'~ ..---w
oL ~ l.r ill /i ~;,W'",,~ ..;~~ MI?:'i -
,
I .,-- .---"",-- ~". -l
, ,
City Council
August 7, 1986
page 26
correct in her s~ggestion that &~ 258 as conditioned did not
constitute medical development, she would be correct in
stating that no public hearlngs we~e required, but only
because no for~ of approval, Ad~instrative or otherwise, w~s
permitted Drier to Citv adoDtien of ~~e gosnital Area Soecifi..
Plan.
Thus, even under staff's interpretation of what is and isn't
medical-related, AA 258 is seen to be invalid.
3) Even if a li~eral inte~D~etatior of the LUS Policy 1.13.1
?e~~itted Adrinist~ative Approval of ~A 258, such an interpre-
t~tion cont~ary to the whole underlvina aDnroach leading to
1.l3.1's very existe~ce.
Observe that no Land Use Distric~ In the General ?la~ ot~er
than the C? District fails to set forth standards of develop-
ment. It is for that precise reason that Policy 1.13.1
intended that any developxent proceeding in advance of acoptio~
of the Specific Plan (which would establish those develop~en~
standards and fo~ which public hearings would be ~equirec) be
subject to public hearing, so that members or the co~munity
could present argu~ents as to what those future sta~dards of
development should be, or for that matter would be likely to
be.
The inescapable co~clusion exists that no rational basis
exists in support of the validity or A~ 258 insofar as
compliance with the General Plan is concerned.
Even if compliance with the General Plan were not a problem for
AA 258, compliance with other portions of Section 2(e) clearly
is. For one thing, no condition requiring review and approval
by the Architectural Review Board was imposed, as is required
by Section 2(e) (2). The Acting Principal Planner apparently
responds that Architectural Review Board Guidelines imple-
~- _---=-~~ 7w
..i&lli~~.~,.~.~"""",,__, ..-Or
~ i
~.' -j
....:-.1:~;.. ;
City Council
August 7, 1986
page 27
mented pursuant to Santa Monica Municipal Code 5 9510 (which
provides in relevant part that " . . . the Board. . ~ay
. . authorize the building officer or other official to
approve applications for building permits for minor or
insignificant development of property which would not defeat
the purposes and objectives of this chapter") exempted A...;' 258.
She is blatantly incorrect in this assertion for two reasons.
First, the current version of the Guidelines (the appropriate
page of which is included as Attac~~ent L) indicate that the
construction for AA 258 could not have been exempted frem
Architectural Review since the site fell within the Review
Districts created by section II but the project failed to fall
within the 2000 square fopt limit established by Section
III.A. (observe that the square footage count appearing on the
application for AA 258, included as Attachrent H, is 2636) .
Second, even if AA 258 were exe~pt from Architectural ~eview
pursuant to the guidelines, the require~ent for Architectura:
Review appearing in ~ 2(e) (2) of Ordinance 1321 specifically
supersedes the portion of the Municipal Code (5 9510) which
allows for such exemptions (please ~ote 5 6 of Ordina~ce 1321,
stating in pertinent part that "[a]ny prov~sion of the ~u~i-
cipal Code or ap?e~dices t~ereto inconsistent with the provi-
sions of this ordinance, to the extent of such inconsiste~cies
and no further, is hereby repealed or Modi=ied to that exteG~
necessary to effect the provisions of this ordinar.ce.").
No matter what, ~~ 258 had to orovide ror Archltectural ~evie~
as a Condition of Approval, and its failure to do so re~ders
it an invalid permit under Ordinance 1321.
Having thus established the invalidity of k~ 258, the present
existence of the connecting corridors for which development
permission is sought is seen to be invalid. AS such, the
~-,,:.-=i:~~~""~~Jlli.....- i\t.~4-~ -. ~-....~
.
~
,
.~;;~,~
City Council
August 7, 1986
page 28
Councll may now properly co~side~ whether such constyuct~on
should be perwitted.
As outlined earlier, the Development Review may be approved
only if it does not prejudice the development and ir.plemen-
tation or the Specific Plan. There are several reasons why
that conclusion cannot be reached at this time.
First, the St. John's Master Plan does not env~sion this
particular developrr.ent. As LUCE Policy 1.13.1 calls for the
Specific Plan to be developed following the submisslon of the
Hospital's Master Plans (which has already occurred), ttere lS
no reason whatsoever to believe that the Specific Plan will
permit suc~ development. Approval of DR 329 would prejudice
the Specific Plan othe~wise and therefore is contrary to the
language of 1.13.1. It should be further noted that a corrmon
denominator of the two Hospital p~ojects which have been
app~oved by the Planning COF~ission thus far since adoption or
the LUCE has been a finding that it was consistent with the
Master plan sucmitted by the appropriate Hospital (please see
Finding 6 appearing on page 2 of the Statement 0= Official
Action for DR 292, included as Attachment M; the other instance
is DR 321, for which no Statement of Official Action is as yet
available inasmuch as it was only approved last Monday night,
August 4). Such a findlng obviously cannot be reached in th~s
case, as it would be untrue.
Second, the St. John's Master Plan itself actually identifies
as one of its mandates: "Do not create a 'concrete jungle'
" (on page 9.9). As adding concrete connecting
corridors to concrete buildings will have precisely the
opposite effect, approval of DR 329 will prejudice the ability
of the City to implement this Master Plan goal in Specific
Plan development.
~ - -..;. ..k.--__...~~.. "'W -*r-~<;~-<o-~]"..l.L II-~I~__--
i
.~~~""'= - j
City Council
August 7, 1986
page 29
Third, during negotiations with St. John1s, the Mld-City nego-
tiating team cor~unicated (in a letter to Thomas P. Pyne dated
December 4, 1984) the impor~ance in the community's eye of
providing view corridors between buildings. The communlty po
doubt wishes to reserve the right to have this provision
incorporated into the Specific Plan, but approval of DR 329
will clearly have a prejudicial effect on the community1s
ability to do so at a later date.
Fourth, there has been considerable discussion within the
community that one of the most important aspects of the future
Specific Plan will be a provision proscribing all Hospital
development other than parking facilities until such ti~e as
the Hospitals resolve permanently their respective neighbor-
hood street parking deficits (which even St. John's concedes in
its Master Plan to be enormous). Continued granting of
permission for incremental development of the sort
conterrplated by DR 329, which provides an extremely
insignificant contribution to the resolution of the existing
parking deficit and may in fact exacerbate it, would operate
contrary to the implementation of such a likely Speclfic Plan
policy.
Fifth, a review of what can best be described as the "legis-
lative historyll of the evolution of LOE Policy 1.13.1 leads to
a conclusion that the only projects for which it intended
adoption prior to the Specific Plan's enactment were those
already being discussed at the time of the Policy's drafting
(August, 1984). These projects included a Medical Office
Buildlng develop~ent for each Hospital and a parking structure
for Santa Monica Hospital. No connector corridor projects
we=e envisioned, and hence none were intended to fall into the
site review category established by the last two sentences of
the Policy.
~
. . .
......;~d......~~...;-~~~~.JlWf.h.-~ -".P!. _. ~i7
.
~
.k~ I j
City Council
August 7, 1986
page 30
In light of all of the above, it is genuinely impossible to
make the finding of non-prejudice to the development a~d
iwplementation of the Hospital Specific Plan required by the
Land Use Element, and DR 329 must be correspondingly de~ied.
ISSUE 4: PUBLIC POLICY
Is approval of DR 329 at this time proper in view of the
behavior of the project applicant?
My inclination at the moment is to respond with an over-
whelming no.
The facts already outlined speak for themselves in this re-
gard, but for the Council's convenience, let me reiterate and
su~.arize t~em all in one place.
The applicant concealed t~e fact that the structure for which
permission was being soug~t to b~ild already existed, both in
the application to tte City itself and in its representative's
initial public testirr.ony before the Planning Commission.
The applicant concealed fro~ a team of community develop~ent
negotiators the filing of an application for a major con-
struction project last fall despite the fact that it was then
meeti~g with the negotiating tea~ on a weekly basis for the
express purpose of renegotiating, to the comnunity's detri-
ment, an already agreed-upon Master Plan.
The applicant then concealed from the community
representatives the undertaki~g of that construction project.
The applica~t then filed three major Development Review appli-
cations for projec~s involving the demolition or otherwise
removal of over two dozen units of neighborhood housing as
__ ~.;'otI",,--~~=-4:.-;..G..::'" ........._--~-"l'r.-
-~
.
,
,...a
City Council
August 7, 1986
page 31
well as the instant project without first informing the
community leaders.
The applicant then failed to notify community leaders of ~te
pending hearings on these projects until less than a week
before they were scheduled to be taken up by the Planning
Commission.
The applicant's representative then hornswoggled one corrmunity
representative (specifically me) into both supporting the
instant application and speaking favorably on be~alf of the
applicant at a maJor plan~ing workshop by providing false and
misleading information w~th regard to the history or the
application.
The applicar;t offers no expla~ation for submitting connector
corridor plans identifying ce.:-tain spaces as "Open Office
Area" to the City last Nove>nber, being told that no portions of
the facility could be used for office purposes without
Planning Co~~issio~ review of the project, and then waiting
until after co~str~ctio~ of the corridors ~as cOMcleted before
seeking such Planning Corr~ission =evie~.
If, under these circumsta~ces, you can approve this project in
light of all the other quest~ons ~aised regarding its legiti-
macy, than you are more unde~standlng than I.
ISSUE 5: Sv:?ICISNCY 0: CO~~ISSION ACTION
Were the Findings and Cond~~ions adopted by the Planning
Commission, whateve~ they may have been, sufficient for the
purposes of approval of DR 329, pa~ticularly in the areas of
parking provision?
This is a real obvious no.
-+-'.~
___~~'Wo.-I~~:IIl._iJ.~
.
~"'~if Ii-- ..:~. . 4
City COl;ncil
August 7, 1986
page 32
As previously analyzed in Issue 1, it is hard to know where
one should look to find evidence of the Commission's actlon,
which is why the appeal is most app~opriately stayed untll
such time as the Planning COIT~ission is able to articulate 1LS
Findings and Conditions. Certainly the draft Statement of
Action is inadequate to the extent that it fails to make the
findings required by LUE Policy 1.13.1 (non-prejudice to the
developroent and implementation of the Specific Plan and non-
adversity of effect upon surrounding neighborhoods), ins~ead
making a rather vague finding of non-prejudice to the ado?tio~
of the Hospital Specific Plan with no supportive evidence 0=
reasoning clted (supportive evidence or reasoning is seen to
be necessary by the holding in Broadway. Laguna. Valle~Q ~ssr~
v. Soard of PerTi~ A??eals of City and County of Sa~ F=2~C~$~J.
427 p.2d 810, 59 Cal. Rptr. 146, 66 Cal. 2d 767).
Additionally, as the appellant rightly points out, the par~i~g
Condition of Approval (appearing in the draft State~ent of
Official Action as Speclal Condit~on 2) is woef~lly i~ace-
quate. Not only lS the stated condition not a g~a~~atica~ly
correct sentence, at least not in the English la~g~age,
rendering it somewhat arrbiguous in meaning, but also it fails
to carry out certain rrandates of the existing zoning cede (fo=
which I believe staff is ~o~e properly to bla~e than the
Commission) .
It appears to suggest that three parking s?aces leased OFF-
site will be adequate for the DR 329 project. Looking ~o t2e
relevant Municipal Code sections, ~ 9129F1.B esser.~ial~y
requires that one space be required for every thr~e hundred
square feet of Adjusted Floor Area. ~ 9102 states that
"Adjusted Floor Area is the net floor space in a struct.ure and
shall include . . . interior . . . hallways and corridors and
the like . "Combined with the 2572 square feet
identified as being the Floor Area to be added in the DR 329
-~---
","'\ill'" ~ f~-U--~ -L~ a.L.............. .-..
.
,
. ":!. ~
~: j,
--- ~...,.-
:m..s- ~_
City Cou!1cil
August 7, 1986
page 33
application (Attachment J) we arrive at a total need for nine
spaces.
Furt~eYmore, from 5 9129A we see that the parking cannot be
located off-site without restriction, as the draft Special
Condition 2 appears to contemplate. "The minimum number of
off-street parking spaces required for use of a lot or bU1I-
ding site . . . shall be located on said lot or bUllding site,
or may be located off of said lot or building site, provided
(1) the oropertv on which oarkir.a soaces are Dyovided is owrec
- - ~ --
in tee by the owney-in-fee of the lot or buildina site ~hich
is $vbject to the ~9r<ing s~ace re~uiYe~ents. and (2) $~id
property is located withir. 1.000 feet of the peri~eter Q= tte
lot Qr bvi1ding site ?r.o co~~erces within 300 feet of $~id
perimeter."
Legal arguments aside, in view 0= the enorffiOUS ?aY~l~g deficit
already acknowledged in the St. John1s Hos?ital ayea and in
light of the past failure of off-site parking arra~gerer.~s by
area hospitals (please see pOlnt 2 on page three of Paula
Carabelli's April 24, 1984 Status Report to the Plannir.g
Commission, included as Attachment N and noting aba!1donment 0=
120 off-site leased spaces by Santa Monica Hos?ital due ~o
employee non-usage), this condition is, as the ap?ella~t
points out, clearly inadequate.
A more appropriate condition would have been to ma~date the
provision of nine spaces to be leased in the Held ?aYki~g
Structure, located on the Hospital campus on land ow~ed by the
Hospital.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECO~~lENDATIONS
Based upon the foregoing I respectfully request that the Clty
Council
i>-__---' /I..
.. ..~ :~ ~.-~~..!ll'IIi[;i.f-v-~~.~-- ~
.
-' .
,-~ ~~
, .
City Council
August. 7, 1986
page 34
1) Stay the appeal of DR 329 pending legitl~ate Planning
Cox~~ssion adoption of a State~ent of Official Action. Or,
as a slig~tly less acceptable alternative,
2) Remand the appeal of DR 329 to the Planning Commission for
rehea~ing, with the following directions:
a) The Commission is to reevaluate the project following
receipt of a staff report which includes a detailed
history of the project, including documentation
demonstrating how its present existence ca~e to be;
b) The Commission is to evaluate the project to see if a
finding of non-prejudice to the develop~ent and
implementation of the Hospital Specific Pla~ can be
made as well as a finding of non-adverse effect upon
s~rrounding neighborhoods, and, if so, to artic~~ate
its flndings;
c} The Co~mission is to evaluate the project or. the
assuITption that the permit issued for &~ 258 does not
in fact grant the applicant a legitiwate entitle~ent to
use and construction of the existing corridor;
d) In approving or denying the project the COITDission lS
to adopt findings and conditions consistent with its
action and with the reality that the present improve-
ments do exist, unless the Commission deterilllnes that
they in fact do not exist;
e) In approving or denying the project the Cowmission
shall adopt its findings, and, if appropriate, con-
ditions, by a substantive vote; and
f) In reevaluating the project the Co~~ission shall pay
particular attention to the parking requirements of the
Municipal Code.
.~-
.
""""",,,-~~"'~i,___-:-:-~~~~--j
City Council
August 7, 1986
page 35
Or, as a considerably less acceptable alternative;
3) Sustain the appeal and deny the applicatio~ for DR 329, on
grounds or lnability to make the findings required by
Policy 1.13.1 regarding developwent and impleme~tation of
the forthcorring Spec~fic Plans; or on grou~ds of nis-
leading, untruthful, impyoper, and otherwise disdain~ul
conduct by the applicant; or on grounds that the appli-
cation as submitted does not properly seek abandonment of
the single condition imposed by AA 258 and ~ay the=efore be
refiled if properly constructed; or by virtue of any
corrbination of the above.
Finally, I wo~ld respectfully request that the Council direct
?lann.:..ng staff
1) To include comp~ete backgrour.d histories of all relevant
applications in project staff reports;
2) Not to O~lt details fron staff reports such as whether or
no~ a project be~ng cons~dered has already been b~ilt;
3} Not to approve any proJects in the CP zone ministerially
unt~~ after adoption of the Specific Plan, but instead to
resuire P~anGing Commission review;
4) To rescind ~~ 258;
5) To include rad~us-of-notification waps in all staff
reports;
6) Not to place ite~s which require public hearings on the
Pla~~i~g Co~~ission Consent Calendar; and
~_.... '"'-'- .:;..;;.....-........~.~~~"""""~~-:w
.- _ - t
----........-.1:~
City Council
August 7, 1986
page 36
7) To require Architectural Review of all Sectlon 2(e) items
approved pursuant to Ordinance 1321.
Sincerely,
[Ulj 1lU(' ,
William F. Weingarden
...~!:.- -~
~ --.E'=-- --- ______
___-___ -I'~~ o..A.~T ~-~.:"~~J:;,-&L.:::1II-T ~
.-_..,~~___---L-:-~_
~TTt1(JtmdVT
It
STATEME~T OF OFFICIAL ACTION
PROJECT
NUI-IBER: DR 329
LOCATIO~: 1328 22nd Street
APPLICA~T: St. John's HospLtal and Eealth Cente~
REQUEST: Addltlon of a 2,572 sq. ft. Connector BU11dlng to
JOln the EXlstlng West W~ng and South Wlng at St.
John's Hospltal anG Health Center
PLfu~~IKG COMMISSIO~ ACTION
7-7-86
Date.
x
Approved based on t11e follo'vlng flndl:lgs ar:.ct
subject to the cond~tlons below.
Dernee.
Other.
FINDINGS
1.
The development lS conSls~eii<:' Wl. tr. the f::..r.dl ;'.:::S
pose of Ord~nance 132l as set forth below.
Cl.1~-
....
2.:1':'
2. The physlcal locatlon and placeme~t of proposed st~uctures
on the slte are compatlble wlth and relate har~onlously to
surroundlng sltes and ne~ghborhoods 1n tha~ the 2,572
sq. ft. connector/walkway w1ll be lccated completely wlthln
St. John's Hosp1tal and Medlcal Ce~ter ca~pus and wlll be
deslgned to be conpatlble wlth eXlstlDg ca~pus bu::..lclngs.
3. 'The eXlstlng and/or proposed :"lghts-of-wz.y and ::acJ.l::..tl=:;S
for both pedestrlan and automOGl1e trafflC -,.nll be ade-
quate to accomI;loda te the ant..lC lpa ted res~l ts of t:-:e pl""O-
posed development lncluclng off-street park~,-s faCllltles
and access thereto ln that three par'<l..ng places wlll be
leased off Sl.te.
4. The eX1stlng and/or proposed publlC and/or prl.vate health
and safety facl1ltles (lncludlng, but not Ilmlted to,
sanltatlon, sewers, storm dralns, flre protectlon devices,
protectl.ve serVlces, and publlC utl1ltl.es) Wl.11 be ade-
quate to accommodate the anticipated result.s of the pro-
posed development.
1
__...~~ .....s--..c.~~..!II1 A'" -"'\Al! ~1S
CoG
~
1
, ~
_ 8~.~~ ~A~~j
ITrffK IT mtJJf 4
5. The proposed development lS conslstent wl-:.h the General
Plan of the Clty of Santa Monlca and the Zonlng OrGlnanCe
In that the proJect wlll not preJudlce the adoptlon of th~
P.OSpl tal Speclflc Plan speclfled In the Land Use Element
of the Gene:-al Plan and con forms to the appropr 1a te CP
standards conta1ned 1n the Zonlng Ord1nance
SPECIAL CONDITIONS
1.
The Archltectural ReVlew Board, 1n the1r reVl8W, shall
partlcular attentlon to the scale and art~c~lat1on
deslgn elements, exterlor colors, textures, materlcls
w1ndow treatrrent to lnsure lts compatlblllty w1-:.h the
lst~ng hosp1tal bU1ld1ngs.
pay
of
and
ex-
2. Three park~ng spaces shall be prov1ded for th1S new addl-
t10n wlll be leased off slte.
STANDARD COKDITIO~S
1. MlDor ar.endffients to the plans shall be subJect to approval
by the Dlrector of Plannlng. An lncrease of more than 10%
of the square footage or a s~gnlflcant change l~ the ap-
proved concept shall be sub J ect to Plannlng COIT..:i11SS10n
ReVlew. Construction shall be In substantlal confor~ance
W1 th the plans SUb!Tl1 t ted Or as rr'OCl. fJ.. ed by the Plannlng
CO~~lsslon, Archltectural Revlew Board or Dlrec~o::- of
Planrllng.
2. The r1ghts gra~ted hereln shall be effectl '.Ie only 'N'len
exe:rclSec. w:. trnn a pen.od of one yea::- f:!:"o;r- t0e effectl ve
date of approvcl. upon the wrLtten request of the a?pll-
cant, the Sl:cec-:.or of Plannlng ray extend th~s pe::::-loc up
to an addlLlonal 51X rnontts.
3. The appll.cant shall corrply ,.nth all legal req:ll::-err,e"lts
regardlng prOV1S1ons for t..he d1sabled, lnclud:..ng those set
forth 1.n tl-..e Cal1torrua Adrnrllst::-atlve Code, T.l.tle 24,
Part 2.
4.
Refuse are2.S,
be screer.ed
Refuse areas
need.
storage areas
1:1 accordance
shall be of a
and ~echanlcal eq~lpment shall
w1th Sec. 9127J.2-4 (SYMC).
Slze adequate to ~eet cn-slte
5. ThlS deter~lnaLlcn shall not become erfect1ve for a perlod
of twenty days fror. the daLe of determlnatlon or, 1f ap-
pealed, ur.t:l a flnal deteru1natlon lS made on the appeal.
- 2 -
-"-... ~-~~*~
--If" -
~-..IE<-_....a.r,;Utilr.;-"""'ii
-,
1
-~---~
ATTA C (1 rnuJr ~
VOTE
Ayes:
Nays:
Abstaln:
Absent:
Farlvar, Hebald-Heyuann, Israel, Perl~ar
Hecht, Klrshner, Shearer
I hereby certlfy that thlS Statement of
accurately reflects the flnal determlnation
COrnrnQssion of the City of Santa Monica.
Qff1C1al Actlon
of the Plannlng
slgna~ure
Q'--o
c.,-~
prlnt nallie and tltle
KR:nh
Sl'DR329
07/24/86
- 3 -
;-~~ !
-..... .....--"~-..._.....--.:~l~~ ~-~ I-~~-.a- To!JJ.:"-'1~:owj:::.....c~"-"-~"'''- ~.~ . J
~ TfA cKrnfrVT - B
Willia~ F. Welrgarden
1234 Seventeenth Street
San~a ~on1caf CA 90404
August I, 1986
Suzarlne Frick
Acting Principal Planner
Santa ~onica City nail
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Dear rv1s. Frick:
Please be advised that after considerable reflection and some
legal research I have come to t~e conclusion that, despite the
presen~e or so~e appearances to ~he contrary, the Planning
CO~ulssion falled ~o adopt valldly a Statenent of Official
Action fo~ DR 329 las~ Monday nig~t, ~~gust 4.
I accord~ngly therefore inplore you not to include any such
Statexe~~ in tr.e Councilmerbers' packets (slated for distribu-
~l'~n ~o~~y) -r.n ~o~ ~o ~~o~~so~r l'n tn~ staFT reDo~t o~ tno
<- v L. '-"'- c: .~. ". ~ L. . - ~_ - ~ ~_. - . !.~ . - - _ - ..: ~
DR 329 a??ea~ t~a~ sucn a s~a~ese~t was aoopted.
Additionally, I respectfully req~est that staff ad~inistraLlvely
continue t~e corresponding appeal tearing presen~ly scheduled
for next Tuesday evening unt~l suc~ tlme in the future as the
Pl . ,.... . ,. ~ . dl d ~ d ~ . f t'
annlng ~c~n~ss~on nas vaLl y a cpL.e a staL.eGen~ 0 ne
action which it has taken on this p~oject, so that the Councll
may have in its pcsseSSlon a recorc of such action at the time
it considers the rratter.
Following a su~~ary of the relevant facts I wlll offer several
arguments In sup?ort of MY contention that the Statement of
Official Ac~ion has yet to be va:idly aco9ted.
S ll:.~Y.::":s. y
(!~
v_
~;-',CTS
On July 7, 1986, ~he Plann~ng Cc~mlssion approved DR 329 on a
four-three vote (Co~~lssiorers Israel, Perlman, Farivar, and
Hebald-HeYToar~ a?prOvlng; Conmissioners Hecht, Kirshner, and
Shearer opposing) with a direc~lon to staff to make several
explicit revisions to the suggested Findings and Conditions
appearing ln tha~ night's staff report and to return them for
adoption by the Comwission at a subsequent meeting.
~
'j
. -o'~ ~ -j
~,:y~~~",~--*-, '" :r;: ill*" ~~. -~~~ ,;;..-... ....;::&3.;. :'i-::.~~.
.;........-~--Jl.__..6-L
t'
Suzanne Frlck
August 7, 1986
page 2
I1TrA-crif1lLJUT b
Staff returned a set of Findings and Conditions fo~ the Co~-
mission's review last Monday night, August 4. Commissioners
Hecht and Farivar were absent, and durlng the time intervenlng
since July 7, Cowmissione~ Hebald-Hey~ann had been replaced by
newly-appointed Co~missior;er Burns.
The Findings and Condltions drafted by staff a~d appea=ing on
the August 4 Consent Calenda~ neither ca~ried out the Com-
mission1s explicit directions regarding revisions nor reflected
their actual decision, based upon the substance of their dis-
cussion immediately following the July 7 public hearing (please
see my attached letter to the Planning Commission dated
August 4, paying special attention to the second and third
parag~aphs appearing on page two thereof) .
Following the Corr~ission's receipt of a letter by this author,
Co~missioner Shearer renoved the Adontion of the Statement of
Official Action from the Consent Cale~dar, stating that he was
doing so because it did not reflect the COITmissionts apparent
asseSSDent on July 7 that the subject connector corridors had
already been built.
COT~issioner Perl~an sugges~ed that tenses of certain verbs in
various of the 2indings and Co~ditiors be altered to reflect
this reality. Conrr-issioner Is~ael then made remarks to the
effect that, although errors may have been made a~ the July 7
meeting, the Staterent of Offic~2~ Ac~ion should duplicate such
errors.
Comrrissioner Shearer suggested ttat it would be acceF~able to
h~m to adont the Drcoosed Stateme~t of Offlcial Action provlded
that the Co~n~ssion d~rected that wV co~ments were to be
forwarded to the City Council along-with it. Con~issioner
Israel fo~nd this unacceptable, belleving that it would i~part
some sort of official Conmission im?ri~atur to QY allegations
that tte Staterr.ent of O=ficial Actlon was defective.
Followina an off-the-cuff ooinion bv Deoutv Clty Attornev Horne
that adcPtlon of a Staterrent of Official Action was no~ a
substantive actlO~ and therefore did not require a ~aJority
vote of the full COT~ission, COilmissioner Israel offered a
motion, seconded bv CO~~lss~or.er ?er~ITan, to adopt the staff-
drafted State~ent.- T~e mo~ion falled on a two-three vote
(Co~missioner~ Israel and ?erlman voting yes; Comn1ssioners
Burns, Shearer, and Kirshner vot~ng no). The CO~~lSSlon then
proceeded to the next item on ltS age~da.
Immediately after the conclusion of Item 7-A, Commissioner
Burns offered a motion to reconsider her vote on "Item Six."
Corrrr:tissioner Israel then pror'1pted her to say "6-C, " although my
recollection is that she in fact never quite corrected herself,
"
...,,;;.~ ~ ~~ - . -~~-~ ~...--
.
, .
....~ j
. ~1II wwi: ~- ~~ ,,~ -'~f!I
Suzanne Frlck
August 7, 1986
page 3
/rTTftLftfl7f:JJT
f3
lf that was legitlmately her intent~on. Com~issioner Perlman
seconded, and wlthout any discussion, the COffiffilsslon voted
three-two In favor of reconsideration.
Com~iss~oner Israel i~mediately moved adoption of Iten 6-C, and
Commissloner Perl~an again seconded. The roll was called
without discussion. Arter some hesitation bv Corr~issloner
Burns (who had voted unequlvocally during the roll callan Iter.
6-C earlier in the evening), Commlssioner Israel prompted her
by saying the word "yes." She im.'11ed1ately voted yes, as did
Commissioners Israel and Perlman; Commissioners Shearer and
Kirshner voted no.
The above circumsta~ces do not constitute an Adoption of a
Statement of Official Action, for each and every of the
following reasons:
REASON~' $UBSTAN?IVEN~S~
Contrary to Mr. Ho=ne's opinion, the adoD~lon of t~e Statement
of Official Action under these ci~cuxstances is substantive,
meaning that Commissione~ Israel's second ~otion to acopt
failed to neet the voting standard for passage lmposed by ~ule 2
of Resolution Nurrber 85-001, the Rules of O~de~ and Procedure
for the conduct of Planning Co~mission meetings. The per.ding
matter, specifically, adoption of the Sta~e8ent of Offlcial
Action, was therefo~e dee~ed auto~atically denied.
Although it seems to me obvious on its face tha~ adcptlon of
Staterrents of Official Actlon is a substa~tive ratter, I shall
offer several argur.ents, legal and logical, to counte~ Mr.
Horne's claims to the contrary.
Section 4(c) of Ordinance 1321 (CCS) prOVlces In relevan~ part,
with e~phasis mipe, that "[i}n approvlng, conditionally
approving, or disapproving of an application, the Planni~g
Comrnission .. .. .. shall make \v"ri tten flndings of fac~ . . _ II
Additionally, Section 4(b) provldes that following Co~mlssion
conditional acproval of an aco1ication, "r~l~~tte~ notlce of
such decision: i~cludinq fird~ras of f~ct i~ S~Dcor~ 0: SU~
decisio~, shall be provided to the appllcant arod 2??ropriate
city officials."
Controlling authority exists in California deeming the promul-
gation of such written findlngs of fact--and consequently in
this case the adoption of the Statement of Offlcial Action--to
be a substantive matter. "The presumption that an adminis-
trative agency's rulings rest on the necessary findings and
that such findings are supported by substantial evidence does
not apply to 9gencies which must ex~~esslv state their flndinas
;
-~ -i
......--."....,........_~~...IIIM .':..=--:."':':~-4~~:rJOl.:"1';.. -~ ":11~~~ ~...~~:P;~~lJ
j
Suzanne Frick
August 7, 1986
page 4
ArfffLH !V(tNi f;,
and f1ust set forth the relevant suonort i ve fact s." Broac'.4av,
Laouna, Vallejo Ass'n v. Boa~d of Permlt Appeals of City and
Cou~tv of S~n Fr~r.cisco, 427 P.2d 810, 59 Cal. Rptr. 146,
66 Cal.2d 767 (er.phasls mlne) .
Further~ore, the decision in PQranount Roc< CQ, v, San Diego
Countvr 15 Cal. Rptr. 7, 194 Cal. App. 2d 409, clearly
identifies actions such as last Monday's as the adop~ion of
Findings of Fact (as opposed to some sort of procedural
ratification of findings which had already been adopted) .
Pattersor v. Central Coast Regional Coastal Zo~e Conservation
Commlssion, 130 Cal. Rptr. 169, 58 Cal. App. 3d 833, holds that
the adoption of findings requires the same voting standard as
permit approvalr in this instanccr four votes. This standard
clearly was not met, and so the Findlngs of Fact, and conse-
~Jently the Staterrent of Official Action, were not adopted.
Lest it be clai~ed that Mor.dav's action did not sowehow contem-
plate actual adoption of Fir.dings of Factr perililt me to point
ou~ that tne motion to_approve DR 329 last July 7 specizlcally
directed staff to p=epare Findings and Conditions and to re~urn
them to the Commission for ado?tion. Frcm P~~te=$or ~e see that
such adoptlon did not occur.
Legal arguments asider as a strictly logical matter i~ can be
seen that it is ludicrous to pe~Ti~ State~ents of Actio~ to be
adopted with less than a substa~tive vote. Consider the fol-
lowing hypothetical situation:
Suppose a project had bee~ dee~ed approved by a fo~r-~hree vote
and that two of the approvlng Co~nissioners were abse~t from the
reeeting at which adoption of a State~ent of Offic~al Action was
to be considered. If a vote of fewer than four Corr~issio~e=s
were required to adopt a StateMent of Official Action, it would
be perfectly possible that the three dissenting Cc;missio~e=s
could collectively ~uster the votes for a StateTent reflecting
denial by outvoting the only two project pro?onents present.
Under Rule 6 of Resolution Number 85-001 (incorporatlng Rule
12{g) of Resolution Nu~ber 7212 (CCS) by reference), it would
more than likelv be a vear before a State~ent of Offlc~al
Action reflectlng the actual project a?proval be adopted. T~lS
of course could occur after the appeals per~od to the Cou~cll
(which runs from the original declsio~ da~e) had ex?ired,
meaning that the project applicar.t would be effectively delayed
for one year from getting Architectu=al Review, Building Per-
mits, etc. bv the variety of City officials receivlng erroneous
wrltten notices of decisions per-Ordinance 1321 Sectlon 4(b).
Although the situatlon described in the preceeding paragraph is
no doubt sufficiently ridiculous to illustrate the senselessness
of approaching the adoption of Statements of Offlcial Action as
r_--';'-t;.. ...-.....~-..,,~Mfwll'{ .~.~-'~...~~~.~---
.
,
.-~-^ J
"
Suzanne Frick
August 7, 1986
page 5
~TTft eft IliAIT p
being non-substantive, the legal arguments cited previously are
manifest, ard the conclusion is lnescapable that no Statement of
Official Action for DR 329 was adopted, even upon reconsidera-
tion, last Monday night.
REASCN 2: I~NA~IDITY OF NEW CO~~ISSION3Rrs VOTE
As pointed out in my attached August 4 letter to the Co~~ission,
Co~~issioner Burns, who had not attended the July 7 meeting, had
not listened to the Public Hearing, and had neither observed
nor audlted the Co~~ission's deliberations and actions that
evening, was not in the remotest position to sit in judgment on
the accuracy of the draft Statement of Official Action as a
reflectlon of the events actually transpiring on July 7. Since
Statements of Official Action must by necessity confor~ to
reality (this should be manifest, although case law certainly
exists to support it), Commissioner Burns had no way of knowing
wnat the "reality" of the matter was, and any votes whlch she
may have cast (other than abstentions) on motio~s to adopt such
statements were improper. ~
The impropriety and invalidity of such votes by non-presen~
COIT~issioners is i~plicit in the P9~ar.o~pt Ro~k decision, cited
above. Additionally, past action by COITmissioners is lndicative
in this regard, incl~ding action as recently as earlier in the
meeting last Monday night with respect to the itens appearing
as 5-A and 5-3 on the agenda.
Even were the matter of adootion of the Statement of Official
Action pan-substantive, the- invalidity of Commissioner 3urns's
vote renders the vote tally on either of the two motions to
adopt a two-two tie, which ~nder Rule 6 of Resolution Nu~ber 85-
001 (incorporating by reference Rule 22 of Resolution Number
7212 (CCS)) represents a lost motion. By this line of rea-
sonina, it is aaain seen that no State~ent of Offlcial Action
was adopted. oJ
BEASON 3. IPCC~PETE~C~ OF NSW CO~~IS$IO~3~'S VOT~
Even we=e it proper for Co~~issioner Burns to vote on a State-
ment of Official Action regardlng a meeting which she had not
attended, she was quite clearly incapable of doing so in a
competent fashion last Honday evening. Despite voting "no"
unequivocally when the question was flrst called, she later
appeared to request that her vote be reconsidered, offering no
reason for so doing. Upon reconsideratlon, she hesitated during
the roll call and voted only after belng prompted how to vote
by Commissioner Israel.
_~L_-j;~",~"';':.---"j~_~~""
!
~
- . f.o;;.<.=-:.1
.... ---.
- ~~-<v-='-~ ~ >~;i.
, ,
Suzanne F~ick
August 7, 1986
page 6
~ rrr1CJt Il7tNr g
My conclusion is that she didn1t have the slightest idea what
she was votlrg on either ti~e the question was called. As suc~,
her vote canno~ be regarded seriously and should not be tallied,
resulting in a tie vote and a failure to adopt via the reasoning
at the conclusion of the previous section.
Perhaps the Council will be more ca~eful with its appointments
next time around.
REASON 4:
INVALIDITY OF MOTION TO RECO~SIDSR
Even if Cow~issioner Burns's vote and the voting staDdard were
sufficiently legiti~ate the second time the question was called,
the motion to reconslder the question was invalld, meaning that
the original two-three failure or the Motion to adopt the
Statement of Official Action is the prevailing resolution or
the matter as of the present tlwe. The motion to reconsider was
invalid with respect to item 6-C for several reasons.
First, COIT~issioner Burns actually moved to reconsider her vote
on Item 6, not Item 6-C. Althouah COT~lssioner Israel inter-
jected "6-C" as she VIas stating her motion, his re:narks ......ere out
of order and he was incapable of making a ITotion to reconsider
the vote since he had not been on the prevailing side of ~he
vote (Rule 6 or Resolution N~rr~er 85-001, incorporating by
reference Rules 12(c) and 12{g) of Resolution Nurr~er 7212 (CCS)
respectively). The vote taken therefore was one to reconsider
Ite~ 6, which was adoption of the Consent Calerda~. Com-
m~ssioner Israel's i~mediately subsequent ITotion ~o adopt Iten
6-C was therefore out of order, or, alternatively, CCnMlssioner
Burns's casting or a vote otner than that which she cast
earlier in the evening represented a violation of Rule 23 or
Resolution Number 7212 (CCS) (incorporated by refere~ce by Rule
6 of Resolution Number 85-001). Either interpretatlon
inval1dates the results of the second calling of the ques~ion
and lets stand the results obtained earlier in the evenlng,
namely, a failure to adopt the Stater-ent of Officlal Action.
Even if the motion to reconsider had been regarding Iten 6-C,
it failed for lack of four votes, since a motion to reconsider
is itself a substantive motion. This seems clear due to the
General Co~~ent which precedes Resolution Number 85-001, stating
that "for purposes of consistency, clarity and con.;..enience,
these rules are patterned after the City Council Rules of Order
and Procedure, and in fact incorporate major sections thereof
by reference." Rule 12(g) regarding motions to reconsider is
one such section directly incorporated into the Plann~ng
Commission rules, and the motion to reconsider procedure set
forth therein is in turn governed by the clause conta~ned in
Rule 2 to the effect that "[e]xcept as otherwise provided in the
~
-, "
-__~___q.ji("~.".?'~ ..,;"11, _<tt-iliii.o;;" 'c.E~j
Suzanne FricI(
August 7, 1986
page 7
It TTfJCJfW T fS
Charter, or by law, action taken by the City Counc~l shall be
taken by a majority vote of the entire me~bership of the Clty
Council."
Ironically, one of the Commissione~s berefiting from the bogus
reconslderation clearly agrees with me that reconsideration is a
substantive matter. Kindly observe that portion of the proposed
Rules for Reconsideration appearing in Commissioner Israel's
July 30 letter to Ann Slracusa, suggesting that "[a] ~otion to
reconsider is substantive, and hence requires four votes to
carry."
Since the reconsideration motion failed by virtue of not
reaching a substantive vote standard, the or~ginal vote on Ite~
6-C was not properly reconsidered, and, by the reaso~ing a?-
pearing above, no Statement of Official Action was adopted.
CO~CLVSIONS AND RSCO~~E~DATIO~
Under any or a~l of a variety of theories outlined above, the
?la~~inG CO~li~ssion has failed to adoot a Statement of Official
Action on DK 329. It therefore seems~ appropriate that you not
include the draft considered by the Conmission last Eonday in
the Co~ncilrs packets for Dex~ Tuesday. Additionally, the
. - - ., ~ 32 ' 1 d 1 1 . , .
s~arr report on tne ap?ea~ or DR 9 snou~ c ear y l~alca~e
that no S~atelent of Official Action has been adopted. Las~ly,
it see~s loglca~ that the hearlng on the appeal of DR 329 be
adlinis~rative~v cO~~lnued ur.til such time as a State~ent of
0_-. . 1 A -1...' . , ., .
:::=lCla_ 'C-c2.or: .r:.as Deer!. adoptea so that tne COUDCl.l ray have In
f "'- -.. , .. . -, d" h ,
ron~ or l~ a c~ear lDOlcatlon or wnat eC1Slon t.e P~annl~g
COTh~isslon reached last July.
Ve~y Co~dially Yours,
,~~L~ ~ 1;ei(Qc
~"!' ,...,..--~ '"
~
- ,
.~ - 0 - ~ ....~ i~____01 ~~~ j
""""~~ --=- do.&. ~~-~*o;t ,~ ~ ~~L" f'" AiW.ilt~""
frriftC H!fI{juJ C
william F. Weingarden
1234 Seventeenth Street
Santa Monica, CA 90404
August 4, 1986
The Honorable PlannlDg COTh~ission
Santa Monica City Hall
1685 Main Street-
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Dea~ Co~missione=s:
I offer this as an individual for the Commission's consideration
in its prospectlve adoption of the Statement of Official Action
for DR 329, appearing on tonight's agenda as Item 6C.
I do DOL herein take issue with the wisdom of the action which
the Cor.risslon has already taken with respect to this particular
project, merely wit~ whether the draft Staterrent of Official
Action is tr~ly reflective 0= the action which was taken. I
respectfully suggest ttat it is r.ot.
It was ~? d~Stl~ct ~ndersta~d~na tha~ those Comrissiorers voti~g
on July 7 to approve this project did so in the belief that
co~structio~ 0= the exterior of tne connector buildina in
q~estion had already been co~pleted, following testimony to
that effect from staff as well as from members of the public
during the course of the public hearing. If my understandlng
is in fact correct, then the Corr~issioners $Dould adoDt a
fi~ding to t~2t effect and eli~inate language appearing in any
of the otney p~oposed find~~gs and conditio~s WhlCh may be
inconsistent with that belief.
:INJ:!:t-;G 2
One suc~ lnco~siste~cy appears ir Fir.dir.g 2, WhlCh in lts
p~esent forw states tha~ the "connector/walkway wlll O~ located
. . . and will be deslg:1ed . . . " (emphasis m1Pe), expressly
iwplying that it does not yet exist, contrary to what appeared
t~ be the Commission majorlty's determination four weeks ago.
Ir the CO~illission wishes this flnding to conform with the
decision whic:-t ~t actually reached, these two "will be"s should
be replaced fo"/ith "is" and "has been" respectively.
J ~ .ik.--.J"b ~-":'l.L_ -..a-d.- -'~. ~~.~...-~~---.... ~._.
, _.-~'--j
,:'...> ~, .
. . ~ rff)Ol mE-NT C
planning Co%~ission
August 4, 1986
page 2
Additionally, I respectfully point out that this finding con-
fuses the na~es of the City's two hospitals, and ttere~ore, for
the sake of clarity, the Corrunission should change "St. John's
Hospital and Hedical Center" to the institution's actual f'arne,
"St.. John's Hospital and Health Center."
FIND!NG 5
Here staff has failed to implement properly the direction,
WhlCh the Corrmission included lD its motion to approve thlS
project, to modify the language appearing in the original staff
report. Although staff has succeeded insofar as addi~g a
reference to a flnding of non-prejudice of the adoption of the
Hospital Specific Plan is concerned, it is ~y distinct
recollection that the Co~mission articulated a reason for
reaching that finding. Such reason should be included in the
Statement of Official Action.
If my mexory serves me well, the Corrmlssion adop~ed a reason
for making thls findi~g WhlCh I had sGggesLed dur~~g my i~itial
three minutes of testiTony. T~ose Connlsslo~ers wno voted for
-p~~oval o~ ~~~ oro~~~~ s~ould a~d ~~~- re~~o~ ~o ~in~lng 5
c. ..t:::- ..!... L..~....__ "'" -, .Jc-,'- .i._ - ~ ';.Jo.;__,:) ,_ _.::J ".. L.. ... '-'---..
berore ap9rovlng t~e S~ateme~t or O=tlc~al Actlon.
In any event, it is IGd~crcus O~ ~ts face to ~a~e s~ch a f~~di~q
without offering at leas~ seT2 sc=~ 0= reason fer coing so, ana
the COIT~ission should re7edy th~s si~~a~io~ prior to adopt.~on of
the proposed State~er.t.
S?~C=AL CC~DI?IO~ 1
As Dresentlv worded, this cond~tion, li~e oroDosed Findlng 2,
belles the Co~miss1onls apparenc celief on- July 7 that the
exterior or the walk~av/corrido~ hac a:readv been constructed.
It certainly Ma~es no se~se wha~soever ~o instruct the A-~ to
reVlew the exterior desig~ ele~e~~s and fea~ures or a builclng
improverent WhlCh already eXlsts.
AdditiOf'2.l1v, the rtIo::-c. "e:1S1..:re" :.s ::l~sspe~::'ed, and geod grarrI'1ar
dictates that it oe fo:'loy.ied by tr..e ',v'ord "tr..e:.r" a:-.d not liltS".
i
-'--~~ ~-- ~1 ~
Ilk _ _~.
.~ ~[.f
~ ...
"": -,..~ <<
- ,~'< ~1
.. --=-. ~~':'~~~.~~.~.~ ~I
It rrftlH f!fJIj (
c
Plann1nc Co~~ission
August 4, 1986
page 3
SPEC~AL CONDITION 2
This is not a gra~atically correct sentence, a~ least no~ in
the Engllsh language, and the Commission's i0tent in irr.posing
this condition is therefore a~biguous. Altho~gh this flub
typifies the low quality of staff work which has attended every
phase of this proJect thus far, beginning wlth an inadequately
drawn radius of notlficat~on map and cul~inatiDg with a staff
report which indicated that construction had not even begun
much less was nea~ly completed, it presu~ably will be a falrly
easy flaw for the Corrmlssion to correct.
C:ONC:SUS I O~J
This Development Review, wnlcn is now about to be reviewed by
the City Council on appeal, has been surrou~cied by nothir.g but
misinformation fro~ Day One as the result of a CO~lr.atlon of a
dunlicitous aoplicant with an inco~Deten~ Planning staff. The
Co~~ission would do well not to add.to the confusion Nh~c~ the
Counc~' l'S alr~adv ~ac~ng ~n ;~s COn-ic.'~r~tion OF -~'S ~ro~~c~
..:.. ......__ _.......i.....:....I. ....:........ _L ....~_ _ ....... __ .L _ l..~.L_ ~ j....... L-
by pro~~lgatlng a S~ate~e~t of O=ficial Action ~hich bea~s r.o
real relatlon to the act~on ac~ually ta~en.
The draf~ Statenen~ of O=ficia~ Action suonitted bv staff
should theref?r~ be ~eworded so as t? be genuinely-=eflectlve 0=
th,~ e""=>""~ - '.,......lC...... 7~a.....s""" ""'''''d fou"'" T.-"''''' rs -.~,o
...__ V_~.LL.':;"...... L-J. __ ..... :;:'_..;.._ _ T'I'-......-...... c:.'::;:I ..
T1-}O$e Com!li$sicro~::-s ',rho eit~'1<e::- oD:Jcsed ~..o'Orc'vc.2. Q: s? 329 O~
were rot l~ 2tte~da~ce at t~e Julv 7 ~eeE~r.a ~re ~Qt i~ ?
DOS1t~Or. ~o ;""~;:::.~""'r"'~ -~~ ~C-;C~l ~-o; -~n~~ ;t~O rl~~ uo~~ ~0~
_ ......... ....... - . L ..... .,... _ v _ _ _ ............. '-'" ....... ~ .".. ~...... _ _ ....- ...r' .....-- ..., ~ _ __ ~ ........ ... ~ '"-- ~ oJ ___
a?p~oval a~d should ~~erefo~e, of co~~se, abs~~~r fro~ vot~nq
on the Sta~e~e~t of Of=~ci?l Actlon.
If it is the COIT~lssion's pleasure, ~ would welcone t~e
opportunity to offer oral argu~ents In su?port of the poi~~s
contained In thlS lette~.
S.:..nce~e~y,
,f) !//n /j I/l~
l(j /f r L(Jc-
William F. We~nga~de~
..J -~'::C ~ ':"'1I"~.1 1i,..I~ ~~-~ - -:... ....>>
~ , ~~.. -;;;..~~ ;-.i"'-~ :.,1
. . .C~~T~ ~-.. _.....C ..~. /J ---::::( ,--- ty u rY1/-lIrj'" .. '''~~l_' ~~~ ..~~.~ ._"~~'-"
' ~'::::I~~~:~~' FOR BUILDING P:RJT! J (~\ \1' 1t:L l X 4~~ ~n r /
Zio 90404
\iade Ipl.ne Shon~ ~mpjoy" No
I
I S4.Ib....>SII.on
j
and.. 4th floor floQ): sO Prellm'Nry
i 0 A....u.d Prlll.m
vnnl? structures). I 0
. Ftnal
square feet of new 0
r Armed F'N11
floor area. There is no change ln h~f1 ("-!j)llnr - _ 0 EQ,."N1t1On
14;a1 o.....~ _ _ S ~ 1 n 1: . T () h n IsH () ~ P 1 t::l1 :'l n d H P. 3.1 1: h r. p n r p"!" 0
AddrMl 132R ??nrl R1:rpoi" Cay ,c::;:'lnt::'l \fnn1 (",r. zjll Qn4"4
Applll;atlon IS hereby made for the Issu~nce of a budding permit for construCtion at
N.meof lac,ltlY Saln t John's HaspI tal and Health Center
Address of fKlhtY 1328 Twenty-Second Street
CitY. Santa ~10nlca ec....ty Los AnQ"e} es
PhOM (213) 829-5511 Admrn,sn-atOrSls'ter MarIe
TYDeoffaclhlYlperh~entel Arll-t'!"> r::!rp HllSDlt:::tl
, [8} Add,tIOn 0 Remodel' D New facll.ly
:$co"" of PrOleo;t lbrlfl descnptlon of ~Ot"k ;Jro~ .nclud.,,'i tqu.,e !QQra~ and CNtlg. 01 ~ COY",.
_AddItion of new bUIldIng areas on 3rd
_(between eXlstln~ west Wln~ and south
Total add1tlon is approx1mately 2,678
Curre",
L":::.,,,.d Beds
~;I
~
Total Bed Count
Aher Construetlon
1;15/
--~
.J...,
Plans and SpeclliClllonl prepared by
An;h'tect or en9'n....1I1 rapan~lble ehAr... of cU!S1gn and contr.l<:t adm,nlStr.ltlon
F,rm Mme Leo A. Daly
Indh"dUllI rcslXII'Islble Ke n net h L\,
Alrernate .TarAO S]()an
Address :-l11:-l W 1 1 ~ h, r p
City Los An2'eles
B.ogerson
A~ No. C-8538
Req. No c-5998
Rlvrl.
Zip
SuirR 2nn
90010
Phone 388-1361
Slructut'3l Engll'lnl' F,rm Leo .4. . Dal,v
lnd,v,dual rllSpo~lble - . .Toe Porterfl~ld Ae<) No 8-1955
Alternate Re<) No
Addreu 3333 ~hlshlre Blvd. SUIte 200
CIty Los AngeLes Z'1l 90010 Phon" 388-1361
Mechln'CiilI EnglnHl' Firm T,p,n .1. _ n~lv
lnd,vl~1 '...pons,b1. ,Tnc:pnh T,p? Re<"~rJ7 \f-15041
AI!etnlle RI!<) No
Add'...... 3333 Wllshlre Blvd. SUIte 200
C,ty T.os An[Tplp.s Z;p_ 90010 Phone. 38 8 - 13 6 1
er~lt'cal Eng'''M<' Firm - T .P'" ~ nil 1 y
Ino'v,dUlltllSPO"$,bl. _I ,.1.., n. ",;-,
AI 1"'"1 te SJ1MII'< n"NpLE..
. Add'nl _:333::1 \'/, 1 sh 1 re R 1 'lrl,
Col\, Tnc:::A n ~p 1 C'C; Z.p_
R.... No
R~g No
E.-IO~7g
SUIte 200
90010
PhO"L 388-1361
Ge<mcl'ln.(..l' Fl~oort Film _ Ref (> r to F'I un d.J. t Ion
Geolecnn,c E..q,...... ISo...1 On Sh('p. t S-l
Eng'''H''''9 C<<OIO'J'U
Add'e11
e,l\' Z.p "
NQtes IV 1 and IV 2
RC9 NQ
RlI'9 '\jo
P"one
FOR OFFlCIAL USE 0 ....r. :"
Appl~llon No.
Fal;Ii,tY No.
DI$TRIBUTION
o SFM -SL
o SFM -SAC
OSFM - LA
Du.e
o OFD-SF
o OFO-LA
o CFO-SAC
o A~d. ..., nlth
o OSA-SF
o OSA - SAC
o OSA - LA
o FAC - File
o CA - Loan
[ DCCN
;0
:! LCG
iD
10
i
I
r
I
I
J
,
LChe<:J< ~
o 1~:=S
/ 0-.->\0
OFFICE OF S1".:I.TE......,O::: '-lEAL:-t"I
Pl.,l.i'oINfNG &; O€VELC;o.,IE:'''.
STA""
, I
.. ........ II ('/111
---------..
- - ...- + ... - -- .....- --..- -
.-~-
:::..::..-~~::~ 1:::~~. ~-=------=-77..::::::
-. ~
--- -_... ..... ----
. ,
ATI f( H rrrdJr
E
"HOSPITP,.L SEISI:-lIC SAFETY ACT OF 1983"
~ 15000 e~ sea, of the CAL. HSALTH AND SA=ST~ CODE
(Fro~ West's 1985)
5 15001 provides in relevant part:
It is the intent of the Legislature that hospitals, whic~
house patients who have less than the capacity of normally
healthy persons to protect theMselves, and which must be
reasonably capable of providing services to the public af~er ~
disaster, shall be designed and constructed to resist, inso=c=
as practical, the forces generated by earthquakes, grav~ty,
and winds. In order ~o accoxplish this purpose, the
Legislature intends to es~ablish proper building s~ar,darcs =0=
earthquake resistance based upon curre~t knowledge, and
intends that proced~res for the design and construc~~or. c=
hospitals De subjected to independent review. it is ~te
intent of the Legislature to preempt from local jursldi2~~Or.S
the e~forcement of all building standards published In t~e
State Buildlng Standards Code relati~g to the regulatio~ 0=
hospital projects and ~he en:orceT-ent of other regulatic~s
adopted pursuant to this chapter, and all other applicab~e
state laws, including the plan checking and the inspecticn 0=
the design and details of the a~chitectural, structu~a:,
mechanical, plumbing, and electrical systems, and ~he
observation of construction.
It is the intent of the Legislature that wnere local
jurisdictions have more restrictive requirements for the
enforcement of building standards, other b~ilding regu:a~ions,
and construction supervision, such requirements shall be
enforced by the state.
._~.~J
_".11.-..- =--"I ~~.....-'&E_""'l'"p"L""-'"'-"'-r~-- ~ - ~of~....r~.~":.>--:i:-t
../.
STA rE OF CALIFCR"lIA -H~AlTH AND wElr ARE AGENCY
GEORGE DEUK"'EJIAN Co-er_
OFFICE OF STATEWIDE HEALTH PLANNING AND DEVElOPMENT
DIVISION OF FACILITIES DEVELOPMENTA--- ---ft( H f(l0J
107 SOUTH BROADWAY, ROOM 601.5 ! J -. __ I
lOS ANGelES. CALIFORNIA 90012 )
(213) 62().49~ -
f
@
"-
Septerrber 19, 1985
HL-850009-l9
SUBJECT :
ST. JOHNS HOSPITAL & HEALTH CEN'l'1:J{
1328 - 22ND STREET
Sfu~A MONICA, CALIFORNIA 90404
PROPOSED ADDITION - NEW AREAS 3RD & 4TH FLCORS
Department of Building & safety
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, California 90401
Gentlemen:
This office is in receipt of plans for the above faCIlity, which is subject to
the HospItal Seismic Safety Act of 1983.
Enclosed is a copy of an attachment beIng made available to all local 3uIlding
Departments explaining the State preemption of plan review and construction
inspection responsIbilities for health facilIties.
It should be noted that proJects WhICh have been in the plan review process
prior to January 1, 1983 WIll remaIn the responsibIlIty of the local bUIldIng
department. In additIon, Health ClInICs, Alcohol Recovery Hospitals, Drug and
ChemIcal Dependency facllltles, ParkIng structures, Medical Office BUIldings,
ResidentIal Care and Day Care NurserIes WIll not be affected by the proviSIons
of Serate Bill 961 and therefore WIll rer.dIn the responsibIlIty of the local
building departments.
Projects primarIly affected by the preeF.ption law are General HOspItals,
PsychIatrIc HospItals, Convalescent HospItals (or ~ursIng Homes), and
IntermedIate Care FaCIlIties.
OUr offlce wlll notIfy you in wrItlng in every Instance when we recelve a
project that will be SubJect to the new State law.
Should you have any questIons regarding these watters, please contact thIS
office at (213) 620-4954.
SIncerely,
Nlcholas L. ParrlS
SenIor Structural EngIneer
Enc.
CC:
~. . /
ALIlill.nl s tr a tor
Leo A. Daly, Arch.
NLP:dbs
!
~
~
_ ",--.0.-..._ .:. - ~.~ "'~f}.~~-....__~- ~- - ,_.-..li'-",J,:,.i.: :~~
.
.~~.,
-
c(' if U ' r I
I .)
'~-\'~~~i^7If1,_~ /(!JU T
{y
\..,; I I( t C r ; ,\ r ;.'< " , D [ ;:: .. L I Ii
Ci II'1lCN 01- I- ~ - II rlLS D[VHC?~,',ENr
101 ':'CUr<1 e~O~- A'i .'XM 90))
'os ...NGElES c.. ''j:;~l'' 90012
,ill) 62o-~9S4
"~I
Y
~
. ...... ...-
'< ::~.; J-
~
0(,,,1;_( '1, ]'.'35
[I~ ;r;)l~:_' 'J 19
Leo A. Daly, Arc~ltect
33]3 Wll~hlre 2oulevard, SUIte 200
Los ,;.n'J~ll'IS, CalIforma 90010
SUa..; -.cr :
ST. JOHN'S HOSPITAL & !-:!2ALTH CEL~TER
1328 - 22tID STREET
S;~~A ~DNICA, CALIFO~;IA 90404
PFO"fCSED ADDITION OF CO~1lECI'OR
BUILDING - 'IHIRD & FOURTH FLCCRS
;.--, < ,....-
--
---
':-} (0<':'
Dear :.jr. Daly:
ThIS ~'Il11 ackno~.;'ledge receIpt of the follm'nng:
F~?llcatlon for 3uIldIng PermIt, FIling Fee, four sets or FInal Drawings
and Speclflcatlons.
?wo 3ets of b~ese doc~ments ~ere forwarded to tbe Los ;ngeles DIstrIct OffIce
of tre State FIre :1arshal for rCVIe~ and re?Ort on fIre protectIon features.
A CO?,! of the state Fue t1arshal's report WIll be sent to you cHectly by that
asency.
~n accltlonal set of accUQents was trans~ltted to the Los .;ngeles 3ra~ch of
the Office of the State ArchItect for reVlew and report on selS~IC safety
fea~ures. The report of that agency WIll reach you Independently.
OUr reVIew 0: your plans With respect to the requIreren~s of TItle 24,
CalIfornIa ~Crlristratlve Coce dIscloses the followIng In need of correc~:on
and/or clarlficatlon:
A. qCE I =-EC1.BAL
1. Sub~iL wrItten eVIdence of conforrence to local zonIng resUlre~ents.
2. ~~ ~nvIro~~ental I~pact Report or a Kegatlve DeclaratIon IS r~ulred.
3. IrdIcate the ~estl~ated total capItal eX~€ndltureR on ~he appllcatlon
fcrTrl, Ite:n :1.9.
.~ ,
4
-........;r.~i. ~....;;L..~.~_ --~
./.
/
s~. .vhn'; ,;~pL~"ll
& [f':<11th Cu,ter
ATIA ( HffltNr
-2-
:/S: , ;~, l:05
iJ- :~~.CCC;""19
4. A minI ru.Fl celling belght of 8' -0" 1S CClIUIU'd at Corr: l~t)r C~02.
s. S~C~lt s~,,?les of Carp€tl~g and aCoustIC tl1e to ~hlS offlC~ fGr Jpproval
prlor to lrstallatlon.
S'IRUC'lUR.il.L - BY O~?IC3 OF T9E ST;TE P-..;/CH I?c;CT
HECHANI Cl.L
1. On Sheet M-l, the 2" SO and 2" 00 llnes are shown to be connected to a
co~n vertical. Per Sectlon 3207(c) of the UOtfnrm BUIlding Code,
overflow draIns shall be ccnnec~ed to draIn llnes Inde~r.cent from ~~e
roof dralns. Please correct.
2. Enclosed 1S OffIce of StatewIce ~ealth Plannlng and Develcpr.ent's current
polley on VAV syste~s. Per Ite~ aJ, please state the cEm quantIties at
~ie nlnIu.lli~ VAV settIng. ~,e cor~ector area shall be consldered a
patIent area COrrlGOr and r-ust ~eet tte ~lnl~lli~ r~Jlre~ents stated In
Tltle 24, Dlvlslon T17, Table T17-104B. Per Item b}, please verlfy that
tte ret~rn fan trac~s the sup?ly. As far as thls partIcular ap?llcatIon
IS conce~ned, Item c) ~lll be ~aIved. SInce there 15 ~alnly only two
large returrs In thlS sjsten a~d they are both located In close proXlnlty
to ~r.e fan, there wIll be no need for Inolvlceal roo~ control. 3ut, thls
IS not to set a prececent for future VAV syste~s. For larger systE~Sf
t~e OffIce of StatewIce ~ealth Plannlng and Develcp~ent wlll er:orce
Ite~ c). Per IteA d), please cpply thIS to the new offIce area (and
sta=e what ~he ~~~~r.~~ cfm quantItles WIll be).
3. ,PleasE S?Eclfy ~e SYSt~l outslce air quantIty. T~IS q~aDtIty srall
satlsfy the 71lnl~~~ outdoor aIr c~anse requIrements stated In Tajle
T17-1043 at ~Inlo.~~ VAV settlng.
EL2CTIUCl\L - ~;o CC:::7;iI'S
ADDITIONAL CCt1'La..;'TS
1. ThlS prOJEct has ~een ass:greo t~e Identification nurber whICh IS shown
belcw the date at the top of thIS letter. Please ~se thIS ~ur~er on all
corresporCE(1Ce.
2. ~e enclosed s~~?lerent Incl~des for~ ara Instructlc~S Incl~cl~g these
r~uIred for oo:alnlng both a bUIldIng per~lt and ?ro]ect Ins~~ctlon
a~!?(oval. . ;,1r. ulck 31sr.ett should be contac::.ed on I"atter::s relat.ed to
obtalnlng a bUlldlng ~€r~lt, l~s~~ctor approval and Ins~ectlons.
_ _..,..... >~..J.ll-
":1It~_.-Ai ... -, ~.., jjf-...... L"-'-".,..
<
1
--. J~
-;17~
~-;:;O;~i
:Jr-.. l..tc r,' '"3 ::0 _pl.tal
& :"~a 1 tn C~r1ter
fflTn (~~NT ~~::;~D~~i9l'15
3. If the corrpleted ccnsLructlon cost IS :'-0[0 : (-].n Il'v'(? r-r=re,.:nt of the
estimated ccpstructlon cost as noLed In your a~rllcatlon, an addlt~onal
fee wlll be required (SectIon 15046 of CnJpter 1, D~V1Slon 12.5 of the
~ealth and Safety Code).
Ur=or"\ fwdlng that the above itcr.s are accoffIlDcat.ed, the reE)[oc~c~b12 ,1ro'Jine]s
an.d the cover sheet of the speciflcatlons s~all be SUciltted for our n[:~ro'/al
stanp. The state rlre i~rshal and Office of the State ;rchltect Nill also
require the reprocuclble drawlngs to be st~oped for IdentlflcatIon.
Back chec~lng wIth the State Flre ~~rshal and OffIce of the State ~rchltect
way take place Independently wItrout sub~lttlng thro~sh our offlce.
If there are any ~Jestions regardIng mecbanlcal ccr.rr.ents, please contact rCNard
Sacks of thls office.
Ene.
cc:
52'VIA .
;~~ln~strator~
E'",.;: dbs
- --"Yt...-.......;y..=
~. iiit~... h.~....
-. l'i
_ 01-:. ~~
~ ~_ ~~__ ~L-~';"'d
Jr'"
.:i .-~.
y ~ <"
,~-:. --
t'LrL "~r..G ,.11D ZC~rI G D:.J"~S ~C":
CCr""..-':-1.1~Y a.....c.: ~=c::"'C~l.C C~IJ~lc~-€'~':. ::cp,);::,,:-e'i.t
i\ t' r L'::C \ i':~~: -='i))1 1\r:.H tH rS7r:'.t\T !\T 1\ [1~ ~OV.'L
-- L?"?r "';r;::_'.1.ncf! lJ2:.. \.l.:'~; J------
f.i.~o? ~J\- 2:-00
~K~{ ( fK ~ OJ~T rl __c~':.~ Fl.l~d~lL2...:i
~ Ac=~?tr 3y:~-
,
Per ~=~~ance 1321 (CC~), ccr~~~, dev~~c~~en~ ~ro~8=~s a~d
cha-qes o~ u!e .~hLC~ cc,~~~- to ~~e C~~i'5 Zcn~~~ Ord~1ance ~nd
G~"'e:"::.1. ?L.3.""l La:-u:. Use Ele,....e~~ "l'av 't:e ~"(O-Oc. f::-81 :.'le rc~u::":-~n~nt.
>-0 ...............~T..... ::l'l::J..........~......~ CO-~.s~l.-n ~;r"\'-""":\~ -0" a Do Up lC':::ie...." P"'r~"l.-.
'- .......................................... ~ 01'_ ~...... =~~"-.J~c.;,...... - - _ ... - -
In sc-e c~ses r pr~Jec":.5 ''''''loll t:e u;,c~.,c..:.:.:c-a~ly o.....e--;:~. Ot'1er
pr-o~ec-:'s :-ay 1:e e'(ef'1?".:. ~::- !:.re C':=~~"::J= 0: Pl2.-Z"~'S c.e-:.e:---1.nes
~hat ~~e ~=o~ec~ ~nccr~c=a~es s~c~ c~~~~~~o's as a:~T~ec~ssa='l :0
e.,su:"e cO:1fc:::--ance w::..t."i 3ec-:.:..cn 2 c:: O:::Cl"'rJ.~ce l,;~... (eeS) ~ t....e
Zon..:.,...g Orc':':1a!1ce dr-:C t.::e LC!.~d t.":::;e Ele..,er:;~. ;~nere ccrc":'~':::'cr:s are
a~~ac,ed to a~ AG~~n~st::-a~~ve ~fp::-oval. 5~C~ cc~c~~~cn~l app::-cval
~5 b~~c~-g cn~y so far as It e~er?~s a f~~:~ct f=c~ th~
requ1:::."'e:-"ert to Ob~a1:l a D.ave~Ct:;7"e""'lt ?~~-~t. An ap? L:.ca'1~ ~ay
ap5':"Y fo::: a Develc:;:-ent ?~=~~t. f':lllo""~ng any c:c"ld~t:.onal
Ac-~~:.strat~ve Approval.
***
P.u:."SE RESPO~""D Ta iiL.L APPLIC,\B[.E C'Jc5":C~lS. n;CC~PLZTE
11'FOR.......'\TION H.t'\Y CAGS:C: A DCL'\Y I~r TliE PRCC:::SSI1;G OP YCUR
Ai' E'LIC;\.':':C~l .
**....
SI7l': ADDRESS:
1328 22ND ST, S~NTA ~ONIC~, CA 9040~
HOS?!T4L SP~CI=IC
La::c Use E!.e"'e~~ D~str:lc~: ~r ~N nr <::TCnr""" Ze:,~r..g DJ..st:n.ct: CP
Leaal Descrl~t~en (Let. 31cc~. Tract~: LOT 14, SLOCK 3, ORCHAPD T~
- SA-INT JOHN'S HOSPITAL & HEALTri
APPL:CA:~: CS~TE~ As:
Cc,-:.~c--:. ?e::-scn:
~?::D fl. 3RIGGS
Prc~~: 829-3139
Ap?:~ca~~'s ~dd=ess.
1328 221lJ ST., SMH A 1'01: I CAJ CA 90L:Ou
PROP":"7"Y ':::;.i~R: SM1E A.S AODL] CNJT
~~ IL.:"--; e:
829 813S
C",,-ner IS Acc=ess:
DE7AILZD PROCEC~ DESCRIPTIC~/PRCr-OS=D CSE(S):
CC~jSn.L;C"';"iON OF
EtJCLOSE[ 'tlALK'tlAYS toT THE 3R9 MD 4Tf'i FLOOR LEVELS 5ET,iEEij SOUTH
WING ~ND WEST WING. P~OJEC7 IS WIT~IN T~E SAINT JO~~'S INTE~IOq
COURT AR~A, WAL~WAY IS ENCLOSED WITY ALU~I~U~ AND GLASS WINDOWWALl
CCNSTrlUCTION,
(US~ \DDIT~C~A~ SF~~~S
..::: ~~::::: )
EXl.stJ..ngj'1cs::. Recer.t. :Jse{s) :_eATTF~:T
r,--q.;:-
I ,,1 ~ I I
Nel.gh=o=~~g Uses:
pATI F'IT CfillE.
SOUTH 'dING
EA1.5~~~; Flco~ Area.__~EST WING
21E),"OOO S ,-F ,
65,000 S.F,
.
(CC~!TI~IlIE ml ~EXT PAGE)
~ ~~~~ -',.IfIig...ar~ n~_.~r{
f
..
,:-j
~-;;;-~~~~
co--
JJJS]J~Jj/!J:--I!L. yJI
--':~"'=e;: 0: L:r"1.~::; :.~ l.::e .\c!:::~ ...:1..C-r= -Pe--::: f"?"::.
--?:"=~csec ~~....r-t:cr 0: t..:n~:.~ ~~Qr:~
~jQ'J-=:
.
?~=~cse~ ?l=o~ \re~ ~~~~~
S_:.e ;....=ea...
"Bur L T AB.QVE Exr 5} HIG. fIRST FLOOR \"JALl(''t/AY
r=~~Gsea -a(~~~r e~q~.- __ ~nr ?~O=S5~~ ~~~ C~/~rase
"
';
~c 0= rar<~~s SFac~s--s,~~;~-s_
NA
?=-c~csc~: "'r-b.;:
. .
?~-=L:'=~J.- ).~A
Fe:: Cc~~e:"c~al Uses--~o~~s of O~era~~en:_____~A
--~~o. a:: ?ea~ Pcu= ~-;:~=:'e~s _ ~.-:.~
--I~ Rest.al!::';:J."1t, C:" =2.:". ~'o. 0::: Sea:s. :.JA
P~~,ICC5 CI~ APPROVAL~:
r-.JO~~E
Acc~t.~c~a~ Rec~~=ed Rev~ews. C~t.~ cc~~c~l
~a::'<s CC7r.~5s~cn Coascai Cc-:~ss~C~
~~~.3 Larc-
Ot.her
P~~or to su~~~tt~~g
cC'" su l't \01'1 th P lan:l:' "1";
~h~c~ of t~e follc~~~g
t~~s a~pllcac~o', t~e ~==11ca-~ shcc:c
and Zor.:.."'; DL....1S~C., s~c..:: to cet:.e:''7.;...::e
acc~~~c~al ~~c's W~~: =e ~ee~ec:
--:~c~c~:"a?rs of p:oJect S~t~/~{~5t~-S 8u~lc~-g(sJ
--L~~~=cn-en~al Ir.:or~at.~cr. Fo::~
--?lc~ Pla~ and/or Pa:"~~ng Plan
--~At2r~o= E:eva~~c~s
--=lc~::- Plans
--Ren~ Ccn~r~l Exe~pt~on/Re~ova1 ?e=-~t
--S~cr ocher ~nfcr~at~on as ~s cecToed necessary
I CE~'.~IFY TIIAT 'n!E IliFOR.'1J\TIO~1 CC~i':'X;:UED I~~ THIS APPLIc.,....T:::C~l IS
CCR..'tECT TO THE BE57 OF MY KNOHLECGC M.l) Tl:!.i\7 :'H:::S APPLIc......TICN IS
HADE WI~!:l T~ ~O.r'lLEDGE AND cm:SElr7 OF TU1: PROPERTY Ci.l';ER.
-""J /:? -7 __;-;
Ac=l~can:: '5 S~q'at:Jre:~> -/ L-...~_./~ ,r'->-~ ['ate: 11111135
- - - ( ....: -- . /"
FRED r\. BR [GGS" "
DIRECTOR OF CGNSTRUCTIC~
FeR S7~= us~ C~1Y
_x Ac~~.~s::'::a-::'~vely A::::;::roved Fe:" 5ec-::..lo~ Z G . c:"~. 132: (C::S)
S~~JeG-:' to Separat.e AC.-l~_S~=2.~l.:e
Cc~C:t:C"15 S2ec~f.led The=~on
Ce~e:-i1-a~1.::::1
ar-;::
Pe~~~=e5 DevelQ?~en~ re=-:~ pe~ SeC~~Qi 4, C=G. 13~1'CCS~
C-::.l-:eZ'
~ -
D ~ b '....'"7~.:; ?'/~
~ , '. .<,:'.r _ ~.
e_e~~~at~on y: ~ ~
Da te:11 Z';? ,sY..P _
,
T...::le: A7":.cf:/ ~1<.(:.1f~"''''''' ?v'I-lJ....!~
CoJ;>r-:~
The. lXG OF r.-e ~ t.-:.AL~...'tt,. <;-;-<~ 86" U"'"TFP To ~~
vl'i:"(.,oV'\T.oU C~l.'l iJo oTr'8=<: ~ ""'~.f4, OM"'tt" cr- JL\'i'Dlum.... ~JIoi!<p
~ *P"'L1.. r:G' PEl4<"Tn;D WIWu..l i"S' ~EW vDl.l?~ilQL1 ~ V.<!L~
A -;:a...~a-;., P?J\t:"....) ~f1 """ AfffC:..>-eD j;'f l1"'"e' <"lA>Ju I>JV ~"i\~cLJ
Of- A~ ,AR;prtcrJ or.A ?rs:::..I~ fu1J. ~!-+ tJS>e 1'7 c,;....:!-'7'"E!-.... WJl14 "
"1l'""e" ve..~f}lm..L. oj<:OElZIA A\J,p ~"et::d'l.E<77el ~ i~ Tre "Sfti:;;IFi0 Pt;>.-u
i3.aa;:;:1J!
P 1annl.nc; and Zon:.!"g D t v ~ 5 ~on.
Mon:ca, CA 90401.
1605 ~~~. 5t=eec, Room 212, San~3
(213) 45S-8J4L
-,~_.-.......- J(r '~"..iI'r~. -''''_."'''''''''~'''-'''''bli ~j
('.,qo.Q'
~-..qO..Q ~
Posl on Job S.I~
AT!A l %mftV0="?ro"",IHL 850009 19
BUILDING PER.\fiT
nus Buildlnl Pemut IS ISSued to
Sa!~t ,Tnh1"\l" "'n....,'~'" '"...~ "'.."'~,, ("..,.,1-....-
For executJo., of the following consUUcUon project
k~ulatory Connector Bu~lding between 3rd. and 4th floors of
South ~~ng to West wing.
Address
1328-22'1d. St.
City
Santa Mon~ca
Coun tY
Los Angeles
Adnunlstrator
S~ster ~ar~e Madele1ne Shonka
Valuauon of worle
S 135,000
Fee reqUU"ed for ISsuance of penrut
2,025.00
s
(For additIonal fees reqUU"ed see secUon
TItle 24, C.A C)
Specw ConditIons
Date or reVIew stamp on plans and speClIil;:auoru
~
~
+.M
Issued tlus I ~ ;!;Y of .0 e=C e:.l1 Be Q. I q 8 r
By ~L'. O. ~
c....t_\f'.v.JIQn a' F..C:IlIt1u 0.....1010..,....,\
Oh",~ 5~.t.w.li. HU.I"I\ P.,."nlng ..:tICI Oe-i'.~o"m....t
r-iOnCE
llus pe"Tllt !:ecomes n:J1l and vatd If .,.,aok or const"Uct:on autrof"'zed LS not commenced Wlt!'.l1l one year. or If constructlon or
work IS sustle.,ced or abatldoned 'or a pe40d of one year at any lliTe af~cr 'Nark IS comm:nced
1 rereby ceMfy thi1.r IM"e read and U4mu1ed thu btJlldurg permsr and know the same ro bc tr.J.t and COrTect All provISlOtU of
Urws and ordrr.Jmces goVenflng rhls work WIll be cOlrplled ....rrr. wherher speCIfied herem or rwt TM granting of a perr-ut does rIOt
puna"e la give aur~onty to VIOlate or cancel rhe provISIons of any state or local law reguianng COrlSrruCIrOn or rhe perfomtlJr,(;c
of construcrlon
/7 -'}-71 /. ~ _
//;7} / ~/ ~~ /r~'-'
IIG"4ATU....1E 0'" CON"tIlllAC1'OIlt O. .......T'HO...~:~w.KN,.- ~ / /
Fred ~. Bn:}fis
/f
i'
/ ,.-Z/S'/?~
DATil: ( ~
IIONATU_C Oil'" 0..... I'p' Q"'I'II.. .1"l1"-m...tJ
.~1'1l
~iiiJ.;...~
s
.....t.. r _-.l-=_j>
,
~
t
-~, .j
-- ~y...-!- -- -"'.Jr 0... "-"~....-:::"
I I r I
Owner ~~l..,t John's Hos~n tal & Health Center
.Ad dress 1328-22nd. SL
City ~anta t"onJ.ca Z:p Code 90404 Phone (213) 829-8139
Contractor ~~lllncham Corstruct~on
Address 2 Nort" T~ake SUl.te 300
City Pasade!'la Z1pCode 91101 Phone (818)796-1888
Ard'utect ~~Q A. Dalv
Address 3333 W:!.lshl.re Blvd. St:::.te 200
City Les Mceles ZIp Code ~OO10 Phone (213) 388-1381
Strucruru Eng:neer
Le~ A. Dalv. J05e~h Stewa=t
Address
1111 ~~1~~1re Blvd. SU1te 200
City
r,,.,,,, )!I.T'\C'E' 1",<<
ZIP Code
90'JIO
Phone t 21 3) 3 8 8 - 13 8 1
Mechamcal Engmeer
~pn .. naly: ~n"'P?h ~P~
Address
11;"1"1 T'r'lc:;~'n" R"r~. S'nt., 2:J~
City
T(j~ l1"r;~'p=;
Z1" Code 'F)'i';:
Pho"'!!: 1?11\ lRR-l1Rl
Electm:aJ EngJ..."'!eer
Lea A. Daly. Sa~~r Mo~dle
Address
3333 W1ls~::.re Slv1. Su~te 200
CIty
T,,.,s ..!'lcreles
Zip Code
90010
Phone (213) 388 -13 2 1
Soils Engineer
~; I,?J.,
Address
City
Zip Code
Phone
..
!
+---i~ 1.aA .,: ..:-~~.,. M ..~~;f;9 AilI... ~- "':..;..-J
... .........-.....- -~..
n-- i~ -----,0 ( -H If) !JVr--
C:L'TY PLA.t-;~l:XG t~rI:l ( ) L f I I . J
C~ty Hall, Room 212
(213) 458-834..
r rJ
C:TY::JF ;,,~';TA ~~O~-;ICft
1685 :~a~r.; Street
Santa V,onlca, CA 904C~
PLANNING COMMISS!Otl
APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW/SITE REVIEW
(?Rl~'I' OR TYPE ALI.. !NFC~IATIm<)
CR Xo
Cthe.:::-
?2~
Fl.:"'~a. LL q 6(;,
~ee'" SlQC\C'~'
Rec~::.p~
cy ~
PROJECT ADDRESS;
1328 Iwentv-Second Street
Hosp~tal Spec~f~c
La::':: Use Ele'len~ L:i1.s~r:l.Ct:.: Plan jhstd..ct Zonl.:-.g D:!.sl:.:'-J.ct.: Cp
Lesa 1 De sc:.-:.pt.:l.cn ~ :"ot., B:'cc'-t, Tract). Port:l.O~ Lot 13. !noclt :'" Orcr.ard Tract:
APPLICA.NT: Se.l.-t .!oh,'s 'ios!ntal (. qeal:h CE:T'tel:
~s' \geT't of O~~er
Ccrt:ic"t Perscn
TOOl Pyne
Phone (213) 829-8295
'\cdre 5 s -
1328 ~~enty-Second Street
~ESIG~ER/AaCH!TECT
Leo ~. Daly & Co. (Ken pogerson)
?hor.e. (213)388-1361
Ad~ress:
3333 ~J.L~~J.re Blvd . Los ~~geles
ATTCFJ~EY~ ~= any~
}ionE:
?hc~e
Add=e5S:
?!..S;'SS LIS':'
:::::1S.:.r-eer 5, etc
attached-
O~HER REPRESE~T~TIVE(S)
) ON A~~ACEEn S~EE~. Chec~
(e C r
here :I.::
CC-1St:.... :.a-,"':.s,
51..:.C'" a 1:1. 51:;. :"S
S:Lsters of O-ac-::.ty of Lea"eT'wort'l.,
PROPERTY Oh"NER: 'iea:"tl-> SerV:Lces Corpoc-at::..c;1.
Frlcne .
Address. 4200 S Fourch Stree~ t Leave"",mrth l Kans35 r,6:J"'S
REASON FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW/SITE REVI~~ APPLI~'TION (e.s . Ccrr-
~ercLal ProJect Over ~5,OOO Sq. ft.. A~to Repa:l.~, ?-estaura~t over
50 Sea:.s, etc. j :
Add1.tlO'l a: ne'" sqL!are footage (2,572 sf) '"':Lt~1C~.. 3~ ;;pprov>2.G HcsPlta1 Area
SpeCJ.flc ?lan as ~a'1dat2d by Land ~se EleTent of Octo~er '34.
DESCRIBE IN DETAIL t~e type 0= use anc l~pccvere.ts p=oposed (use
addltlonal sheets as 'eeded)~
SEE A:'rACfl}lENT A
EXJSTING/MOST RECENT USE:
Ne1.ghborl.ng Uses:
~
- I -
"
i
-"-.J.I. ~-- .....~..,.~t...~~ ..,....r..:...~_"'"(o- ~~-4,.~~_"",_:-.:!
r-
I
(
~~.., "
",- ~ .....<,..
" Yo
~ ~ -" .- ~I
~
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
Date F:l.led
!/TTf[c HIl?i (\/T
J
ENVIFON}ffiNTAL INFO~~7IO~ =O~~
(To be cQmple~ed by Appl~ca~~)
1. GE~ERAL I~FO~~TrCN.
1.
?:::-oJect. Address
1'3Z8 r>:'O!f'tv S~cond Street 2, Zcn:.:-:.g
CP
3
Lega: Desc=~pt.~on
Portl~n of Tot 1J, Block 3\ Orch~rd Tract
4. Br~e= Descr~?t~on 0= pro~osed proJect O~ cse:
See At:ach~ent A
5.
EXl.s':~:1.g Use
~one - ~ndevel\pe~ area
I:. !~~E~~~ DEv~~GP~~T REV:ZW STAT~S.
Does ~~e ?roJec~ ~nvolve the follcw~ng:
YZS
NO
1. ~he e=ect~o~, const~~c~~on, enla~~e~ent~
cemol~~~~n or ~ov~~g of, and excavat~oL
~'c g=ac~~g =or, any or.e-fa~~ly c~ell~~g
~n R-: O~e-?~~~ly Res~dent~al D~strl.ct?
x
2. Alterat.~cn, repa~=, ~~prcveme~t. 0=,
e~~a=g~~en=r O~ aed~~~on to any one-
=~,~ly dWe~l~ng l.n ot~er t~an an R-l
One-Fam~ly Re5~de~t~al D~s~rl.ct?
x
3. ~~e erect~on or ccns~ruct~cn of, a,d
excava-::~on a::d ;rac.~..g for / any 7.ul::J..;:le
dWe1l~:1g l.nter.cec as re:1tal hQus~ng =or
pe=so~s anc. f~11~es of low or ~oce=ate
or =cr senl.cr c~~~ze~s, wh~ct ~s =~nanced
by any fecera~ or state hous~~; aSs1stanCe
cr c~ed ty a~y :.-e~1gl.CUS or ct~e:::- nop-
pro=~:: organ~zatl.o:1?
'(
~. A:~era~~on~ =e?a~~, ~~prcv~~en~ of or
acd~~~cn to a~y bu~lc~ng O~ str~c~U=e
~n w~~=h t~e total gross floor area
of t~e b~~ld~~g c= structure w~ll be
2~==e~sec ~y les~ than lO%?
x
5. Conv~rs~o~ to condo~l~~~~S of a~v
mult~~le dwell~ng ttat ~ad a f~n~l
subc~v~s~on mao O=~O= to October 1
1981 a~d has =ec~~ved e~ther a re~;va~
pe~~t or a vested =J..g~ts dete~J..-
nat~cn from ~~e Santa Mon~ca Rent
Centro::' 3card?
x
6. J~~ol~t~o:: of bULlc~~gs for whl.ch a
Category r: aemoval Pe~~t has been
g=anted by the Santa ~Dn~ca Rent
CO:1trol 3oa.=c.?
x
, .
A pcbl~~ wo=~s proJect of ~~e C1ty
of Santa Mon~~a?
;{
8. .; s:.gn?
III.
10.
::'1.
9.
>as ..," ?~ttrCIKtfm~rr
follow:.:!q cet:e'=:::'J.:lat:,o:ls or e.xe..~?t.:.cns :
al
"'w1'es't.ec r:.gh ts ce~e==:']';1a ~~o~. ?u=sua~ 't.
to Sec~~cn 6 of C==~~a~ce 1220 (CCS)?
~l
Vestec ~~qhts ce~e~~~at~cn O~
harcsh~p e~em~~~cn u~de= the
~ergency Bu~ld~ng Xcra~or:.~~?
~ave any c~nd~~ior.s ~~posec l~
s~c~ de~e~2~at~o~ bee~ sat~s~2ee?
cl EX~~:'Qn unce= Sec~:.cn 3 (e} 0=
O==.:.na::ces 1205 {.C:Sl c= 1207 (CCS)?
c} ZX~~t:.cr. Q~de= Sect:'C:l J {oj c~
Cr~~~~~ces 1205 tC::S} or 1207 lC~S) '1
Was a bu~:c:l.::g ~e~:.~ law=~l~7 lssued
fo= ~~e p=~jec~.between Ap=:.1-Z3, 1981
~,d Se~~~~e= 30, 1981?
Eas a ceve:c;~e~t ag=ee=Le~~ f~r ~,~s
P=~J ec~ ce~:: appzQved ":;y tbe c~ t:! COu:lc~17
SCCP~ C? P?0J3C7
~
..
Dces ~~e p~oJect ~nvol~e ~~e cc~st~~c~~cn
of :cre ~~ac 4 Gwell~~g ~~~ts?
2.
D~e5 ~~e p~o~:ct ~nvolve t~e c~r.st~cc=~cn
O~ sto=es, o==~ces or ~es~auran~s W~~~
~~ oc~~?a~~ load of 3C pe~5C~S or ~ar9:
3.
~ces ~~e proJect ~~vo17e replaclng a~
ex~s~:.ng ~~-uct~: ~~th a la=~e= one
0= ~~e ada~~~cn 0= ~0=9 ~~a~ 2500
s~~~=e fe~~ or g=eate= ~~a~ 5a~ 0=
~~e =loor a=ea ~o a~ ax~st~ng bu~l~~~g?
4.
W~11 ~~e proJect requ~=e ~~e ~5suance c=
a Ccn~~t~cnal ase re~~t, Va=:.an~e 0=
s?ec~a1 ?ern~~ Otr.e= ~~~~ a bu:.:c~~g
pe~:.t or bUs~~ess l~cer.se?
5.
:5 ~,~s bu~ld~nq be~nq cO~5t=cctec
~~ conJ~~c~~cn w~t~ 4 or ~o=e st=~c~u=esr
=y ~~e 5a~e a?~l~~an~?
6.
Does the 9=ojec~ ~nvolve or.-?ra~ise
S~g~5, or a 5~all ?a=~:.~g lc~~
2..r..~.L:::J..;TICN"
(~o ~e ccmpletec by Sta=f)
:~ter~ Develc=~en~ ~ev~ew:
EXe...'U.pt
Co~?lete Ap?:~cat~cL fer Pla~'~~g
Cc~~ss~o~ ?ev~ew
~~v~=o~~en~al 2tat~s
General R~le Ex~~?t~o~ (13050)
Ca~escr~cal EXempt~cn Class
Co~ple~e Z~v~~o~~e~~a~ I~~ac~ Assessmen~
y;::;sT \fO
x
x
x
x
x.
x
x
x
x
x
----l _
x
'(
,
r
r--
[
lCrT-/ U- /(/1-. 1 ~
~ \ I ~ J L l \ IATTAC';:,;;[~ j
I
As the delivery of hea::t D~re 3ervices b~s tee- :h~ngl~g in recent years to
alternative settings ~uch as cutpaticl1t, S..!ir.' :~l.jIS Hospital and Health
Cen ter has been ad~u$ tJ. ~lc; to tho.3e cha.::3;:1. ag t:..u.:..:: <
First was the s\1::::cessf'..ll ccm~l~ti'Y1 lr, :i.~~/J c:..' ~~1: : -:....:- story aI!lDulatory
care twoer project w~i~h tod3.Y is r'-?f€.r-:d ;"0 <:.3 t,.;:> we3l wing. The project
ecab1ed patients to re~eive and Saint J~~no3 3ta:: ~C ~,ovlde ambulatory
care services in an efficient, convenient and C~~~ affacLive man~er while
still maintaiLing state of the art medic81 techn0lo6J a~d quality care.
Mcst recently Salnt JO>ofS is plannjng tJ r~L~caL_ ~::~ !~c16anize the
deliver; of cancer services for both inpat~en~3 ~~~ ~~47atiertts. Prp3ently
i~patient ca.l::€r serviCC3 are pro'iid<:j::n the si;...-;i-:i flv':-;:- of t:~c i1{)ro;~ ....ing,
the oldest ar~a of Saint John's p"T3ical plant, a'll c.~tpatlent canOEr
services are provided in va.'lous locc.t.iof!3.
The plan calls for relocating the inratient ssr.ice~ to tue third floo~ of
the south wing an existing i~ldtic~t unit whirh Ga3 ~~en closed due ~o
dEcreasing census and relocating the c~tpatient ~-~vi~es to the third floor
of the west wing. As a result cQr.c~r sei~ice3 w~il ba r~~7iG~d on the third
floor o~ the adjacent s~uth aG~ ~~-t w~~~~. F~~~i~ic~ of t~3se 3ervic~s in
one cont:! 2'110US area w~,. proYide an eff-:'ci~:;t-, CO:'ioi,Joie,.t and cost. effective
setting f~r patl~nts. ~a~ily whlcc ~~~ a~ iN~~ltant ~j~po~t group for the
pa~1ent and meCl::al s.afr.
However to have a physi ~3.11J cOJ.tig~":J~.:' a"~:;;? a:, ,^, ':.::"CS~Q CJ,l~cctcr'/walk-wiaj
is requit'~d bct'..leen t~e sou~-, ar:1 west wll:":::- ~:J.'E.;:' .:"3.:;' 2..:-33. o~- ~L.g
cC'nnect.or' is 1.286 grcs3 sq:3.re fe~t i!,~L-.:.i::g c. 2'::;-'l.l~~ al1:.3. [::i1"" ---ice spa.;:~
ar:.d a stz."f l.ccter/:i..ollI:ige ar_a of WZ1iC',1 c.:~'1 "i1.l1 2'::.:;?::;~i; tin, ca. _~r :::eLvlc~o
In a~jitlGn Sd~nt JOi:~~3 is a:sc pla~G~~:; co r6~c:_~~ a_
........r'garl:~ze CI.:3
are~u~atory ~edic~=e/p~~n ma~~ge~e~t ~~T~~:e :=r ~:~;~~~ !t3~ F?e~e~~ly t~a
s~rvice is located C~ ~0th the s~c0r,d f:j~r cf t:~ x~3t ~~~g ~cd t~~ third
f10cr of ~!.e main ~i~'g~ aa:e:~ta c: re:c~a:~~~ ~_~ ~~~~:~~ ~o ~~G32
de3crib~d eal~li~r fef' t~e ~anC'.3r 3c~vi,~2. f>-_s~ 5: _~~:t.- ',::; ;:'.<;; ca.1C::.
.ser\;'"~ce the ~1eE."'d e:ci.s ts t~ dav~2.\:-, 2.t. .:. - _...:: 1...:-.s -==....i .:.. -::: -.- :. _ ~~~ / :: ~ ~y :':'.3:' "3~ =. t..)-:
fourt.h .,:"t.loor of t:~e \l~3~ a:.l~ s~~:'h w..:..~1g24 l~ ~ ~~:.~.:..~.. :...-~:.. ow_.... l,..~j~ :':':-,1,{t.eCl"vi::"
is 1,286 V'033 s-;:u~.e feet inc]uC:~~3: a s:" ::.~[ J_,~~:'r.-!-~-l-':''::o ;:J~..3d .;.-',::: a .=.::iJ"111
stor ..3.Ce ar2a of \i1...:ch bo t.:l will .sup;,ort. th;: ti-.....;.a..: ~ to. ...G.. J- ~_ ..i_-.:......~1E /iJair.
~ar.age~ent s~r.ice.
In su~~ary, Sa~nt Jc~~'s ~c3pit21 ~~~ E~2lth C~~L~~ 1: J~,~l)~in[ ~n
erlcl:'':2d ~O~12C ':or/walkway or. tt~ th::.r,j and fGill:' L~1 [::'oc,-,s "':0" J.:c~~,~g tH~
scu:h and west Wi~gs. The total i!crease in Sp2C~ is 2,S12 ~-oss sq'l~~e
feet or which 1,099 gross squ~;.re fe2t i3 rei' rff:.-.::;~ 3:"C_ ::.:,8 0,:0 1('_;,2::-
lounge area. Tne remainJ..n.g 1,473 g.";;S3 squar~ fe::;c 1.3 ';') ~'l cc.~'io:.:')l' ;5p~"1.Ce.
The total ncreaEe of 2,572 gross square feet rep~~s~~~3 L~ o~e~a~: lu~~2a52
01' 1~S3 th"ln one percent of Saint John'3 tctdl S:':2::2, T,~;:> i"1CL::':'3~ 'IJ11
net re~ult 01 the a~dition of e~ployeesl v~~!icu12r t~!f;~~ U~ ;2de3t~1a~
t,affic. P:ease see Attachment B for a detailed li~~~r.G ~f ~~~ audltlo~al
space.
. .
... ~ F
{
r
(
it-I-1fT( H r1]WT~ J
AT r i~ -: :ItG~Nr B
~=ST /SOU:-~-! 1,Jn~,J C~, -lEeI'D?
3rd aDd 4t~ Floors
Sub Total
3rc ECC'~ l.Jth Ftc'O?
;208 ::l.r.
4'J& s..f. 250 s.L
195 s.f.
':J2 .3. f. 841 s.f.
1..:~S .:l,. -oh ... 1.286 s~f.
.r. <~-..... s.r.
c:.~){c:.
c.-tice Area
Lo~,ge/Iocker/Toilet fl~aa
Storage Area
Corrider Area
Total Area (Thi:d arod :ourt~ Floor)
Saint Jc~nt3 existir.b space
6~9,631 3., .
3rd and ~th floor conr.3ctor
29572 t..~ - ~ ~
--- --- ---
632.2G3 .3.;.
~-.,..~......-........... ~~-....
\i c:..r r::..;::;e.~......J
le3:> L::m J_~)
fA
~T~~JLm~r K
COmITun~~y and Economlc Develop~ent Department
M E M 0 RAN DUM
DATE:
July 7/ 1986
TO:
7ne 2onorab1e Plannlng Comm~SSlon
FRON:
R. Ann S~racusa, Dlrector of Plannlng
SUBJEC':':
DR 329, To Perrrlt the Add~tlon of a 2,572 Sq Ft.
Connector BU.lldl.ng to Join the EXlstlng West Wlng and
South K~ng at St. John's Hospltal and Health Center
Address:
F-.ppllcant:
1328 22no. Street
CP
SITE LOCATION k~D DESCRIPTION
The sUbJ ect propert.y lS part of the St. Jc"hn 1 s EOSpl tal campus
whlch 1.S located between Santa Maulca Boulevard, Arlzona Avenue,
20th Street and 23rd S~reet, Surrcundlng uses conSl.st of
mult~-farr.lly reslcentlal and 8edlcal related cor.rerclal uses (Cp)
to the nor~~, correrclal uses (CP, CA) to the so~~h, mUlt.l-faolly
resl.dentlal uses (R2) to the east, and cor~e~clal and resldentlal
uses (CP, CA) to the west.
Zonlng Dlstrlct: CP
Land Use Dlstrlct:
Co~~erCla: Professlonal DlSt~lct
PROPOSED PROJECT
The proposed proJect lS fer the addltlon of a 2,572 sq.rt.
connector/walkway to connect ~he eXlstlng west and south Wl~SS of
St. Jch~'s Hospltc1. The bUlldl.ng connectlon wlll be located a~
the thlcd and fourth floers, and w~ll include a 208 sq.ft,
offlce, 195 sq.ft, of s~oLage and 696 sq.ft. of lour.ge and locker
space. Tr.e :re!pa~nl.ng 1473 sq. ft. w~11 be devoted to cc::-rldor
area. Three parkl.ng spaces wlll be provlded on surface ~ot E cn
Arlzona Avenue between 21st and 22nd Streets.
t--!UNICI PAL CODE AND GENER..,:,.L PLAK CCNFOR......IANCE
Tne proposed proJect lS conS1.stent wlth the Munlcl.pal Code and 1.n
confor~lty wlth the Ge~eral Pla~ as shown In Attachment A.
CEQA STATUS
The proJect lS
Cl ty of Santa
(14) ) .
categcrl.cally exe~pt from the provlslons
~onlca GUlcellnes for Imp1ementatlon.
of CEOA,
(Class 3
,
..L -
, -
YCES
prOject f1TlfthJt(f]o~land
f~
'TIns
program.
Parks Mltigatlon
ANALYSIS
The proposed proJect 2S sUbJect to Plannl.ng Cormll.SSl.on reVl.e......
Pollcy 1.13.1 of the Land Use Element speclfl.es that prl.or to
adoptl.on of Speclfl.c Plans for the area cOmprlSl.ng and
l.l".IT.edl.ately surroundl.ng each hospl.tal car"pus, medl.cal and
wedl.cally-related development proposed by the hospl.tals shall be
subJect to Sl.te reVl.ew. Such proposed development shall be
approved only If it nelther pre]udl.ces the adoption of the
SpeCl.flC Plan nor advers ely affects the surroundl.ng
nel.ghborhoods.
The proposed proJect 1.5 deslgned to create a contlguous area
between the south and west hospl. tal wl.ngs to provl.de- a more
effl.CJ..ent and convenl.ent settJ..ng fer cancer serVl.ces and
ambulatory medlcine and pain rr:anagement serVl.ces. parkl.ng to
-meet Munlclpal Code requ~re~ents wlll be provlded on surface Lot
E on Ar~zona Avenue between 21st a~c 22nc S~reets.
ConclUSlon
~he proposed connector/walxway rep~e5e~~5 less than a 1%
to the hosp:;... tal carapus and reets 2.p91~ca.ble ~!un.!...clpal
General Plan provls~ons fo~ the CF D~strl.ct.
addltlon
Code and
RECOHhEND.; 'I' I OK
Plannlng staff resDec~fullv recor.~enGs approval of D~ 329 subJect
to the folloWLr.g flnclngs and ccncltlons.
FINDINGS
1. The developIT'ent. 1.5 ccr:s.::..s\:.e~t ........::..tn. t.he fu:d.:.ngs and pur-
pose of O~d::"~2nce 1321 as se~ zor~n belew.
2. The physlcal loca~lc~ 2.~d p~~ceffien~ of proposed structures
en the slte are cccpa~::..b~e ~.!...~h a~d relat.e har~onl.o~sly to
sur~oundLng s~~es a~d ne~g~bc=~ocds l~ that the 2,572
sq. ft. ccnnector/wal~~ay wlll ve lcccted ccnpletely wlthlD
St. John's Bos?~tal a~c ~eG~2al Ce~~er cdrrpus and Wl.ll be
desl.gned to be ccmpa~~~le wlth eXl.st~ng car-pus bUl.ldlngs.
3. The eXlst~ng and/or proposed rlgh~s-of-way and fac~lltles
for both pedestr~an and ai..l~o:'1cblle trafflC wlll be ade-
quate to accom..'T'Loda te \:ae an~lCl.pc. tee res ul ts of the pro-
posed developme~t lnc:udl~S cff-s~reet par~lng fac~lJ.tles
and access thereto 1.:: tha:. three par1<lns places w:J..ll be
provl.ded on surIace :'ct ::: on Ar.::.z::na Aver.ue between 21st
and 22nd Stree~s.
')
..
4.
5.
The cm(rIT~Jt([l~ Liar pL health
and safety fac~l~ties (~nclud~ng, but not l~m~ted to,
san1tat~on, sewers, storm drains, f~re protect~on dev1ces,
protect1 ve serv~ces, and publlC utll1. tles) w1.11 be ade-
quate to accoITJT'oda te the antlc1.pated resul t.s of the pro-
posed development.
The proposed develop:-rent 1.S conS1.stent. w1th the General
Plan of the Clty of Santa MOD1.Ca and the Zonlng Ordlnance
In that the proJect w~ll conform to the helght, bulk, use
and urban des1.gn pol~cles for the COTh~erc~al Profess~onal
Dlstr~ct as spec~f1.ed ln the Land Use Element of the
General Plan and conform to the appropr1.ate CP standards
contalned In th8 ZonLng Ordlnance,
1.
SPECIAL CONDITIONS
The Arch1.tectural Revlew Board, In the1.r reVlew, shall
partlcular attentlon to the scale and artlculatlon
deslgn elements, exterlor colors, textures, materlals
wlndow treatment to lnsure lts compat1.blllty wlth the
lstlng hosp1tal bUlld1ngs.
pay
of
and
ex-
2. Three parklng spaces shall be provlcec for thlS new addl-
tlcn at surface Lot E on Arlzona AvenUe bet.ween 21st and
22nd Streets.
STAKDAR8 CGNDITIONS
1. M1nor arendnents to the plans shall be subject to approval
by the Dlrector of Plannlng. An lncrease of ffio~e than 10%
of the square footage or a slgn~f1can~ change 10 the ap-
proved concept sha!.l be subJect to Plar'.n1ng COI1..I'lSSlOr.
Revlew. Construct~on shall be 1n substant1al confor~ance
'.....1 t.h the plans SUbtlll tted or as 1.'Odl fl.ed by the Plannlng
CommlsS10n, Archltectural ReVlew Board or Dl=ector of
PlannJ..ng.
2. The rlghts granted hereul shall be effectl ve only when
exe=c~sed w1th1n a per~od of one year iron the effectlve
date of approval, Cpon the wrltten request of the appll-
cant, the Dlrector of Plannlog r.ay extenc. t.h;.s per-lod up
to an addltlor.al SlX Gonths.
3. The appllcant shall comply ''';1 th all leg&l requl.rernent.s
regara1ng prOV1Slons for the dlsabled, 1ncludlng those set
forth 1n the Cal~ forola Adrr~nl s tra t1 ve Code, Tl tl e 24,
Part :2.
4. Refuse areas, storage aredS and mechanlcal equlpment shall
be screened In accordance wlth Sec. 9127J,2-4 (SMMC). Re-
fuse areas shall be of a Slze adequate to rreet on-slte
need.
- 3 -
.,'
5.
ThlS deterd:DJj~tt l[Ji~L:tm ~ pmod
of twenty days from the date of determlnatlon or, 1.f ap-
pealed, untll a f1.nal determinatl.on is made on the appeal,
Prepared by:
KR:nh
DR0329
6-18-86
Karen Rosenberg, Assocl.ate Planner
- 4 -
tr[L~ ~ /11fLUT r:
MUNICIPAL CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE
Category
Land Use
Munlclpal Code Ele~ent
ProJect
Permltted Use CP: permlts
hospltals
CP zone
requlres sJ.te
reV.Lew
2,572 sq.ft.
connector/walkway
between two
eXlstlng hospJ.tal
wJ.ngs
Height
6 storJ.es, 90'
connector to be
located on floors
3 and 4 between
two eXlsting SlX
story nospJ.tal
wJ.ngs
pax-fang
Spaces
2/572 sq.ft. @
1:300 sq. ft.
3 parkJ.ng
spaces requlred
3 parKJ.ng spaces
prov1.ded at
hospJ.tal Lot E
r
, '
II.
REVIE~\T
\ Lk--OC H ff1fA}T
DISTRIJT!:] J f , j c..--
L
Archltectural Rev~ew Dlstrlcts are composed of all commerclal,
industrlal and resldentlal areas wlth~n the corporate boundaries
of the Clty of Santa Monlca wlth the exceptlon of Rl and R2R Dlstrlcts.
III.
JU~ISDICTION:
All new proJects, lncluding publlC bUllolngs, addltlcns, remodel-
~ngs, slgns, maJor contour gradlng, maJor landscaplng, parklng
lots and storage yards, proposed to be placed In the Review
Dlst~lcts enu~erated In Sectlon II shall be approved by the
Archltectural Review Board, or upon appeal by the Plannlng CO~~15sion
prlor to the lssuance of a bUllding permlt, except that both the
BUllclns Offlcer and the Planning Dlrector or their delegate may
a??rave buildlng permlt appllcatlon for minor or -lnslgniflcant
rexccellng ?Yo)ects WhlCh wlll not defeat the purpose of the
Archl~ectural ReVlew Ordinance and these GUldel~nes, and, further I
w~lch shall comply wlth all the followlng Ilmltatlons:
A. The addltlon shall not be larger than 15% of the
ex~stlng floor area, shall not exceed 2000 square
feet, and shall not be the second application con-
cernlng the s~~e structure approved w~thln the
last twelve (12) months.
S. The renodel~ng conforms to and is compatlble w~th
~he deslgn and character of the eXlsting structure.
C. The proposed re~odellng does not deal w1th a 51gn
or blllboard of any type,
D. The proposed reModeling 15 not an exterior modlflca-
tlon of an eXlstlng structure located on W~lshlre
Boulevard, Ocean Avenue, Applan Way, Barnard Way,
-2-
...
PROJECT.
NUMBER;
LOCATION:
APPLICANT:
REQUEST:
, \
ttrr5s ttFm~IL-
IYl
DR 292, ErA 784, Z,A. 4876-Y
1301 20th Street
S~ster Mar~e
Hosp~tal
for
Sa~nt John's
Made1e~ne
Shonka
To Construct a
f~ce Bu~ld~ng
20th Street.
F~ve Story 94,560 Sq. Ft. Med~cal Of-
at the Corner of Ar~zona Avenue and
PLk\~IING CO~~ISSION ACTION:
3-18-85
Date.
x Approved based on the follow~ng f~nd~ngs and subJect to
the cond~t~ons below.
Denied.
Other.
F~nd~n9s.
1. The developmen t ~s cons iste:1."t W~ t.h the f~nd~ngs and ;mr-
pose of Ord~nance 1321 as se~ fo~~h below,
~~
-;.
2.
The phys~ca1 lccat~cn and p1ace~ent of proposed struc~~res
on the s~te are compatLble w~th ar.d re:ate har~on~ously to
sur=ound~ng s~tes and neLghborhoods In that the pro]-
ect,w~th the except~on of the fron~yard setback, confor~s
to the property development sta:ldards for the CP zO:J.e.
The proJect provides an 11' set.back along all property
Ilnes WhlCh serves as a publ~c open space, and 1.S desLgned
wlth stepped back floor a~c balcon~8s ~hlch cont=~b~te to
reducLng the v~sual l~pact of ~~e bu~ld~ng mass.
The eXLsting and/or proposed ~~ghcs-of-way and faCllit~es
for both pecestr::!..an a:l.c a~:.omobl.le tra=fl.c vall be ade-
qua te to accorr.;r:oda t.e t;..e an:'~clpa ted resul t.s of the pro-
posed development 1.nc1~d~~g of=-st=eet parklng facl.ll.tles
and access thereto l.n that as demonstrated l.n the Trafflc
~nalysl.s the p=oJec~ w~ll ~ot cont.r~bute to a s~gr.l.=l.cant
:Unpac":. on the e:-::l.stl.nc Clrculatlon natterns ar.d that as
~rooosed the oarkinc D~cv~ced a:. the-rat~o of 1 s~ace Der
~47.square fe~t exc~eds the ratl.O of 1:300 as req~~red-by
~he MUn~c~pal Cace.
1
4.
The ensting anU~~fr~or l:nate health
and safety facllities (lncludlng, but not 1lffilted to,
sanltatlon, sewers, storm dralns, fire protectlon devices,
protectlve services, and publlc utlll.t~es) wlll be ade-
quate to accommodate the antlcipated results of the pro-
posed development.
,.'
5. The proposed development 1S conslstent Wl th the General
Plan of the Clty of Santa Monlca and the Zon:L~g Qrdlnance
Ln that polley 1.13.1 ldentifles the areas comprlslng and
lmmedlately surroundlng each hospltal for expansion of
eXlst1..ng hosD1..tal bUlldlncs and constructlon of new medi-
. ...
cal off~ce bu:tlclngs.
6. The proposed development w1..11 not pre]UdlCe the ab:t1ty of
the Clty to adopt a Speclflc Plan for the CP dlst=lct 1..n
that the proJect is conslstent with the Hospltal Master
Plan developed for Salnt John's Hospltal.
Varlance F1..nClncs.
"
l. The grant.i.ng of a var lance 1..5 essentlal or deslreable to
the publlc convenlence or welfare and not 1..n confllct wlth
the Ger.e=al Plan, and wlll not be materlally cetr:tmental
or In J ur :tous to the prope::--:.y or l.mprovements ~n the ~m-
~ed1.a~= ~elshborhood l~ tha~ t~e 9roJec~ as designed pro-
v~des a setback ap?rox~~a~e:y 11' around the entlre struc-
t':...:re ~N"hJ..c;" exceeds the setbac}c requ~=enent. for the rear
and S1..deyards. The front yard setback. as deslgned wlll
serve as publ~c space prov~d~ng pedestr~an amenlt.les such
as be~ch seat~ng, planters, and ex~enS1.ve landscaplng.
Cond1..t.1..or.s.
1. The Arch~~ectural Review Boare, 1.~ thelr reVlew, shall pay
?artlcular a~tent1.on to the proJect's pedestr~an orlenta-
tlcn and pedes tr.lan a.'t1.en1. tles ; scale anc. artlcula tJ.on of
deslgn e:ements; exter1..or colors, tex~~res and mater1..als;
wJ.~dow ~=eat~ent; glazlng; and landscapJ.ng. The Board
sha~L carefully reVlew the appearance or the proposed
tra=f1.c oarrlers located cn 20th Street to ensure that the
appllcant. sel.ects an approprlate deslgn ~ornpatlble wlth
the nature of t~e proposed proJect. In add1.t.l0n the Board
shall care fully reV1.ew the :T'.as s l:1.g I facade des 1..gn. and
bul'-< of the bU.l.lc.lng. The Board sha 11 str J. ve to alter
t~ese elements J.n crder t~ pro?er~y in~egrate che bUlldlng
w~th the resJ.de~cJ.al ne~g~bcrhood.
2.
Sl.gns shall
10ad1..::.g and
be :.-~qul.=ec.
u:11oadlr..g 1.5
t.o G.J.rec1:. users t.hat passenger
prov1..ded on A~1..Z0na avenue.
3. The 91a~ters as shown on the pla:1.s around the perJ.meter of
~~e bu~ldl~g shall be re~oved and the set.back areas shall
be la~dscaped pe= Arch.l~ectural RevJ.ew Board approval w~th
specl.al a~te~tl.C~ gl.ver. ~o pedestrJ.an orl.entatJ.on.
- 2 -
4.
aw1tu-ta1~J:UbJeUt
5. The rights granted he=e~n shall be effect.Lve only when
exercised w~th~n a per~cd of one yea= from the effect~ve
date of approval. Upon the wr~~ten request of the appli-
cant, the D1=ector of ?lannlng may extend thls per10c up
to an add~tlonal SlX months.
6. The appllcant shall comply .......1. th all legal requirements
regardlng prov1s1ons for the c1.sabled. includ1ng those set
forth ~n the Callforn1.a Admlnistratlve Code, Tltle 24,
Part 2.
7. F1nal parklng lot layout and spec1f1cations shall be sub-
Ject to the reVl.ew and approval of the ?arkl.ng and Traffic
EngJ.neer.
8 .
9.
#
~
~
A --
Prior to issuance of a bU1lding per:nl.t, the ap?llcant
shall subm~t. to the Oi=ector of Plann~ng for reVlew and
approval,'a detalled alternatlve parKlng progra~ to accom-
modat.e those eXlstlng em?loyee parkJ.ng spaces wnJ.c:t wJ..l1
be clsplaced as a result of thl.s pro::;ect and t.emporary
parking for constructlon workers.
Parking for employees of the ~ed~cal offl.ce bu~ldl.~g shal;'\(
oe prov1ded free of cha=ge w~th~n the subte==anea~ garage
and park~ng for pat1ents shall be provlded f~ee of cha=ge~
for the flrst hour W1. th a va1lda t.ed parJc.ng pe::-ml. ~. One
year after the bUJ.ldl~g 15 80% leased, the owner or tne1r
successors shall fund a study, the scope of whl.ch shall be
determ.l.ned by the Dlrector of Plannlng, to de-:.err:une the
l~pact of Vl.Sl.tor parklng on the street and l.cent.l.=Y ste?s
necessary in order to mi t1ga t..e any ?otentl.a1 probleTs.
The Plannlng CO~~.l.SS10n shall reVl.ew and approve any par<-
l.ng alte.::-nat1ve as proposed W1.th1n the study des.l.gr.ed to
reduce the impact on the surround1ng reSl.dentlal d1strl.ct.
10. Refuse areas, storage areas and mechanl.cal equ1pment shall
be screened In accordance wl.th Sec. 9l17J.2-4 (SM~C). Re-
fuse areas shall be of a S1.ze adequate '=.0 meet on-s:.te
need.
ll. The operatl.on shall at all times be conducted 1.n a ~anne=
not detrlmental to surrounc1.ng propertles or res~dent5 ~y
reason of l~ghts, nOl.se, act~Vl.tles, pa.::-klng or other
actlons.
- 3 -
. .:. .i
12.
X
No noise
shall be
buildings.
, ~ w-' m
generadJ:l1J'usill ar Jather such equ1pment
placed adJacent to ne~ghbor~ng resident~al
13. proJect des~gn shall comply w~th the bUllding energy reg-
ulations set forth 1n the Callfornla Adm1nistrative Code,
T1 tle 24, Part 2, (Energy Conservatlon Standards for New
Residentlal BU11d1ngs), such conformance to be verlfied by
the Bu~ldl.ng and safety D1V1S10n prlor to lssuance of a
BUl.ldlng Pe.:-m1.t.
14.
The eXls~lng drlveways and aprons
eXlstlog curb cuts replaced w~th
pe.:- the spec~f~cat1.ons of the
Services.
shall be removed and the
standard curb and gutter
Department of General
15. Street trees shall be maintained, relocated or provlded as
required ln a manner cons~stent wlth the C~ty's Tree Code
(Ord. 1242 CCS), per the speclflcat1.Cns of the Department
of Recreatlon and Parks and the Department of General Ser-
v~ces. No street tree shall be rer.loved wlthout the ap-
proval of the Depart~ent of Recreat1.on ar.d Pa=ks.
16. Street andlor alley 11ght1.ng shall be provided on publ1.c
r1.ghts-of-way adJace~t to the proJect If ar.d as needed per
the s?ecl=~cations a~d w~th the apprcva~ of the ~epartment
of General Serv~ces.
17.
18.
19.
20.
--..' '
/
--r
That a park~ng ra~~o of the space per 250 square feet be
prov1.ded to accorrmocate the denar.d genera~ed by the proJ-
ect and ~n order to reduce the splllover of med~ca1 off1ce
bu~ld~ng-related park~ng on adjacent reslde~t~a1 s~=eets.
The entrance to the proJec~ be located on 20th Street to
reduce traff~c ~mpact on A=J..zo~a Avenue. Turnlng move-
:nents into and ou~ of t.he parkl.:J.g fac~ll.':.Y shall be re-
strlcted to r1.ght. turns only to off-set any negat1.ve im-
pacts resultul.g f:=:om the lncreased t.:-af=~c c~rculat~on.
Barr~ers on 20th Street shall be l.~sta:led to prevent left
turns 1:'1 and out of the pro j ect . 7he entra:lce to the
parklng garage shall be se~back approxl~ately lIS' to al-
low queulng of at least 10 vehlcles en~er~ng the bU1.ld~ng.
To n~t~gate potent~al pedestr~an-ve~lcular confllcts at
the park~ng garage entrance, ~easures such as aud1ble
detectors on the eXlt ramps to wa=~ pedes~r~ans, el~ml~a-
tlon of bllnd corners a~ the entra~ce, and a setback park-
lng en~rance shall be provlded for thls p=oJec~.
A r1.desharlng program to lnclude preferentlal 10cat10ns of
asslgnec park~ng spaces for car?ocls, free ?ark.1.ng fees
f 1 d d. 4-' ~I ,..'l
or carpoo s, l.SCQunt.e ous ...o<e::1S a::.<....;. or passes, a:1", a
deslgnated r:lanager to prcmote an agSressl.'1e p=ogram be
provl.ded.
- 4 -
, I
21.
The short term palJ:JJti (al1zQ&Jf[[g (t1 unload~ng
on Arizona Avenue and on 20th Street shall be closely
monitored and the tlme Ilmlts enforced to prevent the area
from being used as patient parking.
22. An attendant shall be provided to monltor and staff the
tandem parklng spaces provlded 1n the subterranean garage.
F1nd1nss and Condltlons for Hous1ng/parks Mitlgatlon Measure
1. The 1982 study, Offlce Develooment In Santa Monlca: The
~
Munlcl.pa1 :'1 seal and nOUS lng Impac-;:, by Hamll ton,
Rabinovitz and Szam:.on, documented that approxlmately 3%
of offlce workers In the bUlldlngs surveyed deslred to
llve 1n Santa Monlca, were unable to afford to do so, and
qual~fed for publlc affordable hous1ng ass1stance.
2. The same study documented that dayt1me offlce workers make
signlflcant use of the Clty'S open space system, particu-
larly City parks.
3.
4.
Because the affordable housing and open space needs of
workers In newly constructed offlce bUlldlngs are similar
to those for t~e eXlS tlng bUlld lngs analyzed 1.:1 the 1982
study, the Land Use Element of the Cl '=.y I S General Plan
acopt.ed on October 23, 1984 includes a x'equ.1.!'emen ~ that
new of=~ce development proJects mlt.1.gate the1r houslng and
cpe:l space J.rnpact.s on the City, and outllnes speclflc
qUldellnes for the Clty to follow In es'=.abllSh.1.ng a for~al
ffi1tigatlcn program.
T~e prcp~~edical offlce buildlng wlll conta~n approxJ.-
~acelY(256 er.ployees (based on ~nforrnat.1.on provlded by the
proJec~appllcant), 1n a 94,560 square foot bU.1.1ding WhlCh
exceec.s the threshold below WhlCh new off1ce development
proJects are exempt fron compliance wlth the houslng/open
space mltlgatlon program .1.n the Land Use Ele~ent.
I! '
~ J6-
$f
C...!...
'- [
5. O:-dlnance 1321 adopted by the Clty on December 11, 1984
=eS1...:.:.:-es that. new non-resldentlal and ffiJ.xed use develop-
~e~~ proJects 1n excess of 15,000 square feet must. recelve
a DevelopIT.ent Per~J.t pursuant to the requlrements of the
Ordl:lance. In conS.1.derlng whether to g=ant such a permJ.t,
t~e Plann~ng COnffiJ.SSlon ~ust find that the proposed
c.eve:'opment l5 conSl.stent wlth the General Plan and the
~1un1clpal Code, and that. for new general and medl.cal of-
f~ce develop~ent over 15,000 square feet, such development
shall prcvlde adequate ProJect M1t~gatlon Measures to meet
t.ne goals or t~e Land Use and C~rculat1on Elements of the
Ge:J.e:-al Pl.an.
6. In order to sat1.sfy the requlrement of Qrdlnance 1321 that
~he project be conslstent w~th the Land Use Ele~ent of the
General Pla:J., t~e developer shall e1ther:
- 5 -
-
a. Pronde : uniA.-CT71Cd(t{!J~~ J/1 project
s~te or another s~te within the C~ty, and 0.2 acres of
open space on the proJect s1te (but in add1tion to open
space otherw~se requ~red by the Municlpal Code), or on
another s1te with1n the Clty,
OR
b. Enter 1nto an agreement wlth a th1rd party to provlde
or cause to be provlded such houslng and open space,
WhlCh agreement shall be approved by the Cl~y,
The pro J ect appll.can t shall e!1ter lnto an
the Clty speC1.fYlng "the r.lan::e~~ch
shall be ~rnplemented orlor t6 i~suante
. - - '-i \' )
permlt. \ I ~
Q. 'l<>, \';'irS
~
agr e emen t Wl th
thl.s condl. tl.on
of a build1ng
-.
,
Chalrperson
Clty of Santa Monlca
Planning CO~~lss~on
SF::1h ST292
- 6 -
"
"
~--/
A f111 C~H f~ f})T
N
STATUS REPORT TO CITY OF SANTA MONICA PLANNING COMMISSION
Santa MonIca HOspItal MedIcal Center's ParkIng and TraffIC
Management Program.
Dear CommIssIoner:
ThIS report IS respectfully submItted to the members of the CIt)
of Scnta MonIca PlannIng CO~~IssIon and CIty Staff as an ucdate
on the AprIl 4th Agreement between Santa MonIca HospItal Xedlcc~
Center, the MId-CIty NeIghbors, and the CIty of Santa MonIca
PlannIng CommISSIon regardIng solutIon of par~Ing and traffIC
problems In the area surroundlng the hospItal. ThIS Agree7en:
was a part of the fInal approval of the HOSPItcl IS bu!ldIng
replacement proJect. As was noted In our progress report
of August 3, 1983, the HOspItal has actIvely pursued the
ImplementatIon of a ParkIng and TraffIC ManageGent Progra~. T~=
Hosp~tal retaIned the serVIces of S~~ve Rooney & ASSOCIates
through December, 1983, on c full tune baSIS. DUrIng that pen::,:
In addItIon to coordInatIng the i~ple~entatlon of the progrc~,
Mr. Rooney had trained hospItal staff to assume hIS role. L~u~:
Kenyon In Personrel and Hu~an Resources has assumed the pOSltlO~
of TraDsportatIon CoordInator. Robert Drown In the Safety and
SecurIty Deoartffient has assJmed the role of on-SIte perkin;
supervIsIon. Padcy Wood In MarketIng and ComnunIty
Relations has developed the paratranslt program for outpatler,:s.
I cont~nue to have overall responSIbILIty for ~he ParKIng and
TransportatIon Ma0ageme~t Progrc~. The HospItal contInues to us~
the serVIces of Steve Rooney & Assocla~es on a consultant baSIS.
Over the past year substantIa! progress has been ~ade In our
efforts to alleVIate parkIng and traffIC congestio~ In the
neIghborhoods s~rrc~ndlng the HOspItal. You WIll note that :~e~=
has been srgnIfIcant pr:gress in the TransportatIon Syste~s
Management arEa SInCE our report of August 3, 1983.
ft. TraffIC CIrculc~lcn Measures
1) The majority of e~ployee and construction worker pcrKl~;
IS on 16th Street durIng constructIon. The deSIgn of
the replace~ent project prOVIdes for the maIn HOspItal
entrance, VISItor parkIng and majOrIty of on-sIt~
e~ployee parkIng on 16th Street.
2) The traffIC SIgnals at the corners of WIlshIre Boulevard
& 16th Street and Santa MonIca Boulevard & 16th
Street have been designed under the gUIdance of SteVE
Rooney & ASSOCIates. These plans are In the process
...
J'"
-
~
A-
.~~
- ( ... ,.
Mj ALH-rnYtfr
;J
page two
of reVIew by Raymond E. DavIes. III. CIty ParkIng 2~d
TraffIC EngIneer.
8. TransportatIon Systems Management
1) Laura Kenyon has been desIgnated TransportatIon
CoordInator havIng been traIned for thIS positIon by
Steve Rooney.
2) Employee monthly parkIng charges have been raIsed to
$10.00 per month for surface parking and $15.00 per
month for the parkIng structure.
3) CarpoolIng IncentIves have been prOVIded: prIOrIty.
or If pOSSIble. ImmedIate parkIng prIvIleges at no-:cs:.
one free lunch per month In the HOspItal ca7eterIc,
quarterly drawIngs of vacatIons for carpoolers.
NegotIatIons WIth St. Johns HOspItal and G~~eral
Telephone have not resulted In a JOInt fIde-share
program to date. However_. several e:'iployees are
partICIpatIng In a van pool WhICh IS run by the
PennsylvanIa LIfe Insurance Company in San:a ~onl:~.
A total of 163 employees are now partICIpa:~ng In
the carpoolIng program haVIng for~~d 74 ccr~cols.
4) Employees are offered a 50% dIscount on RTO )~s :=sse~
and a slIghtly larger dIscoun: on tOKens for :~e S=n:=
MonIca buses. Twenty-fIve e~ployees Def ~Gn:n pur~~cs=
bus tokens for the Santa MonIca bus 11nes, ~n a~~rc;e
of SIxty employees purchase RID passes ~on:hly.
OutpatIents are prOVIded WIth free bus to~=~s for :~2.~
transportatIon to the HOspItal durIng theli course Gf
treatment. A bus schedule dIsDenser has bee~ lnstc!le:
In the HospItal lobby, It Includes route ~Gcs and
schedules for Santa J~onIca bus lInes. rnfC;'i.",a:'lc.~
about bus schedules is available at the 1IS!~Gr
InformatIon desk In tne lobby.
5) BIcycle storage racks have been Installed In the a!ley ,
north SIde of the HOspItal. The full capacIty of the
storage racks IS 42. An average of 15 e~plcyees have ~s~:
the racks durIng the winter months; ~ore are cntIcIpat~:
durIng spring and summer. BIcycle locks are prOVIded 7:r
employees who comrr.ute by bIcycle. The racks are also
protected by surveIllance cameras WhICh are ~~n]tored by
the security department. A 15% dIscount on bIking
eqUIpment can be obtained at the DIfferent Spokes BIke
Shop In Santa MonIca.
~
i_
l r
c ..
~
1ft r11K H my)] .
;J
page three
c. ParkIng Plan DurIng ConstructIon
1) ParkIng-for constructIon workers has been desIgnated on the
Orlando propertIes and the south-sIde of 16th street lot.
ParkIng WIll be provIded for 75 constructIon workers wIth
permIts Issued through our EngIneerIng Depart~ent. The
constructIon company has set up Its trollers on the Jack
LaLanne Lot on 16th Street.
2) In place of the 60 spaces at Santa MonIca CIVIC AudltorIu~.
the HospItal has leased a 94 space lot at Centlnela and
EXposItIon. An extensIve effort was made to encourage
utIlIzatIon by publICIty and IncreasIng the frequency of
pIck-up and delIvery to thIS lot by supple~entlng the
HOspItal shuttle wIth Checker Cab serVIce. Use contInues
to be mInImal. The HOspItal has therefore subleased SIxty
spaces. We feel that the carpool, publIC tranSIt, and
bIcycle partIcIoatlon has far exceeded our prOjectIOns
- 228 people V5. 90 antlclpated~ ThIS more then com~ensa~e5
for the off-site parkIng component WhICh has not been
- successful.
3) ExecutIve Parking SerVIces has been retaIned to operatf
tandem parkIng on the hOs~ltals tw~ 16th Street ~OtS and th~
small 15th Street lot north of HospItal. The t*o 16th Str€~:
lots aco~~odate 310 cars; the 15th Street lot acco~od~!es
35 cars. An addItIonal eight spaces have been obtalneJ
In the MedIca! OffIce BUllclng garage for hOspItal e~DIJ:2e
use, thIS brIng the total In the Kin?ark structure to 200
spaces. NegctIatIons are In the process for addItIonal
S9aces followIng repaIrs to the st~ucture. An dCGltcnal
30 spaces have been leased In a lot at 1313 15th Street.
The HOspItal IS OIY~PIC Boulevard parkIng prOVIdes 54 S~3C€5.
An adcltlonal 20 spaces are leased from not Tub Fever, whlcn
is located next to the bUIlding. Overflow ~arklng IS
prOVIded at the EXpOSItIon and Cen:Irela lot.
4) Free open parkIng IS prOVIded In the evenIngs and on
weekends In the two 15th Stree: lots.
D. Paratranslt SerVIces
In lIeu of USIng the HOspItal shu~tle to prOVIde transporatrcn
for outpatIents, the HospItal has InItIated a contract with
Santa MonIca Checker Cab. The program began in December,
1983. to prOVide free transportatIon to all outpatIents who
receIve care In the hospItal and who reSIde wlthIn the Santa
MonIca CIty lImIts. The program has been publICIzed through
the MedIcal Staff BulletIn and the depart~ents WhICh prOVIde
outpatient serVlces. AddItIonal marketIng WIll fo1low~
~t.
.....=-t
-~
.~
1"' t .....
page four
ff1TffC IT -MJ
;J
>'
E. ParkIng for BUSiness VIsitors, Clerg~n and Yolu~::~-s
Free parkIng IS provIded for busIness VISItors on :~c :::-
Street lots through a valldatlOn systen. 15 - 20 C+e:~:,';jE:n
VISit the Hospital monthly. TheIr parkIng IS ais: -'=':::::-:2:
by the Hospital, Volunteers who need parkIng wnI:e: ~=~K_~g
at the HOspital are asked to park In the large 16L~ S~~:~
lot. There are currently 60 volunteers wIth Dcr~:-;
privileges, and they are not charged for thelr D~-(:~~_
ThIS report summarIzes the Hospital's efforts over ~-~ :~s~ J~=.-
to mItigate the parkIng and traffIC problems in ~~e ~~:;~~:-ccc=
surrounding the HospItal. ~e dre pleased with :~2 s~::eSE ~- :-E
ParkIng and Transportation Managemen~ Progra~ a~G ~~I: =
contInued COffimIttment to ensure ItS success.
~~nr~.:
Paula Cara-DeTl i
AssIstant Vice PresIdent
!:..- -. ..
- ,
!.--.
--
-- -
-
;~
~
~
.sr
~.~;gr l