SR-401-008
lbD
AUG - I} 2005
PCD:SF:AS:PF:SDL:F:\CityPlanning\Share\COUNCIL\STRPT\2004\1327 -37 Ocean
Ave. DA discussion 2.doc
Council Mtg: August 9, 2005
Santa Monica, California
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: City Staff
SUBJECT: Discussion of the Development Agreement Concept Plan for the
Redevelopment of the Properties Located at 1327-1337 Ocean Avenue
(Applicant: Hill Street Realty)
INTRODUCTION
This report recommends that the City Council discuss the appropriateness and potential
public benefits of a Development Agreement for the redevelopment of the properties
located at 1327-1337 Ocean Avenue and provide staff with direction regarding the
general negotiating points that should be addressed.
BACKGROUND
The proposed project consists of a 77 -room hotel and detached restaurant with a
central, publicly accessible plaza. The proposal, which involves the designated
landmark properties at 1333 and 1337 Ocean Avenue, intends to create a unique public
space benefiting from the ambience of the historic structures. Renderings and sketches
of the proposed concept plan are included as Attachment A.
As will be discussed later in this report, development agreements are not quasi-judicial
matters like Development Review Permits or Conditional Use Permits. They are
negotiated contracts between the City and an applicant and are implemented by
ordinance. To avoid negotiating a project the City Council cannot ultimately accept,
1 AUG ~05
staff has scheduled this preliminary discussion at the outset of this process. Consistent
with the guideline Council has adopted regarding Development Agreements, this project
is appropriate to consider as a Development Agreement in that it is a complex project
that involves relocation of City Landmark buildings and the incorporation of a publicly
accessible plaza. The Council's discussion will provide initial direction to staff and
inform the property owner. The applicant concurs with this approach.
ANAL YSIS
The applicant has proposed submitting a Development Agreement application for a
project which consists of a 77 -room hotel, subterranean parking, cafe and restaurant
sited around a publicly accessible plaza. The project will incorporate two designated
City Landmarks at 1333 and 1337 Ocean Avenue. The proposed project calls for the
relocation of the Victorian building at 1333 Ocean Avenue to the 1327 Ocean Avenue
parcel and demolition of the existing multi-family structure currently at that site. The
existing structure at 1327 Ocean Avenue is not listed on the Historic Resources
Inventory.
The applicant's proposal would retain the Ocean Avenue west facade and part of the
south fayade of 1337 Ocean Avenue and add hotel rooms to the rear of the building.
The addition creates a four-story, 45 foot L-shaped building. The new portion would
house the 77 hotel rooms behind the historic structure's Ocean Avenue (west) and
south facades. The applicant's proposal would not retain the northern or eastern
fayades of the building. The total floor area for the entire new development would be
2
approximately 40,800 square feet with a three-level subterranean garage containing
146 parking spaces.
The project also includes the restoration of the exterior and adaptive reuse and
renovation of the interior of the relocated Victorian building to convert the interior from
commercial office space to a restaurant. A letter summarizing the applicant's proposal
is included as Attachment B.
Development AQreements
Since development agreements are among the least common land use applications
reviewed by the City Council, it would be helpful to address three essential questions:
1. What are development agreements?
2. What do development agreements typically cover?
3. What are some advantages and disadvantages of development agreements?
An excellent new publication by the Institute for Local Self Government in Sacramento-
Development Agreement Manual: Collaboration in Pursuit of Community Interests
(2002), addresses these issues. Pertinent excerpts and the website link are included in
Attachment F.
Landmarks Commission
The Landmarks Commission reviewed the proposed project at its October 11, 2004
meeting. Following discussion, the Commission forwarded the following comments to
3
the Planning Commission and Council ,for consideration in the Development Agreement
discussions:
1. The Landmarks Commission recommended retaining more of the building at
1337 Ocean Avenue, particularly the north fayade. The Commission
recommended options to revisit the number of parking spaces or relocate the
underground structure to make it more feasible to preserve a greater portion of
the building and north fayade.
2. The transition between the historic structures and the new section of the building
needs to show a clear but subtle differentiation in design, use of materials, or
other distinctions.
3. The Landmarks Commission recommended a thorough reference check as part
of the selection process for the contractor engaged to move and store the
Victorian building, as proper handling of this work is crucial to maintaining the
integrity of the historic structure. The contractor must have the appropriate
qualifications for moving a historic building. The site where the building is stored
should be secure.
4. The Commission recommended that special consideration be taken in the
placement of the new kitchen within the Victorian building as this will likely be an
addition to this historic landmark. The renovation must be carefully considered for
proper design and compliance with the Secretary of Interior Standards.
5. The new building and the open plaza should be designed so that the Victorian
building is well-integrated with the overall concept and in keeping with the historic
co-existence of the two building styles.
6. The negotiation process will set the precedent for how the Landmarks
Commission is, or is not, included in the Development Agreement process. The
Landmarks Commission recommends their input should be a formal part of the
Development Agreement process when the project concerns historic structures.
7. The Landmarks Commission recommends that the project return for review of the
final design as either a Certificate of Appropriateness, or alternate review
process negotiated as part of the Development Agreement that incorporates the
same set of standards and criteria used in a Certificate of Appropriateness.
4
8. The Landmarks Commission recommends that some portion of Development
Agreement fees be negotiated for historic preservation, particularly funding to
implement the Historic Preservation Element.
PlanninQ Commission Action
At its November 17, 2004 meeting, the Planning Commission discussed the merits of
the proposal in terms design and public benefit and heard testimony from Landmarks
Commissioner Nina Fresco and Santa Monica Conservancy representative Tom Cleys
in support of the conceptual plans. The Planning Commission agreed with the issues
raised by the Conservancy (Attachment C) and the Landmarks Commission, and
requested that Ms. Fresco forward to staff a list of the recommendations discussed at
the Landmarks Commission meeting which have been incorporated into the Planning
Commission recommendation. In addition to its support of the Landmarks Commission's
direction, the Planning Commission provided specific recommendations related to
design, operation, and compliance with City requirements:
Design: Use native planting, provide tree wells in the courtyard; include a
fountain or water element; use more arches and balconies in the
new portion of the building: provide a driveway cut-out for valet
drop off.
Operation: Consider requirement of union representation for hotel staff:
check the geological viability of the excavation required for the
subterranean parking garage.
City Requirements: Comply with the Sustainable City Plan; require a Conditional Use
Permit for any alcohol service associated with the proposed
project.
Both the Landmarks Commission and the Planning Commission registered unanimous
support for the concept and forwarded recommendations regarding the refinement of
details of the project, preservation of the 1337 Ocean Avenue structure, and assurances
for Landmarks Commission review as part of the project review process. The minutes
5
from the Landmarks Commission meeting on October 11, 2004 are contained in
Attachment D. The staff report and minutes from the November 17, 2004 Planning
Commission meeting are contained in Attachment E.
Conclusion
Based on feedback from the Planning Commission and the City Council, the applicant
will determine how or whether to pursue a Development Agreement. As noted earlier,
the City enjoys broad discretion in reviewing Development Agreement applications.
This project is presented in conceptual form to allow the City Council to comment on its
merits, identify concerns with the project itself or the Development Agreement, and
discuss potential public benefits. This feedback will provide direction to City staff and
inform the applicant in determining whether a Development Agreement is the best
approach for redevelopment of this site.
In summary, there are two essential questions staff suggests the Council focus on in
considering this matter:
1. Does the City Council believe a development agreement is appropriate for this
site?
2. If so, what are the general negotiating points that should be addressed?
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT
The recommendation presented in this report does not have any budget or fiscal impact.
However, later actions could generate financial impacts if not mitigated in the
development agreement.
6
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Council discuss this proposal and the appropriateness of a
Development Agreement for the redevelopment of these sites and provide direction
regarding the project's potential public benefits and negotiating points that should be
addressed.
Prepared by:
Andy Agle, Interim Director
Amanda Schachter, Planning Manager
Paul Foley, Principal Planner
Sarah Lejeune, AICP, Associate Planner
City Planning Division
Planning and Community Development Department
Attachments:
A. Renderings and sketches of concept plan
B. Project summary letter from applicant
C. Letter from Santa Monica Conservancy
D. Minutes from October 11, 2004 Landmarks Commission meeting
E. Staff report and Minutes from November 17, 2004 Planning Commission
meeting
F. Excerpts from Development Agreement Manual: Collaboration in Pursuit of
Community Interests (2002)
7
ATTACHMENT A
Renderings and sketches of concept plan
8
~
ClJw
)>w
Zw
"""0
)>n
~tTj
0)>
zZ
n~
)>m
.
'J;Ff.,,-
o
m
.....<
.....m
.....r
::0
(J)-U
)>m
~:::o
)>..
s:I
or
~r
o(J)
)>-1
l!!:::o
<m
Pm
),:-1
<0:::0
Orn
2)>
U1r
~
.....-0
~:::o
~O
~1J
~O
~C/)
~m
~O
~
::::J:
~O
~-1
~m
r
-m
S::X
)>-
G)CI>
m-l
Cl>Z
G)
CI>
-I
m
o
m
.....<
.....m
.....,
~o
C/)1J
)>m
~:;o
)>..
:S:::I
0-
z'
-,
Om
)>-1
~:;o
<m
!Jm
);:-1
(0:;0
am
.2 )>
U'l,
~
.....""0
~;o
~O
~""O
~O
~cn
~m
~O
~
3:: I
~O
~-1
~m
r
-m
~><
G>(J)
m-f
(J)Z
G>
(J)
-f
m
8
l> ~
C
c...
)> OJ!!!
0 OJ!!!
m
z 5N
~ -f ....en eN
0 " O-f ....en
" zo C-f
0 Q~ zo
" Q~
m
;:u
:<
@
u_ u_ __ 150'-Q'~_ u_ ___ u P.L. ___ u___
, --, ---,
I I ,
~"'- -t I
r'!:l.. - --,
I ;i I I ~~,
:"< 1:~ I
I I J I
r ;::!iI
L!... ..J I I :"<1
0 (0 1 I I I
m "1J I I I I
.....< ,-...-;:;--------,
""'m w ::0 ~I : H I I I I
w .....
~I w L .1. ..J CJ1
""'0 0 0 bL - - - - - - - - - ..J 1----.1.' q
: I ,
OO'lJ 0 q
)>m m "1J 1 en-f aJ I I I
~:::o )> 0 I ~N -fm Cm I "
)>" z '- .l.:-_ cen 03: -x I , ~.
:S:I )> III I en,," ....- I
< en is: N-f :::::;moaJ2~ , , ....
o- m CD I Co mc~mz- I:" .., 0
Zl m E ~~ Qz n Ill: .. 0
- I 00 < I 0" -fQ .. '"", c
000 lD
)> 0 CD $iF I ".... 0 I~~ ;:a.
)>--1 z :s "-< I ~
~ c ~
~:::o CD ~ I CD I I I of
<m s:: :r: 1 I
Pm )C I ,
0 0 ii'
):--1 z I .... L____l-.J
~ :r
<<>:::0 -I :u I '-I 10 I
om "U
2)> ~ m r- S' I r-
Oll c:r I
=< r @ .. ,--I CD r - -1- I
)C Ci
S'~ -. I 1 3 , I I
:s I , 0 , I ,
CillO;" <
3 g"!S I ." I 8. I I _~I
lD d ~ .i - ~ - :~ - - -1- - - - ~ - ~ ;~:
s-~.
---S"----
10
L__-.l I I
__ ___ ___...L.---L-- _ ___ ___ ___ _1-_- - ___.J
150' -0" P.L.
)> ... ...
(J) os;.>om CD CD
~ @ C ~ 8 ~ 8) @>
""Ox c...
rn "J> <"tJ
:r:(j) )>0 CD 0
II "m c.a
~ o-i :,;;z =r
-iz --f g
Z"
0(;') (i)" 0'
W 10 CD
OA(J) 0"
m- -fm
-<-i ;:u
m ~
""'0""0
S;:S;:
Ol Zz
0
......
w
N
-J
'"
cnC:;
~"'~
~......
>~
s:-J
00
Zn
~m
n>
>Z
~
tI1
)>
b I . I I! 8
(:)' j ! i'ii
Oil IlL. III II ~
!! J ~
I
I ;
! !~III
Hill STREET - OCEAN AYE HOTEL
1321,1333,1337 OCEAN AVE. SANTAMOMCA
~~OI
-I OJ
~~()r=
~~mr
O1r
~~)> (j)
~z -I
r
~)>;c
~<m
~mm
~z -I
~c 1l
~m )>
-I ;u
-i
Z
;0
(j)
-
-
I
I ,/
I IiI! I !j.l 1111
I inl ilia iiH
'-- .
:r-t-
:CL
~ r---1CJ> ~- i:: : f ~
~,. ~' :, I , 't" !, ~
@ @ ~~ @) ~ t '.CD ~'~i~ t ~
Ii III Ii R
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
i i
~ ~
" ~
~
~
. . , . ~~I
".
~
HH~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
i
~ i I ~ i ij -
~ ~ ~ ~ rn p
. ij - ~ ~ ~ !:l r; _
~ i ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ e ~
~ ~
ij ~ . ~ ... ; ft ~ a
~ i ~ ~ ~ ili ~ ; ~
~ ~ i
'"
1-1
I~
'ii
:
:~?~~,~!~~: ~i~~~~~ ~~~~~~:~~~ ~~~~i ~~i~~~~~~~~ ~'~;;~~i ~~~~ ~~ i
11;1~~llli! ii~~ii~ liili~~~~1 jl~~i ~I'iii~~ilgl iii~;iii iiii ~I ~
"i, ~ I ~~ . I~. J ~ lei I ~j I ~ I~I I~ ~
~~ ~ - i ~ ~ ~ il5
~ ~ I ~
~
:~ ~i~ ~~ ~ ~ ~i~~~ ~~a~~~~~~ ~~~ ~a~~~~ ig ~E~~ ~~~~:~ ~ ~~ ~~~~
Ii ~ij i! i ~ i~~ii ~~i;ii~~~ i~~ ~~iii~ ~j ~i~1 ~~iiii ~ i~ ilij
I i .~ 1! ~ n~~ ~ !~~~ f' lU r~~~ ~il ~ ~ ~"~H . h
il i ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ IIi m ~ e
I ' .~
?i .~
I
g~.~~!
~~~I~!-h
p_L~'~ ~~
'~~-.i.'l~ i~
H,; " A
""j] ~ '
H~Q ~ . Ii
..~~ I ~
~~a~ . ~
m~ "m
~~~~ ~.
)>)oSl'" ~ ~
Oijf ~ ~
Uj ~ I
""H..... . I:
'"ii ~ ~
l_~ ".
n~ ~ i
"18 l ~
'$ ~ I
S l
;1 "
. ~.
~ . ~
i ~ li
~ S!
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ 8 ~ ~~~6~ ~~s~ ~~~~ ~ ~ ~0 ~
5 ~ ~ i ~ ! ! ~ . ~ ! ~~~~~ ~~4~ ~~4~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ I
o ~ ~ ~ I ~ . ~ ~ I ~ s~~.. ?i~" i~'. ~ ~ ~~ ~ 2
= i ~ i ~ ~ I ~i ~.~.' I i ~~~I i~~ ~~I i! ~I ~ ~
~ · ~ t * ~ ~ ~ ~ ~Jt ~Ji ~~~ ~! ~~ 0 ~
)> ~ I · m. i ~ i I~; I~; I~; ~ ~~ rn ~
. . ~ ~" S . ii . · ~ .~- d. .~o ~ n ~ ()
. . i " . '! ~. ~ pn m ~~~. ~: 2l
Ii · " ~ ; ~ ~ " ~~~ S~~ s~~ 8 ~ ~ ~
~ ~ d ~ q jj~ m ~I~ ~I~ ! ~~ ~
. . . " " ~ ~ ~ ~~~ li~~ m ~ ~ i
! ; · ~ ! ~ ~ . ~~~ m H~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 I~~ ~~i ~~~ ~ ~
~m il!1j'" ZMm !~
_ .~~ ~~~ ~.~ j!9
~:~ ~i~ ~i~ ~ i
~.i .~i ~~i 1<'
~j>. w ~.> ~
~i~ ao~ s~~ Q
..,~ fl!~ ,l!~ I>l III
I!~ .!~ ~!~ ~..il
~~ i~ ~~ ·
hli '. ~.li i
h~ i~ ~~ ~
q,::j ~j ~~
(') ..@ :J:", '," ): s: ~ ;~ lil~ il )> iq~ (') "
0 Q~ u; i";! ~~~ m :rJ r- 2
z Ui a n I~I z (') ;0 ~~ I~~! (') ih~ m
-l 0 :I: C :I: Z m
~ Cf> m !:l Oil m",::! ::j gm -l ~
~~~ 2l -- (') Oil f#j!!~ Q
~~l. m
(') n ~~j~ )> r- C n !:l "z; 0
-l " m ~ ~~ ! ;;;
0 z ~
;0 (') ! ~ Gl I (5"!Il m
0 " ~ " ~~ " ~
z I r- .~n
Cf> C Ii~ ~
c ;:: f
!:j '"
~ z
~ G'l
-I
n 1.>':':' ~ uu ~a~aa E~ " n )> '"
~ ...~~:.. ..:...:......:...:...:..:... :.... ~ :r
...,:.."':... :..;..."'....l..o/<,:o:... . b m
~ 0 :J: !!l
m C/l !~~i ~".,,='~: ~~ ~ U iil
~ z
" ~m ~m~m ~~ i a !:l 0
ililil m ~
iH n mm~ I ." c
~
m ~ r-
g~ ~
~a
(u
T?
:po
~
1 :! 'U
! II ~
l. ! III II' ~
! f ~
HilL STREET - OCEAN AVE HOTEL
1:121,1333, 1331 OCEAN AVE. SANTA MONICA
S;;;l
l~
i::>
'"
:......
'I
I i.j I I !, ~ I 1,1!
I !ffi ,f'l ,1'1
,u ul ti:.
\--.
'r-!-
; 0....
~ ~ .
ARIZONA AVENUE
~---~-~:~-~----~~-~-
et
I ~ 'I .
t I I
fTl
~ 1
)> t
w~ r ~
ZI
~I
1
J:?-:
!
1
I I,. Ips
I I'~' 1!l1 i !
. C i 1,1;.
I . I , I
I!I!I!~ I~!;I!
~111111;lj
~ i ;1 !II
Ii Ii Ii IiI
.PiPiP P'.
01
(')
(')
I
......l.
.::n:.=:==r....
~:::- ~
.....- ......
* J'f1-r -0
4~,~ ~ ~
(~~~.. ~o~o^'
'/- ~~'" 70
;- ,~'~ '<f
.~..... ~'4> ________':."::
*'W"trr ",...,l
~. W1!!<I! 'IfL- ,
A. t. to1Qff ~ IUJ:t!tG.
~<""'^" 1#tO... tJm. bCLtT.
'1':.... -A1M70CEA11A.......
~ci~
.....~.->-(O
'/-
J'
-?
-<)1><:,
.......~~
(O~~
'/-<'
~~
~; ~I
U~ ~
~i ~i
~ I
I
-f-
t 1
I ~
~
I
I I
I 1
I I
I I
I VJI
1 I
t :1
1 1
I ~I
N ~i
::J
fTl.
0... -1~
(/) I
1-1 ~t
I~
IfTl S:I
1-1 ~I
1 .
I ~I
I fTlI
I I
I I
I I
I 1
i 1
. - *
(0;- ~i,~
,() ....(.~
'Iiit" "
,.....
VJ
N
:t '-.J ~
~ I ~
~-"i::-
~ VJ ~
Ii) ~ <.N 31::
ii;! l!i '-.J I""
;;1": ::to.
lil5 0 ~
~~ O;;;j
II j; :
)i;~ z ~
a )> ~
! < 0
~fTl~
Z
C
fTl
~ N..TA/ACSM I.AHD '111l.E SUIMY OF: HENNON 1313 FOOlHlLL llL\IO., SUITE:2
........... ......1 3.. 2..7.....-.... 1..3..3.. 7........0.......C. E..A.N.. A. V..E.. N. U.. E... '. s...u....r..."...e...>".. ..n.9......&...... . M appin9.lnC.....(..8. 1;~..AD.......A,.01.. 9.~.~.3..F.:2..0RNI.3.)6&.. A. 4-.. ~..~.Ql.l..3..1.
. . ..... .. 1lf1filCff'tor~~~or~~tTA1I:or.~.....~.......'.... .............. ..... ............ . .......... ...,Nt ~....,,,......... ...
-m
~~
!'.:~
bz
'G)
o
m
s::
o
r
=i
o
Z
lJ
r
)>
Z
0z
(J)
)>
Z
-l
)>
s::
o
z
()
)>
tll
o
C
r
m
<
~
o
!
OCEAN AVENUE ~
-----1C
~ ~ A --. ~~ J:! S
! ~ ! i cr'/ ~~ il
Pr-~ , '.', ~ / ~R
, '- - ~,:',:':~ \~ ~,<~",,-,)- -;==-~-~1 - -
\~! ~~~~I __~ ~ - ~"~~~?tt~~ i - l I
( " ,(f"jJ \, ~, II :
~) ) ~~::~"': ~~r~~/! I I !
I 1\ /~----_..:',,:, " " I !
I "-"--?,,"'-' ,J I I
I " I:: I i
I \.... I I I ~~. :
I, ': i !j!~ I:
I I I ': [I!!~!
i I I I I r+-'-- : 'iil l".b'
I!i ~j I mmuJ I: ~az!!I~ I"':' r ,:i I: :,:1
. :~I !I~ r IUT--mmmj =: _
$l-< ':4 j I I
Iii . :- mrum-mul : i --------~ I
~o 1 1,.ruum-1
d "-0' ,
~ .. I I ,mu_...muum_m. ': I ,,J, 'Il.."'"
~r~~ ~J I: 11: I ~'~,.J~
I I I: : I II : I
-.r--L:1 mmj if I:! ~ i :1:1 I !
.. -i]; f4n=~iFi~;~;m~L~~rl: r
FOR~~~AHO ~s "!J:~ ISf fMS;~AIW
150n"~lor i~ I liIl~ ~ l.:son 'MOf Lot
~ !i s~
e h
-----I
~~~~ )>
:::c
~d! N
0
~~ Z
)>
~
m
Z
c
m
_J L..._
~~Ig
iI. ~
c~;;~
CJ
)> m I...-" .
I ! i ;;:: I
I 0 -r-t-
II! c
-< I! ; 0....
llfi! (5 Il~i
co ::z i"l I ar a I !i!l
'I I' i; Hill STREET - OCEAN AVE HOTEL !III '1'1
I I . ,'I "f ;,rj
:z 1327,1333, 1331 OCEAN AVE_ SANTA MONICA I. h. h:.
~-o
~r-
~~ 0
~-l
" "'0
q~
Z
OCEAN AVENUE
~b
~
~
~~h
fl~~
~
.~~~
~d.
~~.::a
1st COURT ~
-------+r-t
10'-0.
lJO'~;Y
10'-0. '-I
1>>-;"
~
~~i/ji/j ~
~~i~ m
~~~~ ~
-l-'-l-t m
nu~
~~~~ ~
"" ~
~::~ ~
~-t~": ~
o
m
a1
~
;:
,
iIIl
<0
...
(j)z
)> ,I I...- .
I I :1"""'1-
I d -u ;0...
! ! !; , ~ 11~1 iilll i. ~ I "il
II . , -u 1",,- "",,,. ""N< '" 00'" lI't If I <
~ hi in ;"1
. t327,1333,133i'OCEANAVE.S.ANTAMONICA .,. h:~
,,(1)-0
~CI
!'..~w
'm
o,::u
::u
)>
z
m
)>
z
."
r-
o
o
::u
-0
r-
)>
Z
f/)z
)>
1
!
~I
l(f-O<<
~- , (~!
~ , (f)
"I
. (f)
~ ~
. @
~ ~ -----~--
"
.- ~ (f)
0,
J @j ~
~ 0,
, t-
"I ~
. ~ @
~,'
~ @
~ "I
~ 8)
~ ~ 80
,~
~ -t4*'~
:', "'loI'>
10
i
~~
i
5.'-O~
ct>
,36'-;)"
8'-l1j* lI'_\lw
~
~,
~
,,;;. ~
~
\" 1"
15,'-0.
ClEAR OAA[ ISLE
~
!
~4JJ
E I: t: !: ~i
~
HH~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
21
I 1& ~
I I~ ~
! i II ill I II! ~
J
I ~il
5i
HILL STREET - OCEAN AVE HOTEL
1327,1333, 1337 OCEAN AVE. $JWTAMONICA
~
':'
15'-l.t
Cl.,(ARDRI';i(ISl.E
I
I j!
'I!'!I!,I,-' IhIIW1,
Wli H:.
10
i
~~:_. 1,.
-.. I
. -
I '
20'_0-
~
1...-.
:........
:0...
-;iCll"O
,C,
~~'"
'm
q;:o
~
z
m
)>
z
."
r
o
o
;:0
"0
r
)>
Z
0z
(f)
<3:)
80
80
(f)
8:>
@
cgj
@
;';;:T;;\ ,;
., \XJ -f4::r;I::" '
" (f) ~
'~
-- ~:"T -~ . ~
, tJ::-.,
~,i (f) rw____ "1
I 1....
~
i
!>~'-{).
J6'-J"
,lJ'-Il~.
e'-n'
@@
@:)
@:)
~-H.. .
(fl :'
I
~~tJ,;\ .
2'-O.~! \J/'
~
~
~
~~
i
~
i
1411'-O'
"~-I ~
~
~
" 1
"t
~
"."..
.1~'-
l' 7"
95'-8'
8!i'-O~
'~~"'!!:
""0' \
I \ '\~':-::- I
\\ I
\ I
\ / .. I
I
~ @ X I
~: j\ I
I
~ @ I
~ \
\ I
~ @ \ I
I
~ GB I
I
1 @:) I ~
~ 0,
I
I
@ I
(f>
J.: G:>
~ c3:)
-?
~ ~+#"@0
J.. ....
to;.iJ
~
25'-0'
Ct.EAR M1\4;: ISlf
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~i ~
.. 'Ii 5!
511lfll~~~ Z
! ~ Gl
~ )>
~ Z
~ )>
~ ;;; ;0; ;;; g ~
~ ii5
1)
!
<t>
~
~
Ul.
"I
"
"1
':'
"I
~
M,.
,"
.,
-.
,
~
~-
..~
~
15'-0'
W'-J~'
lS'-O.
25'-0.
ClEM Dftl'<t15U;
20'-0.
!
~<t>
!
~
)> ;S 1.-.
I I -c J I : .....-r
5;
N Ii '" 'I ;0-
z iillllli,t I
! ! I 1'1 G> l~il I lif!
N I [I i " ;; HILL STREET - OCEAN AVE HOTEL
I I ;"1
! z s: 1327,1333, 1337 OCEAA AVE SANTA.MONICA ,U fil.. h:"
,CJ)"ll
~Ct
!!.~....
'm
o,:;u
:;u
)>
z
m
)>
z
"
r
o
o
:;u
"ll
r
)>
z
0z
)>
I
N
:--"1
eNl
~
i
~~
i
~
i
1'-1 .
'.9'-o-~
~
~4' O'
85'S"
85'-()"
~ I
;: ~ ~II
~ -, ~~,
a ~~I
~~
:~ I
I I
I I
(E) SmuCTI,IRE A80v('~ I
,.,rOOADE:
I I
"1 ~
I
I-l
I
I
I
I
: U
~/,
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
...J
~. (f) !
~ ,.
8:) ~ ~~ ~ ~
", ~
(f) ~ ~ (f)
8:) ~ ~
7' i'-
G:> ~ ~ @
,
.
~ ;:
(f) 1 " (f> b:
J..: ",
~
z ~
(f) ~ ~ (f)
,
"l
(f) ~ ~ @ " ~
~
<f) ~ ~ (f)
(f) ~ ~: (f)
i'-
,. ~~'-O'
'"
Cf)j.#:-O ~ (f)
~. - ~
.l6'-J"
!I 31-Hi"
S'-I1*
.!.:
~
"
,,;;.
I' 7"
2~'-O'
cu:A.It DJll\l[ ISlE"
1.7'-J1"
15'-0.
25'-0.
ct.EA/i'I lSU'
~~~~! ~
!
4b
!
~~
!
~
i g ~ ~ ~ ~
i .. ~
I ~
HH~
~ ~ ~ ~. ~
:oi
I I ~?8
!Ii III ill! ~
'--.
:,........
- 0....
HILL STREET. OCEAN AVE HOTEL III,'
1327,13JJ, 1337 OCEA"lAVE. SANTA.MOOICA
1~11
I,l, ,. I ,II
lfJ' ~ I !i 11 ~ir ~
I !lll !II! il'l
Jli I ,;i a ~r: .
~
~~ ~
iH
~
a
~
~
",
,.
~
~
~ ~
~ ~
~
~
I'"
I~
I
roo
~
i\
~"Tlr
~-m
11,;;0<
... ~ ITI
0:" I
r.....
o
o
;;0
lJ
r
~
~
~
~
~. -
I:.~ b -
-<~ . ~
~ "
~
24'-0"
''-It"
;-
,].4'-,"
12'-'.
to'-o.
121'-3"
'4'-0.
0z
4>
~~
1 st COURT
~
)>
I
N
:-' !
-1"-1
, ,III/I ,pll~ i
il'~1
g
HILL STREET - OCEAN AVE HOTEL ,II
1327J332.13270CEANAVESANTAMONICA I
II, ,"I, , H
I WI 1 ill' I ll,l
1-.11 -,,! _,'I
h!l ~h~ h~.
I....- .
:I"""'t-
;0...
-cnr
'<x>mm
,,'0<
--om
6Z"-
'or:.,
'Tl
r
o
o
::0
"tl
~
Z
0z
~
i
v~
i
1J
i
0'-5*
41' - ~D:lSllNC BOIlbING To REUAIN
"'-,.
3&'-9*
11'-0-
cV
10'-1. 20'-0-
--------l
I
I
~
~
~! ~
iH
~
a
~
,-
..,
"'....0-
~
il
" ~
'( I ~
~ I .
.t
~
~ '
~ M:-
tl
I
~; I
(
.!.:
~ ~ ~
~ ., "
.!.:
~
~
.1i-1
28'-0" e'-2"
J4'-,"
12'-'.
IT-S"
12'-9"
13'-:1"
n:-fr
10'-0.
lJO'-.r
10'-0.
~
4t~
~
)> (/) 1.-.
I ! m ;,.......
8
N d :z j 'I ;D-
C) i~i I [jll
! ! I : 1 ~ ". ,. I ;i'f
I i · r- If' 'f[-
U'I ,II 0 I~ I "" ""'" - """ ^" """- !.ri PI ! 'I
0 ifi !I! fila !i:..
I ! I :JJ 132;,1333, 13370CEMl AVE. SANTA MONICA
~
i
~1J
i
~
i
~
"'-'''.'.'' .""""', 10_~
>C'-I' r~~~ ""-0' I 1M 1"->' I
~
~ I
~
t
~
~
,.
..
..
~~-=-~~=~=~~f~~=~;-:i -:-
~ I II
Ii II
~~--n~--n--nr-_--n-f-----1
/- -"'\ ______mm-1 I I
() I I
\" .-,j ~ I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I II
I I
r~----J
II II
!I II
mol II
':'
'"
I
~
~
'"
I
]
~ .
J J
4
~ ~
~ ~
1..
~
J,.
:; ~
, .
--lr
""::em
II' ii <
I'clI!
Ol<"T1 I
rw
o
o
;;0
\J
):
Z
f
'>;'
:c
'"
b, ~
i ..
'"
,
'"
2&'-0.
.'-:!!"
.14'-1-
12'-11-
12'-8-
u'-r
12:'-11-
u'-~"
32'-"
10'-0.
130'-3"
1(t-(t'
0z
~
~<t>
~
)>
I
N
! I I i ~
! II Ili:L al- ~
II! II II, ~
I
!ll~'
,I I 0;
<::>
~"
HILL STREET - OCEAN AVE HOTEL
1327,1333, 1337 OCEPN AVE. SANT ^ MONICA
.,
I ..1; I .' , I ,.11
'hi rill <ill
I iill iila Ii:!
'--.
:.-+
;0..
m
~
j
~~
j
1>
j
~~
~
,*.
~
---~~-n~~--
----------------------l II ..
I II
II
;------r---'
----- '1 I I
' "\ _____________J I I
) I I
'-'--( ( : I
w-----J ~ I I
t, ! i I
i i ) I I
! r-' I
! ! r~m--.{
! 'm,,! II II
: ' I
'I I: ---. I II
,rjl II
! i I
, , ,
I.__l.._________________ ____ ____ ____.J
~ ~
~ ~
~
~ I ~
~ 4
'(
"
-"11
'0;0
Q'C
-. ::0
b-il
'::I:
"11
r
8
::0
"'0
S;
Z
,}4'-,.
~-----~---t "-'O'll?I
Il ~-.',," ' 1
12'-'" u:'-," It'.t" 12'-11"
~
q
'(
~
21'-0"
.'-2"
$'.0.
J2'-O.
~-...
3T-0"
Hi-O.
'''','j"
1(1<'-0" I
0z
~
4J.~
~
)> + '--.
" I
: j 0 I I :r-t-
c II
~) I' :oj I ill~ I ii' II iil! ;0..
I I I i I :r i~i
"
--J . I j' d 8 I ~" / HILL STREET - OCEAN AVE HOTEL If "i 'II
I I @ 1321,1333, 133"OC~AVE. SANTA MONICA 1;',1 j-I. I"
:D ~Il .h h.
tf-$~
~
i
..It -;"tmlm BUllCMO TO REMAIN
~~
i
"".,.
J8'-tiII~
1:>
i
11'-0"
~
~
l
I
~
II
i
I
II
II
II
I
I
I II
I I
r~u.J
I: II
IlC
I,
~
"
~
it
~ 1.
, ~
" .
~ I I
I
I I
I
I i I
1 I
, I
, "I
I .- ~~!I ~
~Sil 'l.
,
, ~
I d I
! I
I I
-;u I
~o I I
.".0 I
" 'Tl
Ot ;2 I
I
)> ~L
z '"
:"
~ -
1IJ'-O~
lJO'-J"
10'-0"
0z
!
4>
!
~~
!
~
)>
I
N
~...:> 1/' , I
~ I III
!
I 8
I! ~
j!;ll
10;
~
HILL STREET - OCEAN AVE HOTEL
1327.1333.1337 OCEAN AVE. SANTA MONICA
, II!
" lIP I" I ii,! I !i!ij'
'u fil~ ti:~
1...-.
:r-t-
;0...
'-::E
"',m
.".en
,- -l
qm
r-
m
<
~
5
z
..~. O.WAX. AlJ.OWABU: HEtGHT
~
~r
!
~~I':!.~
~__ [C]
:1:----'
~II ;1 i
~i! \,!
~I ~
: ~I~ ;.+
i~~ ~
i 1 i ~
..
,
p
I ~ :
iii, i
jt 'l
$ ~
, ,
, ,
U
ij~
E,.i~.:'
F' ,
~I I
~~ ~i~
~~
.I
~
II
~
-4S'-o-&tIA'It AlUlllrASU: HEIGHT
.'1
I
j Hill STREET. OCEAN AVE HOTEL
11327.1333,1337OCEANAVE.SANTAMONICA
-en
~o
!!:~
6:J:
'm
r-
m
<
~
5
z
~ ~
~ ~
II'
\I~
Iii I
~i
1i i
!i i
,f j
Ii:
III
, '
, ,
, ,
, ,
, '
, ,
"
. ,
. ,
. ,
. ,
II i
, ,
. ,
, ,
. '
. ,
, ,
, i1
I :/
.~
! ~ ~
'I, ~
;! ~
Ii t i
, ,
.,1
~, ,
,.
"j,
~ I ,
I','::
"
~' I I
"
{
:1: i
Iii
".
,',
,',
"
"
n'
iii!
HI.
:1:: lit
i~JJu
" ,
,,'
I\J
45'-O"UA)(. AllOWABlE: HEIGHT
".>2'
~,,~l
~r jF
~I~i
,,~
'" ~ .
!"I
~
ie
~
'I
~I
~~I
"I!;I
il'i
! i
~
~I"
: "~
' 0
, a
ii,
gl
!
!+
~F
"
'"-0.
1
!2~
ili
~
'~
1
~
~~
gf
jjil
~
~
'EEiEE!EE
-: al Sl'Ef
iB3iB3lB3
j -, i ....iEl
!EE!EEi .
, I I
IB3IB3i
i i i
~ IlriJr--- I: ~ ~
-j-~~-~'~ "
I I :- 11-<
c' c' : J
~ ~",i' ~ :1 ~
I '~~
-45'-G....AX. AI.I..OWABU HElCHT t'-3!J
I Ulll hi' II'iiU
I ;.,1 -.,1 i"1
flia hrll h:.
l....- .
:1"""1-
:0..
I
JS'-6~.S1J8ttRRAHEAN PARI(ING 45'-D"WAX, At.lOWABlE HlICHT $ J~
~ ~~
!~ ~ ~ ~ ~! ~
'! I 'I 'I "I il
:!:@ .: : : i :
--~~ i i ;-;-"----!----1----,:-----
i i ~ i: ; : i
:~ _: :,_ L. ,_ __""--
EBEBEB
EBEBEB
EBEBEB
tr.
11;1;::
21'.
-11'-----,-
~
EBEBEB
E33EB
~ I;
~" '"j ,
: "~/:
: 8: :
, ;:j, I
: ~: i I
i l ~.-L-.
i \ 0 ! i!
"z
a: 0--------------
!!..~
b I S
'm ~
,...
m
<
,
, , ,
. , ,
, , ,
- -1-- - -:----..-
~
~
"'0
~ i: ~
~ ; ~ ~
I I I m
GJ ~ frJ
~ ! I 11'1'1 II ~ liil
N I 'I !' is Hili STREET. OCEAN AVE HOTEL
! ! . Z 1327,1333,1337 OCEAN AVE SANTA MONICA
. Ul
i
~
~
~
~~ i!i
~J I I~
: : : ~~: I~
-i--i--i--~...--
I I I , I
" ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
i i
~ ~
~
11-
~
I~
I ~I~
I: I
il
4S'-rfillAX, AU.QWAet.E HElQHT
~I: ~
~ ~I
!
~
.
g
~
i'
--
, E~'
~~
i
.
g
~
~~
"en
-;,-1
bm
.,...
m
~
-I
5
z
" ,
:: i
!~
f
~~i
~~
I
"~
~+
~"
...s'~O""AX. AUOW,f&,E HttOHT -J~
~
I
'j ;!
I il"i I il'". I 11'11
I 'II "1 , 'I
;\1~ .~I ~ ;\If
,11 (f.;; ,h.
~~2'+
~"" p~
~ ,~l;
ilm
':!I
t+-~
.",
s
. ~
y
ii~
h
~i
ill
g
i
~
r,"-T
~
U
;I~
'I 'I
1+ ~~
~.~
,--,
: ,--t-
;0...
JS'-61-SlJ81ERRAt.lEAlt PARIONG
1
~~
iF
~~
i FI
----------,
1
~
:I~
Ii
-1:1:I
~c
u""-
~r
I"g
qz
G)
en
m
(')
-l
o
Z
- i
0,
.~~
~l ~
,
~
~I :
i :
~ :
'I
~
W-o"'MAX. ,o,u,OWNilE Hf;!QH'f
~
~I
~
~~
~I
a
~I
'-{>'
l~
lit
i ~
i __j__,__
II
,
&1 !6 j
~ ~
sl
q~
il;
~
)> 1...-.
I I! I I :r-t-
CN il (/) il~1 j I ;.11 ;0..
N I I I ! i I II! ~ I I ijij I ji jj I
I .! I! I' ~ Ji1. HILL STREET" OCEAN AVE HOTEL ,(. ! ,(f-
I .,fi iil ;.'1
(/) &1 1327,1333, 1337 OCEAN AVE< SANTA MONICA !I! II:.
4$'-o"liAX. H..LOW...ell HEKlMT
l'
~
~,
;1
"'~
~: ~
: ~ .
~.~
- ~t~ ~ - - ~ --
A
ill.
~
~,
: I
~ ~
~I ~I
~+ ~
-..--~--.-~
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
HY-a"
il
i~
~~
il
~~
'i!
~OJ
dtC
11.-
~r
'0
1-
o,z
(j')
en
m
~
6
z
----~r !-
-,
"I ' ~
i! : il
~ :
Wi ""
cI ~
~~' ~~
-~I -~
"'
~ ~
~'
f~
~~
;1
1:,
.~!
~,
,
I
~
,~
jb
~t
~I
I~
iSlS
.
I
U'-o"t.lAlt AUOWASll It(~T
):>
I
G-J
f'0
N
'--- .
: I"""t-
;0...
I~ en
II! ~
I i.1i I j" 111.11
III' ff'l "1
I u!1 iil ii~~
l"ll
I~
o
'"
I I I: I
. I I'
! I
HILL STREET - OCEAN AVE HOTEL
1321,1333, 1331 OCEAN AVE, SANTA MONICA
"d"
. ,~
~
>~li ~
i!i~~ ...
-iiil ~
~~~ ~..
"~. l':~~
~g~ ....~
~!~ ~~~
nl mz~
OCEAN AVENUE
I
I
I--~\--~
,\ ,
I \ ,
I I , ,
J. \ I
I" \ I
I' "
, \,
L"
, \,
I ~____~
I
I
III I
I :1 I
----Ht----- I
I II I
VI
/11
/ I I
/ I r--j
I I t\
I I I \
I I' I \
/ I I , I
I I I ,
I I I \ I
-----,------ I j:,' " I
I I I \
-----r----- II ,
_ _ --L _ It.-----'
ALLEY
EBI~
!
. "
.
~
!e
9i! i~ I
lijll!U
"II i~
~~ JI
... I ! I .Jl! III i .I, ~
~I lid I~ 'I~
. I
.-.L STREET. OCEAN AVE HOTS.
132T,1:13:1. 1331 OCEAOI "VIi. lWffi\1DIICI<
~~I ~.I' II
"-- .
-,-t-
0...
"'~
':l-
'"
!~
~ID
~
~
.....
~ II! I 'II ,I; il! ~
II II ~,~ Ii!
8
[IEl
~3
8
j I I I
HU STREET - OCEAHAVE HOTEL
13'lr,1333, t331(J(."E.ll,NAVE.l!W4t'AMCHCA
,I ~I ~ ~I'II lit
~!i.I I" Iii.
l!i III
Mli~
l~ if~
\-.
-.-+
a...
....0
~o
II' c:
-:tl
~~
:tl
o
en
m
~
o
%
r- ,I !] I I I: I]; ~ ~ I ~ I
Q I 1111 ~ ~ I ~ I
II
Hl1. STREET. OCEAN AVE HOTEl.
1:JZT.1333.1331oceAHAVE.SAHTAMONICA
....
I
I kllllh d lill
I 1111 1111 lill
~~i II I
1iI11~
~~ jf~
~.
'r-r
~ 0....
I
Ii
ATTACHMENT B
Project summary letter from applicant
9
.\
JMBM
Jeffer Mangels
Butler & Marmaro
David R. Daniels
Direct: (310) 201-3518
Fax: (310) 712-8518
DDaniels@jmbm.com
1900 Avenue of the Stars. 7th Floor
Los Angeles. Califomia 90067-4308
(310) 2038080 (310) 203-0567 Fax
www.jmbm.com
Ref: 64496-0001
August 10,2004
Via Facsimile & U.S. Mail
Sarah Le J eune, ~ity Planner
City of Santa Monica, Planning Department
1685 Main St., Room 212
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Re: 1327.1333 and 1337 Ocean Avenue
Dear Ms. Le Jeune:
It was a pleasure speaking with you yesterday regarding the proposed development
agreement for the project at 1327, 1333 and 1337 Ocean Avenue. In response to your request,
the following identifies some orthe important public benefits that we believe the project
provides.
Public Benefits of Proposed Proiect
Renovation and Preservation of Historic Landmarks: Making Landmarks Open to
the Public
Perhaps one ofthe most significant components of this project is its dedication to
preserving and enhancing the two historic landmarks on the site. The Victorian Honse, located
at 1333 Ocean A venue, is -currently occupied by private offices and conunercial uses that are not
generally open to the public. The project envisions renovating and restoring the Victorian House
in conformity with all Secretary of Interior standards, moving the house to the northern 1327
site, and housing a restaurant in its ground floor. The proposal, thus, preserves this important
asset and opens the asset up for the general public to experience and enjoy through restaurant
dining. Similarly, the character defining features ofthe 1337 building, built in the Spanish
Colonial style, which is currently closed to the public, and which currently houses commercial
office uses, will be preserved and maintained for public enjoyment; a cafe and gift shop open to
the public is envisioned to be honsed inside. Again, by opening this historic asset up to the
public, visitors will be drawn to the site and will be able to freely enjoy the site's historic
attributes.
LV: Zd II 9fW ~
:;"j /C)N>INr.!'V'\d All8
'A_,LJ, u" - IJ I"
'-{'':'I''('l\..1 \'1 L~J\:'i\ iU ^ -,;
14 ..J I" '''''~''' ~, t i ,< . '
A Lirnited Liability Law Partnel'ship Including Professlona! Corporations i
3239241 vI
, San FranCISco
Sarah Le ] eune, Assistant Planner
City of Santa Monica, Plam1ing Department
August 10, 2004
Page 2
The Courtyard Experience
Additionally; as delineated in the rendering and the site plan for the proposed project, the
hotel and the two historic landmarks are to be situated around a public courtyard that is open to
the sidewalk and designed to enhance the pedestrian experience. The courtyard may include
benches, tables, fOlmtains and planters, all of which will contribute to this experience and invite
the public to enjoy the beauty of the historic landmarks situated on either side. Visitors to the
restaurant and/or the cafe, will have the opportunity to enjoy the courtyard as part oftheir visit to
the area. Currently, there isn't any courtyard that permits and/or invites the public to linger at the
site and marvel at the historic assets and the vista across the Avenue to the park and beach
below.
The Hotel as a Destination For Visitors
The purpose of the current zoning for the site (RVe) is to create opportunities for visitor
friendly development in the area that will attract outsiders and pedestrians to this part of Ocean
Avenue. Currently, the site is occupied by residential and commercial uses that are not generally
open to the public. The hotel use will be a destination spot for out-of-towners, thereby drawing
new business and the public to the site. A greater segment of the public, thus, benefits in having
the opportunity to enjoy the property and its surroundings, whereas now it is primarly closed off
Si~~.Plan For Current Development
You had also asked for us to provide you with a site plan that depicts the current
development at the site. Please see the enclosed plans in this regard.
,I,'
Please let me know if you need any additional information. We look forward to the
possibility of making the presentation we discussed to the Landmarks Commission at its
September 13, 2004 meeting. Please let us know when that date is finn.
Very truly yours,
gCLlci'f,.~
DAVID R. DANIELS, Of Counsel to
Jeffer, Mangels, Butler & Marmaro LLP
DRD:kc1
Enclosure
JMBM I Jeller Mangel,
! Butler & Marmaro LLF
3239241 v J
ATTACHMENT C
Letter from Santa Monica Conservancy
10
l;. '"
SANTA MONICA CONSER.VANCY
November 16, 2004
Planning Commission
City of Santa Monica
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90403
RE: Agenda Item 9A, November 17 Meeting, 1327-1337 Ocean Avenue
The Santa Monica Conservancy wishes to comment on both a potential development
agreement and the current proposal for the proposed hotel at 1327-1337 Ocean Avenue
that encompasses two landmarked properties.
We applaud the developer for the project in concept. We believe they have successfully
designed an approach that sensitively integrates two landmarked properties into one
project. It has the potential to be a magnificent example of adaptive reuse of historic
buildings integrated into new development; one that the community will embrace and can
be a financial success for its owner.
Our recommendations:
I) It is imperative that the Landmarks Commission remain an integral part of the
design review process, if a development agreement is reached, to protect the
historic integrity of the project. The Landmarks Commission is tl1e city agency
competent to handle the questions involving adaptive reuse of historic structures
and application of the Secretary of the Interiors Standards. Maintaining the
historic integrity of these two landmarks while constructing the new configuration
that affect to the siting and design Df them is- paramount in the success of this
project. The Landmarks Commission is equipped to handle these matters. It must
carry out its review process according to the procedures defined in the landmarks
ordinance even in the event of a development agreement.
1) The landmarked exterior of 1337 Ocean Avenue needs to remain fully intact. It is
not sufficient to retain only the front fayade and part of the south side. Significant
portions of the exterior of this landmark should not be demolished to facilitate
new construction. Alternatives must be found to allow it to remain intact.
Connections to a new structure should be limited to the back of the building
where the historic integrity has already been compromised with previous
modifications.
P.O. BOX 653
SANTA MONICA, CALlFOR..NIA 90406-0653
WWW. SMCONSER..VANCY.OR..G
310-456-0399
3) In the current design, the new structure appears to try to replicate the design of the
Spanish revivaIlandmark that it is connected to. Rather the new structure should
be more clearly distinguishable from the landmark, as suggested in the Secretary
of the Interior's Standards, in a way that distinguishes it from the landmark. The
current plan only partly meets this objective.
4) The City should consider the assessment of fees to mitigate impacts on the City's
historic fabric. The sitting and scale of these two properties are going to be
dramatically and permanently changed to a much less spacious, higher density
development. As mitigation, the City should collect fees for a fund to help
implement the Historic Preservation Element or start a much needed, self
perpetuating fund to enable fmanciaI incentives for landmark owners.
5) We encourage the City to facilitate ail the necessary permits, licenses, variances,
etc. required to operate a full-service restaurant including liquor licenses and
outdoor dining permits in the Queen Anne house. Our hope is that this landmark
restaurant becomes a favored place to gather and socialize in our City. We
encourage the City to coordinate activities among the various involved City
departments to achieve this in a timely and efficient manner.
This project has the potential to be a first rate example of successful adaptive reuse of
historic properties in Santa Monica. It could set the precedent to combine the best of old
Santa Monica with quality new development.
We look forward to working with the developer and City to achieve this goal.
Sincerely,
~6~
Joel Brand
President
Cc: Susan McCarthy
Suzanne Frick
Sarah D. Lejeune
Roxanne Tanemori
Landmarks Commission
ATTACHMENT D
Minutes from October 11, 2004 Landmarks Commission Meeting
11
A. Discussion of a Development Agreement proposal for a 77-room hotel, with a restaurant and
subterranean parking at 1327, 1333, 1337 Ocean Avenue.
Ms. Reich presented the staff report.
The Commission had many questions in regard to the process through which a Development
Agreement would be drafted, reviewed and approved. City staff provided information regarding
some of the procedural requirements for a Development Agreement.
Michael Feinstein arrives at 9:28:55 PM.
The following members of the public addressed the Commission: David Daniels, Sami EI Bayars
and Teresa Grimes.
Chair Pro Tern Fresco stated that the proposed project is a fabulous idea in concept. She liked the
placement of the historic structures and the building in the background. She disagrees with the
staff report in that this is not just a facade with a new building behind it. It should be treated as a
whole structure, The Rapp Saloon on 2nd Street is an example of how they incorporated the
whole building into the new development that's behind it. In this case the building behind is too
similar to 1337 Ocean Ave. Maybe it should be brick instead of stucco. It should be
differentiated so that we can see the whole original landmark as a complete unit.
Commissioner Berley stated that he would like to see more references to the moving/storage
company and the procedures they will employ to ensure that proper care will be given to the
movement and storage of historic structures onsite.
Commissioner Maduzia concurred with Chair Pro Tern Fresco. He stated he would also like to
see from the Secretary ofInterior Standards guidelines a little more differentiation from the 1337
Ocean building and the building behind. He didn't have a problem with the stucco, but suggested
perhaps a different color and maybe change the identical pitch roof. Perhaps a built up roof
similar to the rear of the property might more effectively distinguish the newer building from the
1337 Ocean landmarked building in the front.
Commissioner Lehrer commended the applicants for the direction that they're going in, and she
agrees with their basic concept. To develop a hotel project with these constraints on three parcels
is very challenging. Her concerns are with what happens on the Victorian, as it's adaptively
reused into a restaurant. There will be a major addition and changes to the building. It's a
complicated project, and she would like the Landmarks Commission to be more involved with the
process. She was reluctant to bypass the Certificate of Appropriateness where the Commission
has a chance to comment on all of the treatrnents and what happens with these two buildings.
Commissioner Levin stated that she was very impressed when she viewed this project. She likes
the public space.
Chairperson Genser stated that he was excited about this project. He felt that more of the
northern fayade should be retained because it faces the public and creates a sense of public space.
There is a loss of architectural detail, particularly in the rear of the structure and it seems like the
character of the building is really compromised, at least there. The rest of the project is great.
We have to realize that this is a Development Agreement on a landmarked building, and they
need to be looked at a little more closely.
12
Chair Pro Tern Fresco stated that projections on the second floor are very unique, and with a
Development Agreement, and maybe exterior sprinklers perhaps they both can be saved. She
would like to see this taken under consideration. She also mentioned, through a suggestion by
Michael Feinstein, that in the course of this Development Agreement that City Council could
direct some ofthe negotiated fees to a historic preservation fund that would give the Commission
money to help implement the Historic Preservation Element.
Commissioner Kaplan stated that this is a positive step for the City's Landmarks Program and for
thoughtful development. The applicant has done a great job incorporating the two buildings into
a well thought out project. She likes the concept of subtle differentiation. Perhaps the detailing
of the new windows might be different than the original windows. She would like to see a
solution that makes it clear that one part is original and one isn't, such as a wall finish material
that can differentiate the old from the new with subtle variations in texture or color. If we could
gain more of the north fas;ade as a result of lifting the building without harm, then that would be
the ideal situation in order to maintain as much of the existing building as possible. It would be
good if landmarks could be involved, whether through a traditional Certificate of Appropriateness
or a continuing discussion. She also supports the idea of a gift for historic preservation.
Commissioner Berley stated that he can see the problem that the parking creates. He suggested
that the applicant revisit the parking situation noting that they were providing 146 parking spaces
when they only needed 131. This way it wouldn't be such a severe impact on reworking the
design. He also stated that they are setting a wonderful precedent by engaging the Commission at
an early stage. A concern he has is regarding landmark properties and the potential for
Development Agreements negotiated and approved by the City Council without the Landmark
Commission's input, sets a dangerous precedent. It leads perhaps to the idea that other
developers could bypass Landmarks Commission review and not acknowledge that Landmark
structures are important to the historic fabric of this City, It's important that the Landmarks
Commission's voice not be taken from this process.
Chairperson Gensel' stated that in regard to the northern fas;ade, he felt that the whole feeling of
the building is lost with the current design he would like to see more of the northern fa9ade
retained,
Chair Pro Tern Fresco made a motion to recommend to City Council the following: set the correct
precedent, which would include careful landmark review throughout the process of the planning
and design of the building; landmark comments on the Certificates of Appropriateness issued for
this project; mitigation fees gathered from the developer to be directed toward a preservation
fund; keep as much of the original fa9ades as possible; more reference checks on the moving
company; that the adaptive reuse of the Victorian be sensitive; re-examine the transition between
the buildings so that the Victorian looks more natural in the environment and Landmark
comments go directly to the City Council and not be filtered through the Planning Commission,
Commissioner Berley seconded the motion, which passed by the following vote:
Ayes:
Nayes:
Abstain:
Absent:
Berley, Fresco, Kaplan, Lehrer, Levin, Maduzia, Genser
None
None
None
13
ATTACHMENT E
Staff Report and Minutes from November 17,2004 Planning Commission Meeting
14
CP:AS:PF:SDL:F:\PLAN\SHARE\PC\STRPT\04\1327-1337 Ocean Avenue Discussion
Item.doc
Planning Commission Mtg: November 17, 2004 Santa Monica, California.
TO:
The Honorable Planning Commission
FROM:
Planning Staff
SUBJECT: 1327-1337 Ocean Avenue Development Agreement Concept Plan
Address: 1327 -1337 Ocean Avenue
Applicant: Hill Street Realty
INTRODUCTION
The applicant is proposing that the City consider a Development Agreement for a
project, which consists of a 77 -room hotel and restaurant arranged around a publicly
accessible plaza that will incorporate two historic structures. The proposal, which
involves the properties at 1327-1337 Ocean Avenue, intends to create a unique public
space benefiting from the ambience of the historic structures. Attachment A provides a
summary of the conceptual plan.
City staff acts as the negotiator for Development Agreements. In order to avoid
negotiating a project the City finds unacceptable, staff has scheduled this matter to
enable a pro-active discussion with the Planning Commission. The Commission's
discussion will help advise the City Council, provide initial direction to staff and inform
the property owner. Development Agreements are negotiated contracts between the
city and an applicant. They are not quasi-judicial matters like Development Review
Permits or Conditional Use Permits.
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The subject property includes three parcels that would be tied together as part of the
process. Their combined area would be 22,500 square feet, with an Ocean Avenue
frontage of 150 feet. All parcels are zoned Residential Visitor Commercial (RVC).
Surrounding uses consist of offices within the designated Landmark the Gussie Moran
House to the north, and surface parking to the south, both located within the RVC
district. A movie theater is located across the alley to the east in the BSC-4 district.
Palisades Park is located to the west of the site across Ocean Avenue in the DP
Designated Parks district.
Zoning District:
RVC Residential Visitor Commercial District
Land Use District: Oceanfront Special District
Parcel Area:
Three parcels combined total 22,500 square feet.
15
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant is proposing that the City consider a Development Agreement for a
project which consists of a 77 -room hotel, subterranean parking and restaurant
arranged around a publicly accessible plaza that will incorporate two designated City
Landmarks at 1333 and 1337 Ocean Avenue. The proposed project calls for the
relocation of the Victorian building at 1333 Ocean Avenue to the 1327 Ocean Avenue
parcel and demolition of the existing multi-family structure currently at that site. The
existing structure at 1327 Ocean Avenue is not listed on the Historic Resources
Inventory.
The applicant's proposal would retain the Ocean Avenue west facade and part of the
south fayade of 1337 Ocean Avenue and add hotel rooms to the rear of the building.
The addition would be higher than the existing building along the Ocean Avenue
frontage and would create a four-story, 45- foot L-shaped building. The new portion
would house the 77 hotel rooms behind the historic structure's Ocean Avenue (west)
and south facades. The applicant's proposal would not retain the northern or eastern
fayades of the building. The total floor area for the entire new development would be
approximately 40,800 square feet with a three-level subterranean garage containing
146 parking spaces.
The project also includes the restoration of the exterior and adaptive reuse and
renovation of the interior of the relocated Victorian building. The adaptive re-use of the
interior requires the necessary alterations to convert the interior from commercial office
space to a restaurant.
BackQround
The Landmarks Commission has held several public hearings regarding the historic
buildings involved in this project:
. 1333 Ocean Avenue was designated as a Landmark on August 12, 2002.
. The proposal to demolish the existing multi-family structure at 1327 Ocean
Avenue and move the historic Victorian building at 1333 Ocean Avenue to the
1327 Ocean Avenue parcel was heard by the Commission on April 12, 2004.
. Discussion of the potential merits of the property at 1337 Ocean Avenue was
originally held on May 10, 2004
. 1337 Ocean Avenue was designated as a City Landmark on July 12, 2004.
. Review and discussion of Development Agreement proposal on October 11,
16
2004.
The Landmarks Commission reviewed this Development Agreement proposal at their
October 11, 2004 meeting and expressed general support for the project. After
reviewing the proposed project and discussing the general Development Agreement
process, the Commission made a motion to enumerate their recommendations for
consideration throughout the Development Agreement process:
9. The Landmarks Commission recommended retaining more of the building at
1337 Ocean Avenue, particularly the north fayade. While technical difficulties
related to the subterranean garage may impact the ability to retain more of the
north fayade, the Commission recommended options to revisit the number of
parking spaces or relocate the underground structure to make it more feasible to
preserve a greater portion of the building and north fayade.
10. The transition between the historic structures and the new section of the building
needs to show a clear but subtle differentiation in design, use of materials, or
other distinctions.
11. The Commission recommended a thorough reference check as part of the
selection process for the contractor engaged to move and store the Victorian
building, as proper handling of this work is crucial to maintaining the integrity of
the historic structure. The contractor must have the appropriate qualifications for
moving a historic building.
12. The Commission recommended that special consideration be taken in the
placement of the new kitchen within the Victorian building as this will likely be an
addition to this historic landmark. The renovation must be carefully considered for
proper design and compliance with the Secretary of Interior Standards.
13. The new building and the open plaza should be designed so that the Victorian
building is well-integrated with the overall concept and in keeping with the historic
co-existence of the two building styles.
17
Due to these specific concerns regarding the two Landmark structures, the Landmarks
Commission also included recommendations to the City Council regarding the
Development Agreement negotiation process:
1. The negotiation process will set the precedent for how the Landmarks
Commission is, or is not, included in the Development Agreement process. The
Landmarks Commission recommends their input should be a formal part of the
Development Agreement process when the project concerns historic structures.
2. The Landmarks Commission recommends that the project return for review of the
final design as either a Certificate of Appropriateness, or alternate review
process negotiated as part of the Development Agreement that incorporates the
same set of standards and criteria used in a Certificate of Appropriateness.
3. The Landmarks Commission recommends that some portion of Development
Agreement fees be negotiated for historic preservation, particularly funding to
implement the Historic Preservation Element.
The Landmark Commission staff report and minutes are included in Attachment B.
ANAL YSIS
The applicant's design team, including the architect and historic consultant, has met
with City Planning Division staff and the City's Urban Designer several times in order to
review the project in relation to the landmark structures. Through this process,
modifications were made to the proposed schematic design, including preserving the
existing southern fayade of 1337 Ocean Avenue, as well as providing a more historically
compatible window-to-wall ratio on the upper portion of the new structure facing Ocean
Avenue. Due to the conceptual level of design , the Urban Designer has not been able
to provide the applicant with a complete design review. Staff continues to have
concerns regarding the treatment of the property at 1337 Ocean Avenue, and has
questions regarding the nature of the landscaped courtyard.
The use, building envelope, and zoning requirements for the newly constructed parts of
the project are designed to meet the current Zoning Ordinance. However, the
landmarked structures do not meet current zoning requirements. Specifically, the set
18
back for the southern fayade of the 1337 Ocean Avenue structure does not comply with
current standards.
The applicant believes that due to the complexity of issues, it is to their benefit to
request a Development Agreement. By bringing the conceptual design of the project to
the decision-making bodies, including Landmarks Commission, prior to the investment
in design drawings and environmental analysis, the applicant intends to achieve a
greater level of certainty for a unique project. Comments from the Landmarks
Commission and Planning Commission at this stage in the process will allow the
applicant to appropriately evaluate the merits of proceeding with this design, and will
provide important comments to the City Council to aid in their decision to enter into a
Development Agreement. If City Council authorizes Development Agreement
negotiations, the Council will be the approving body. Their decision would be informed
by formal recommendations forwarded from the Planning Commission, and potentially,
the Landmarks Commission
One of the key elements to any Development Agreement proposal is to weigh the public
benefit of a project in relation to the potential impact resulting from its deviation from '
existing Code requirements. In addition to the setback issues noted above, the chief
deviation from Zoning Ordinance requirements would be the process in which City
Council, not the Landmarks Commission, would be the decision-making authority for a
project that involves two designated landmark properties. In addition, Development
Agreement approval could enable the applicant to negotiate extending their entitlements
19
over a longer period of time than would typically be permitted under the Zoning
Ordinance.
The applicant states that the key public benefits to this project are related to the
preservation of historic resources. If the project proceeds as conceptualized, the
proposed project will create a specific context for the existing landmarked buildings,
providing a publicly accessible plaza with a focus on the historic buildings, and allowing
the interior of an historic structure to be made available for a pedestrian oriented
restaurant use. These benefits were noted by the Landmarks Commission at the
October 11 hearing.
Although staff supports the general concept of the project, there are some concerns
regarding the adaptive re-use proposed for 1337 Ocean Avenue. The west and south
fayade of the structure would be retained, but the proposal would remove a substantial
portion of the historic building. A new, four-story addition, designed to look similar to the
building's Mediterranean design, would be incorporated to the rear of the landmarked
building. While staff believes the publicly accessible plaza between the two buildings
could be a substantial benefit as a pedestrian orientated amenity, the design of the
plaza in relation to Ocean Avenue would require careful consideration throughout the
design process to provide a true public benefit.
Development AQreement Information.
Since Development Agreements are among the least common land use applications
reviewed by the Planning Commission, staff thought it would be helpful to recommend
an excellent publication by the Institute for Local Self Government in Sacramento -
Development Agreement Manual: Collaboration in Pursuit of Community Interests
20
(2002), addresses these issues. The entire manual is available on-line at:
http://www.ilsa.ora/userfiles/aodoc/5116.FinaIDevAareement4-5-02.PDF. The
Commission is encouraged to review the entire manual. However, pertinent excerpts
are included in Attachment C.
Conclusion
The City Council will make its decision on whether or not to authorize the
commencement of negotiations for a Development Agreement based on the feedback
provided by the Landmarks Commission and Planning Commission. This feedback will
inform the applicant and provide direction to the City Council and City staff in
determining whether a Development Agreement is the best approach for redevelopment
of this site.
The City enjoys broad discretion in reviewing Development Agreement applications.
This project has been presented in conceptual form to allow the Landmarks
Commission and Planning Commission to comment on its merits, identify concerns with
the project itself or the Development Agreement, and discusses potential public
benefits.
In summary, there are two essential questions staff suggests the Commission focus on
in considering this matter:
3. Is the Planning Commission potentially interested in a Development Agreement?
4. If so, what are the general negotiating points that should be addressed?
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission discuss this proposal and provide
direction regarding the project's potential public benefits and the appropriateness of a
Development Agreement application for the redevelopment of this site.
Prepared by: Sarah D. Lejeune, Associate Planner
Attachments: A. Project proposal
B. Landmarks Commission staff report and excerpted draft minutes from
October 11, 2004.
C. Excerpts from Development Agreement Manual: Collaboration in
Pursuit of Community Interests (2002),
D. Schematic drawings and materials.
21
.........
~
MINUTES
City of
Santa Monica'M
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 2004
7:00 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
ROOM 213, CITY HALL
1. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:08 p.m.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Hopkins led the Pledge of Allegiance.
3. ROLL CALL: Present: Darrell Clarke, Acting Chairperson
Julie Lopez Dad
Arlene Hopkins
Jay P. Johnson
Terry O'Day
Gwynne Pugh
Absent: Barbara Brown, Chairperson
Also Present: Kyle Ferstead, Commission Secretary
Paul Foley, Senior Planner
Suzanne Frick, Director of Planning I PCD
Jonathan Lait, AICP. Acting Principal Planner
Kevin McKeown, City Council Liaison
Barry Rosenbaum, Senior Land Use Attorney
Amanda Schachter, Planning Manager
4. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT:
Ms. Frick gave the Director's Report. Ms. Frick announced a special meeting of the
Commission on Saturday, November 20, 2004, at 9:00 a.m. in the Ken Edwards
Center. She stated that the meeting will be reviewing draft work products for the
Land Use Element and Zoning Ordinance Update.
Ms. Frick reported that the City Council will be hearing the Gotham Hall appeal on
November 23, 2004. On December 14, 2004, the Council will be holding public
hearings on the following: a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) appeal for
3010 Wilshire Boulevard; the Civic Center Specific Plan development standards
with policy direction and discussion of the proposals for the Village housing project;
and will be directing staff regarding whether to proceed on a development
agreement proposal for the redevelopment of Santa Monica Place or other options.
Planning Commission Minutes
November 17, 2004
Ms. Frick concluded her report by announcing the forthcoming scheduled
Commission meeting dates as follows: December 1, December 15, 2004 and
January 5 and January 19, 2005. She noted that the last meeting in December and
first meeting in January will be dedicated to discussion of the Land Use Element
and Zoning Ordinance Update.
5. PLANNING COMMISSIONER ANNOUNCEMENTS:
Commissioner Johnson commented on invitations received by the Commission from
the Macerich Santa Monica LLC and whether attendance would violate the Ralph M.
Brown Act. Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum stated that this cannot be
discussed as it is not properly agendized per the Brown Act, however if a majority of
the Commission do attended the function, then it would be a violation of the Brown
Act.
6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Consent Calendar
6-A. October 6.2004 (continued from November 3.2004)
Commissioner Johnson made a motion to approve the minutes for October 6, 2004.
Commissioner Pugh seconded the motion, which was approved by voice vote with
Commissioner Dad abstaining.
6-B. October 20. 2004
Commissioner Johnson made a motion to approve the minutes for October 20,
2004. Commissioner Pugh seconded the motion, which was approved by voice vote
with Commissioner Hopkins abstaining.
7. STATEMENTS OF OFFICIAL ACTION: Consent Calendar
7-A. Appeal 04-007 of Architectural Review Board 04-224, 2220 Fourth Street
Commissioner Pugh noted an error on Condition #2 in the Statement of Official
Action as regards the roof deck setback. He stated it should read "chimney" not
"stair tower." Staff indicated this could be amended.
Commissioner Johnson made a motion to approve the Statement of Official Action
for 2220 Fourth Street as amended. Commissioner Pugh seconded the motion,
which was approved by voice vote with Commissioner Hopkins abstaining.
7-B. DesiQn Compatibility Permit 04-011. Tract Map 04-024.1237 Twenty-Fourth Street
(Continued from November 3.2004)
Commissioner Hopkins made a motion to approve the Statement of Official Action
2
Planning Commission Minutes
November 17, 2004
for 1237 Twenty-Fourth Street as submitted. Commissioner O'Day seconded the
motion, which was approved by voice vote with Commissioner Dad abstaining.
8. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
8-A. Conditional Use Permit 04-010. 1231 Sixteenth Street. The applicant requests
approval of a Conditional Use Permit to construct a new private surface parkinQ lot
to serve the UCLA Medical Center located across Sixteenth Street. The proposed
li!:!hted parkin!:! lot would be accessed from Sixteenth Court via a 20-foot wide
driveway and contain approximately 15 parkinQ spaces. rPlanner: Reza Tabatabail
APPLICANT: CSA Architects. PROPERTY OWNER: Alpha Leaal Consultina.
The Commission made the following ex parte communication disclosures regarding
this project: Acting Chair Clarke disclosed that he drove by the site weeks ago;
Commissioner O'Day disclosed he drove by the site on Tuesday, November 16,
2004, at approximately 9:00 p.m.; and Commissioner Pugh disclosed that he drove
by the site on Wednesday, November 17, 2004, at approximately 2:30 p.m.
Commissioners Dad and Hopkins had nothing to disclose.
Senior Planner Paul Foley gave the staff report.
Commissioner Johnson asked about the Landmarks Commission action on the
demolition permit.. Mr. Foley explained that the demolition permit went before the
Landmarks Commissioner on Monday, November 8,2004, but took no action. He
further explained that "no action" by the Landmarks Commission actually authorizes
the issuance of the demolition permit.
Acting Chair Clarke asked if the proposed project only has alley access for vehicles.
Mr. Foley answered in the affirmative, however there are other access points for
pedestrians. Acting Chair Clarke asked if the paving will be permeable. Mr. Foley
recommended this question be addressed to the applicant.
The applicant's representative, Dan Clinger of CSA Architects, addressed the
Commission regarding the project.
There were no requests to speak forms submitted by the public. Acting Chair Clarke
closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Hopkins made a motion to approve the Conditional Use Permit
(CUP). Commissioner Dad seconded the motion. She commented that she was
pleased to see that parking layout did not include many compact parking spaces.
The motion was approved by the following vote:
AYES: Clarke, Dad, Hopkins, Johnson, O'Day, Pugh; ABSENT: Brown.
3
Planning Commission Minutes
November 17, 2004
8-B. Development Review Permit 04-001. Design Compatibility Permit 03-010 and
VestinQ Tentative Tract Map 03-010. 2121 VirQinia Avenue. Certification of the
Final Environmental Impact Report. adoption of a Statement of OverridinQ
Considerations, and consideration of Development Review Permit 04-001. DesiQn
Compatibility Permit 03-010 and VestinQ Tentative Tract Map 03-010 to allow the
construction of a new two-stOry. 12-unit condominium proiect. [Planner: Bruce'
Leachl APPLICANT: Plus Architects. PROPERTY OWNER: 2121 Virginia
Avenue.LLC.
The Commission made the following ex parte communication disclosures regarding
this project: Commissioner Pugh disclosed that he drove by the site at
approximately 2:35 p.m. on Tuesday, November 16, 2004; Commissioner O'Day
disclosed that he drove by the site at approximately 6:15 p.m., walked around the
area and noted the adjacency of the parking lot and Virginia Avenue Park; and
Commissioner Hopkins disclosed that she drives by this site often and has observed
the narrow lots and residences to the east. Commissioners Clarke, Dad and
Johnson had nothing to disclose.
Acting Principal Planner Jonathan Lait gave the staff report.
Commissioner Hopkins asked Mr. Lait about notification to the neighborhood. Mr.
Lait stated that the neighbors have been notified by mail on the Notice of
Preparation for the environmental document, the Notice of Availability for the
environmental document, and the hearing notice for this hearing. Mr. Lait also
stated that he understands the applicant has met with the neighbors and discussed
the design of the building with them.
Commissioner Johnson expressed concerns about the shadow impacts of the
proposed project and where to find the criteria. Mr. Lait stated that the methodology
and significance criteria can be found on page 4-6.1 of the Environmental Impact
Report (EIR), specifically the bulleted text.
Commissioner Johnson asked about the possibility of rehabilitating the existing
single family residence and whether this would be realistic. Mr. Lait stated that the
"no project" alternative is a requirement under CEQA and based on the analysis, it
is not likely that the existing building will be rehabilitated and that any development
on the site will have a traffic-related impact on the neighborhood.
Commissioner Hopkins asked staff about the shadow impacts cited near the bottom
of page five in the staff report, specifically the alternative for reduced number of
units and a one-story building instead of two-stories. She asked why this alternative
is not feasible. Mr. Lait stated that the project objectives are setforth earlier in the
document and stated that this is not a viable alternative based on the applicant's
ability to develop the project.
Acting Chair Clarke asked Mr. Lait to comment on the shadow maps shown in the
4
Planning Commission Minutes
November 17, 2004
EIR. Mr. Lait presented graphics to the Commission that illustrated various shadow
impacts on adjacent properties to the proposed project site.
Commissioner O'Day asked Mr. Lait if he was inferring that if the Commission chose
to require a reduced height project from the proposed, then the EIR would need to
be redone. Mr. Lait stated he is not saying that, however analysis shows that a
project at sixteen-feet in height does not create a shadow impact. Senior Land Use
Attorney Rosenbaum stated that if there is new information, then it is appropriate to
have staff analyze the information, determine if a new EIR is needed or merely a
Supplement EIR.
Commissioner Hopkins asked for clarification on the reduced project alternative
shadow analysis, which Mr. Lait responded to. Commissioner Hopkins asked staff if
there is a distinction to be drawn between the two residential properties to the north
that are deemed not significantly impacted (page 4.6-5) and the one residential
project in the middle is impacted and why is it considered significant. Mr. Lait
explained the project analysis process as regards the shadow impacts, specifically
that as defined by the criteria in the EIR, shadows on the two northern properties do
not exceed the significant impact criteria. Commissioner Hopkins stated she does
not understand why the two northern properties are not impacted. Mr. Lait stated
that on page 4.6-1, below the bolded text, there is a detailed explanation which
states that if sun-sensitive areas are in shadow 50% of the duration for the season,
which is three hours, then it is considered significantly impacted. Senior Land Use
Attorney Rosenbaum added that the shadow criteria is consistent in EIRs and
equates to winter daylight hours between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. with shadow
impact for at least 50% of those hours, which is three hours, and the extent of the
shadow impact would have to shade over 50% of the area impacted. He stated that
the two northern properties do not meet the criteria for significant impact.
Commissioner Johnson commented that on page 4.6-5, there is a out line of the
eight-unit alternative with two structures and a courtyard. He asked if, when the
analysis was done, if there was consideration to enlarging the courtyard area and
moving the rear structure further north on the property. Mr. Lait stated that this was
not specifically identified as an alternative, however on page five of the staff report it
is noted that the north 38 feet of the front (south) building is creating the shadow
impact. A reduced alternative was suggested to reduce the 38-foot portion of the
building to one-story in height to reduce the shadow impact.
Commissioner O'Day asked Mr. Lait how the reduced project alternative was
determined. Mr. Lait stated that staff worked with the consultant as part of the
environmental review process to determine alternatives, including the "no project"
alternative. Commissioner Q'Day asked if there was consultation with the applicant.
Mr. Lait answered in the negative, however applicant did have the opportunity to
review the draft document and provide comments.
Commissioner O'Day asked Mr. Lait to show the impacted property and outline the
5
Planning Commission Minutes
November 17,2004
yard that would be impacted by the proposed project. Mr. Lait complied with the
request.
Commissioner Pugh asked Mr. Lait for the rear yard setbacks for the properties
abutting the sideyard. Mr. Lait stated that legally required rear yard setback is 15-
feet He stated that the property in question regarding shadow impact appears to be
greater than 15-feet in depth judging by the depth of the garage which would be
approximately 18-feet in depth to accommodate the average vehicle.
Commissioner O'Day asked Mr. Lait how long the subject building has been vacant.
Mr. Lait stated he does not know, however a Rent Control Exemption was filed in
August 2003.
Acting Chair Clarke commented that the reason this project is before the
Commission is because it is greater than the threshold under which it would be
categorically exempt from CEQA, Mr. Lait stated there are two factors: (1) the
Development Review permit, as the project exceed the threshold; and (2) the
Design Compatibility Permit was filed under Ordinance 2042. Senior Land Use
Attorney Rosenbaum add that this discussion is due to the shadow analysis
required by CEQA in an EIR.
Acting Chair Clarke commented that to achieve a sixteen-foot height and not cast a
shadow on the adjacent backyard would required two units to be reduced in height.
Mr. Lait stated that this is correct according to staff's analysis. He stated that the
rear 38-feet are impacted, Units 104 and 105, and that is why staff is recommending
a continuance to allow the applicant an opportunity to further study the issue.
The applicant, Shahab Ghods of Plus Architects, was present to discuss the project.
Commissioner Dad asked Mr. Ghods how long the property has been vacant. Mr.
Ghods stated it has been vacant for three years, including one year prior to the
purchase of the property by the current owner.
Commissioner Hopkins asked Mr. Ghods who owns the property. Mr. Ghods stated
it is Hamid Yashar, a local businessman.
Commissioner Johnson commented on the traffic impacts of the proposed project
as cited in the EIR, then asked Mr. Ghods how these impacts can be mitigated. Mr.
Ghods stated that even one additional vehicle tr.ip will impact this street and he has
provided two garage parking spaces for each unit and guest parking spaces.
Commissioner Johnson asked Mr. Ghods about mitigation measures for
intersections and if the Transportation Management Division (TMD) has been
contacted. Mr. Ghods stated that he has not contacted TMD, but would be happy to
speak with them.
6
Planning Commission Minutes
November 17, 2004
Commissioner Johnson commented on the rendering with the barrel-style roofline.
He asked Mr. Ghods about the shadow impacts on a different style of roof and ifthe
City's Urban Designer had been consulted on this project. Mr. Ghods stated that he
had met with the Urban Designer and that the project was broken up into two
structures so it would look less like a train.
Commissioner Johnson commented on the number of roof decks proposed. Mr.
Ghods stated that all but one of the roof decks are covered by the barrel roof.
Ms. Frick stated for the record that there is no feasible mitigation measure for traffic
impacts due to the uninterrupted length of Virginia Avenue (Cloverfield Boulevard to
Twentieth Street).
Two members of the public submitted request to speak forms: Clyde Smith and
Wes Terry.
Mr. Ghods spoke in response to the public comment.
Commissioner Dad asked Mr. Ghods to comment on the street parking issued
raised by Mr. Terry and whether his client would be willing to notify and educate the
condominium owners about using their own parking space instead of parking on the
street. Mr. Ghods stated that he can do that and will make a note about it in the
CC&Rs. He also stated that the garages are attached to each unit.
Acting Chair Clarke asked Mr. Ghods if, to reduce the shadow impact, the barrel
roof was flattened with the barrel end at the minimum height. Mr. Ghods stated that
there is a certain roof angle required per the R-2 ordinance. He added that the
barrel is lower on the east and roof decks are to the west.
Acting Chair Clarke asked Mr. Ghods about the lowering the building and garage
and about the drainage for the property. Mr. Ghods stated that lowering the building
may result in loosing the first garage and that the drainable for the building requires
a certain slope for gravity flow.
Acting Chair Clarke closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Hopkins made a motion to direct staff to have the applicant return
with the reduced alternative project, specifically one story or sixteen feet in height
and requiring that one unit be affordable.
Commissioner Dad seconded the motion.
There was discussion regarding the specifics of the motion.
Commissioner Hopkins stated her opinion that the project as proposed will
negatively effect the adjacent properties based on the shadow analysis. She also
7
Planning Commission Minutes
November 17, 2004
cited the Zoning Ordinance, Development Review Permit section, pages 504-2,
subsection (d), she read the purpose and findings.
Commissioner Dad commented that the EIR needs to be certified prior to the
current discussion. She then made a substitute motion to certify the EIR.
Commissioner Hopkins seconded the motion.
The EIR was certified by the following vote:
AYES: Clarke, Dad, Hopkins, Johnson, O'Day, Pugh; ABSENT: Brown.
Commissioner Hopkins remade the motion. Commissioner Dad seconded the
motion. Commissioner Hopkins then commented on required findings found on
page 504-3 of the Zoning Ordinance, specifically subsection (a) which she asserted
cannot be met. She further stated that the proposed project is not compatible with
the neighborhood and the streets cannot support the additional traffic trips to be
generated by the project. Commissioner Hopkins stated that the project also does
not meet the DCP findings on page 504-4, subsections (1), (3), (5) and (6)..She
further cited page 492-3, Subchapter 9.04.16.
Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum expressed concern regarding Government
Code Section 65589.5(j), which limits the authority of the local body to deny or
reduce the density of a project which complies with the objective development
standards unless the project would have specific adverse impact on the public
health or safety (it does not speak to general welfare). He commented on CEQA
requirements, which require assessment of the project impacts and, if they cannot
be mitigated, then a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the project is made.
He stated that staff's recommendation is to certify the EIR, which has been done,
then determine whether to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations, which
has not been included in the packet due to staff's recommendation to continue the
project for redesign.
Commissioner Dad stated that she is looking for a smaller project for a smaller.
impact and she could not consider a Statement of Overriding Consideration. She
also stated that the project design needs to be discussed. Senior Land Use Attorney
Rosenbaum agreed this would be a safer course of action in view of the EIR and
current lack of mitigations.
Commissioner Pugh called the motion "onerous and punitive" and that property
owners should have a reasonable reliance on the Zoning Code. He stated that the
Commission will have the opportunity to change the code, however that is in the
future. He expressed the opinion that a one-story project is not appropriate. He
noted that a two-story single family dwelling could be placed on the lot and cast the
same shadows without review by the Commission. Commissioner Pugh stated that
the proposed project is not unduly tall at less than thirty-feet above average natural
grade and has reasonable setbacks. On the issue of traffic, Commissioner Pugh
expressed the opinion that the traffic is mostly generated from outside the area,
8
Planning Commission Minutes
November 17, 2004
pass-through traffic. Commissioner Pugh stated that he does have design issues,
specifically the length ofthe buildings on the site as well as the massing and style of
the proposed structures.
Commissioner Johnson asked Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum if his
clarification means that the Commission should give direction to staff to reduce the
shadow effect and like issues. Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum responded
that this would be a good way to approach the issue as the staff report has already
pinpointed the area of the project causing the shadow impact on the adjacent
properties. He stated the issue is to seek a solution to the impacts.
Commissioner Johnson asked staff if the Urban Designer has had the opportunity to
review this project. Ms. Frick answered in the affirmative and stated that the
Commission needs to articulate their concerns, specifically height, length and
shadows.
Commissioner Hopkins commented that it sounds as if she should either withdraw
or amend her motion. She then withdrew her motion.
Commissioner Johnson made a motion to continue the item with direction to staff
that the revised project address the question of shading.
Commissioner Hopkins asked Commissioner Johnson if his motion also includes
addressing the traffic issue. Commissioner Johnson stated he did not know how to
address the traffic issue.
Commissioner Hopkins seconded the motion. She offered a friendly amendment
that staff look at ways to address the traffic impact of the proposed project.
Commissioner Johnson agreed to the amendment.
Ms. Frick stated that the only way to reduce the traffic impact would be to reduce
the number of units. She asked the Commission to set a degree to which the traffic
should be reduced.
Commissioner Dad stated that she wants the smallest number of units as feasible
for the least amount of vehicle trips and less traffic impact. She commented that this
area is heavily impacted by traffic. She stated she is not so concerned with the
shadow impact issues. She also stated that there is a mix in building heights in the
neighborhood. Lastly, she thanked the applicant for not having a three-story look
building with a mezzanine or loft.
Acting Chair Clarke commented that the number of units is based on how many
double car garages fit, which number twelve on the plans.
Commissioner O'Day commented on the traffic impact. He cited the staff report,
which states the project would only add 2% trips on Virginia Avenue and if it is
9
Planning Commission Minutes
November 17,2004
reduce by a third, it would be reduced by only about ten trips per day. He stated that
his aim on the Commission to support the addition of housing in the City. He noted
that project adds a substantial amount of units in an area that needs more housing
and it has the amenities of being adjacent to a large park and a major transit
corridor. Therefore, Commissioner O'Day stated that he does not support the
reduction of units. He stated he would only consider a motion dealing with shadow
impacts.
Commissioner Pugh commented on the jobs/housing imbalance in Santa Monica
and agreed that increased housing benefits the City overall.
Commissioner Johnson asked Commissioner Pugh a technical parking question,
specifically how many parking spaces are required for a three-bedroom unit versus
a two-bedroom unit. Commissioner Pugh stated his belief that two parking spaces
are required plus one guest space for every five units. Commissioner Johnson
asked if he is correct that parking requirement would not change if the units became
three-bedroom units. Commissioner Pugh answered in the affirmative, except as
regards guest parking spaces. Commissioner Johnson suggested the "middle
ground" may be to have less units with more bedrooms as it would not effect the
parking requirements.
There was discussion regarding the issues raised by the Commission and what
should and should not be part of the motion.
Commissioner Pugh offered an amendment to the motion that it be recommended
to the applicant to reconsider the unit mix and bedroom quantity. Commissioners
Johnson and Hopkins accepted this as a friendly amendment.
Acting Chair Clarke commented on the overall style of the project. He suggested
that there be more individuality for the units such as changing the texture, window
shapes or some other architectural changes. Commissioner Pugh agreed with this
suggestion as the current design is "too formula." There was consensus among the
Commissioners.
Mr. Ghods formally requested a continuance and stated he will work with the Urban
Designer.
Commissioner Dad commented that the pedestrian orientation should be retained.
The motion was approved by the following vote:
AYES: Clarke, Dad, Hopkins, Johnson, O'Day, Pugh; ABSENT: Brown.
[The Commission took a break from 9:52 p.m. to 10:11 p.m.]
10
Planning Commission Minutes
November 17, 2004
9. DISCUSSION:
Public Input Permitted
9-A. Discussion of proposal by Hill Street Realty that the City consider a Development
AQreement for a proposed 77 -room hotel and restaurant arranQed around a publicly
accessible plaza that will incorporate two historic structures. The proposal, which
involves the properties at 1327-1337 Ocean Avenue, intends to create a unique
public space benefitinQ from the ambience of the historic structures. rPlanner: Sarah
Leieunel
Acting Chair Clarke stated that this item does not require ex parte disclosures.
Senior Planner Paul Foley gave the staff report.
Acting Chair Clarke commented that in a Development Agreement, the applicant is
generally asking to do things they would not be permitted to do under standard
zoning and as landmark designated properties. Mr. Foley answered in the
affirmative. Acting Chair Clarke asked Mr. Foley what the applicant is asking to
exceed. Mr. Foley stated that he understands the only issue that does not meet
current requirements are the existing setbacks for the1337 Ocean Avenue building,
which is existing and non-conforming. Mr. Foley further explained that the proposal
includes moving 1337 Ocean Avenue on the site.
Acting Chair Clarke asked Mr. Foley why the applicant has filed for a Development
Agreement. Mr. Foley stated that it offers a single point of approval and an
opportunity to negotiate benefits with the City.
City Council Liaison McKeown stated that City Council has given direction regarding
what sort of project meets the Development Agreement criteria. Ms. Frick stated
that the proposal does fit the criteria in that the unique historic structures are being
retained and the City can negotiate for benefits that otherwise would not be part of
the development process.
Acting Chair Clarke commented that the proposed project size would fall under
Conditional Use Permit criteria. Mr. Foley stated that the proposed project actually
exceeds the Development Review threshold, but does meet code requirements.
Commissioner Dad asked if there is an increase in height with the proposed
addition. Mr. Foley stated it will go to 45-feet, which complies with code.
Commissioner Dad commented on the current "nice little plaza areas" in the non-
complex and this would go away with the development. She stated it is a wonderful
place to walk around currently. Mr. Foley agreed about the plaza area.
Commissioner Johnson asked staff for a copy of the new Development Agreement
criteria approved by the City Council, including the staff report and approved criteria.
11
Planning Commission Minutes
November 17, 2004
He stated that many people in the community find Development Agreements
suspect and that the process is not so transparent and open to abuse. He also
stated that he read the review of the Landmarks Commission summaries on these
buildings and why they support the Development Agreement. Commissioner
Johnson asked if and when the Urban Designer is involved in the process. Mr. Foley
stated that the Urban Designer is already part of the process and has met several
times with the applicant and their representatives.
Commissioner Johnson asked if the renderings are generally accurate as to what
the final project design will be. Ms. Frick stated that only preliminary conversations
have been held with the applicant and serious discussions are not entered into until
after the City Council has decided to enter into discussions and negotiations with
the applicant. When such direction is given, then staff gets involved. She stated that
this is the Commission's chance to offer input to the City Council.
Commissioner Johnson asked Mr. Foley who comprises Hill Street Realty, which did
not come up on an internet search. He stated he likes to know who the City is
dealing with. He then commented on a part of the developer's letter which calls for a
cafe and gift shop, which were omitted from the staff report. Mr. Foley
recommended the applicant address this question.
Commissioner Johnson asked staff about the height limit in the RVC District. Mr.
Foley stated that the heights vary along Ocean Avenue, however the general height
limit is three-stories or 45-feet. Commissioner Johnson asked for the height of the
National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) building. Mr. Foley stated that building
is four-stories, but is in a different district.
Ms. Frick explained to the Commission that during this period when the Land Use
Element and Zoning Ordinance will be updated, it is likely that, due to uncertainty on
the part of developers, that more Development Agreements will be requested. She
stated that often a Development Agreement is a better approach and offers
certainty to developers. She concluded by saying that it is up to the Commission
and City Council whether to discuss this proposal more or move it forward in the
Development Agreement process.
Commissioner Dad commented that, in her opinion, for a visually interesting, livable
city, it is alright to vary standards for various projects. She stated that this will not
necessarily allow for very tall buildings, but perhaps some slightly taller ones.
Commissioner Dad stated that there is a wide area of skepticism about
Development Agreements, but she feels that if one is selective, a Development
Agreement will work to the advantage of the City as well as the developer.
The applicant's team included Davld Daniels of Jeffer, Mangels, Butler and
Marmaro LLP and Sami EI Bayar of RTK Architects.
Three members of the public submitted request to speak forms: Cara Horowitz of
12
Planning Commission Minutes
November 17,2004
the NRDC; Tom Cleys, representing the Santa Monica Conservancy; and Nina
Fresco, representing the Landmarks Commission.
Commissioner Dad stated that she likes the proposal and the simplicity of the
rendering of the new section presented. She also stated that she wants to move
forward with a Development Agreement and that the proposal meets to an
extraordinary extent what the City wants and needs along Ocean Avenue.
Commissioner Dad commented that the project will increase pedestrian use in the
area with the introduction of restaurants and cafes. She noted that she is "thrilled"
that the proposed building is not tall or massive. She asked that the developer retain
as much as possible of the existing buildings in their entirety and that there be a
condition requiring that the Landmarks Commission be included in all review,
changes and considerations and that their input be forwarded to the City Council
directly. Lastly, Commissioner Dad stated she would like to see as much parking as
possible on the site, unless it effects the existing buildings.
Commissioner Q'Day commented that this is a really smart use of a Development
Agreement and a great opportunity to preserve and enhance the existing buildings.
He agreed that the Development Agreement needs to retain a strong protection of
the landmarked buildings and the involvement of the Landmarks Commission. He
also commented that he is excited by the project, especially as it preserves historic
buildings which reflect the local values and commented that sustainability issues
should be included. Commissioner O'Day expressed concern with the transition
between the old and new structures, but agreed that the parking trade-offs would be
acceptable in exchange for preserving the building. He stated that he likes to
provide business opportunities with public benefits, as this proposal appears to do.
He concluded by saying that he "enthusiastically support this work."
Commissioner Pugh agreed with the prior comments. He commented on the
Secretary of the Interior Standards for historic structures. He stated that, as a
modernist, he is not averse to seeing a design that worked with and complimented
or enhanced the older structures. Commissioner Pugh had a concern regarding
"double-loaded corridors." He stated that issues of sustainability should be looked at
in this project.
Commissioner Johnson stated he endorses the concept of moving forward with a
Development Agreement. He offered the following negotiating points: retaining more
of the north fayade and other parts of the original structures; that the plaza have a
unique character and identity such as historical plaques and photographs; include
the discussion of street furniture, sidewalk enhancements; a valet pick-up cut-out
area; parking include public parking spaces; that a contribution be made to the
Landmark Protection Fund; that there be community meeting space arranged as
schedules permit; and for design characteristics - include more arches rather than
square doorways, columns, open balcony space, more wrought iron on fayade
decorations, that the entryway be enhanced, and there be a fountain or water
element of some type.
13
Planning Commission Minutes
November 17, 2004
Commissioner Hopkins stated she supports all the recommendations and
comments made by the other Commissioners. She added the following points:
. on the landmarks issue, she asked to include the Santa Monica Conservancy
letter and the eleven points submitted by Landmarks Commissioner Fresco;
. that the hotel have unionized employees;
. that the liquor license have a Conditional Use Permit;
. that the project, to the greatest extent feasible, conform to the City's
Sustainable Cities Plan;
. that the garden contain native plants; and
. that there be confirmation that bluff geology can handle the proposed
subterranean parking. '
Acting Chair Clarke commented on potential groundwater issues in addition to the
bluff geology. He agreed with the Sustainable City Plan requirement as part of the
Development Agreement. He commented on the experience of walking along
Ocean Avenue with the lower scale historic buildings and view of the ocean. He
asked that landscaping include more than hardscape and planters.
Commissioner Dad made a motion to forward a recommendation to the City Council
to proceed with consideration of a Development Agreement and incorporating the
points discussed.
Commissioner Hopkins seconded the motion.
Commissioner Dad extended her "congratulations to those forward-looking people
who in 1987 landmarked the Gussie Moran House," for preserving it for this day.
She noted that she was part of that designation process.
The motion was approved by voice vote.
9-8. Discussion of and potentially approval ofthe process, schedule, format and topics
for ioint meetinQs between the PlanninQ Commission and other City board and
commissions and identify which city board and commissions to involve in ioint
meetinQs. Requested by Chair Brown.
Acting Chair Clarke stated that he spoke with Chair Brown this date and this item
was postponed until Saturday, November 20,2004. He verified with staff that the
agenda for the Special Meeting can be reposted.
Ms. Frick reported that the Chamber of Commerce Land Use Committee is having a
meeting on Thursday, November 18, 2004, and staff has been asked to come and
talk about the process and make the presentation already made to the Commission
and City Council. Acting Chair Clarke volunteered to attend the meeting on behalf of
the Commission.
14
Planning Commission Minutes
November 17, 2004
This item was continued.
Action: Continued to November 20, 2004.
9-C. Discussion of upcominQ presentations to community Qroups related the Land Use
Element and ZoninQ Ordinance Update and PlanninQ Commission participation.
Requested by Chair Brown.
Acting Chair Clarke stated that he spoke with Chair Brown this date and this item
was postponed until Saturday, November 20, 2004. He verified with staff that the
agenda for the Special Meeting can be reposted. This item was continued.
Action: Continued to November 20,2004.
9-D. Discussion and review of work products and proiect schedule related to the Land
Use Element and Zoninq Ordinance Update. Requested by Chair Brown.
Ms. Frick reported that staff is working furiously with the consultant to produce work
products including the Discover Santa Monica Guidebook, for the Saturday meeting.
She stated the guidebook will be given to every resident in the community and at
public outreach events. Ms. Schachter added that there will an outline of the toolkit
to review also. Ms. Frick stated that it is envisioned that many groups will be
promoting the gathering of information and the toolkit, the presentation material, will
keep the staff and the groups on track about the concepts and ideas. Staff is
looking for the Commission's input on these products. Ms. Frick stated that the
documents will be available Thursday afternoon and will be placed on the website.
Additionally, staff will be previewing the website for the update.
Commissioner O'Day voiced his concern regarding a seeming new pattern of setting
Special Meetings on very short notice. He expressed the opinion that the
Commission needs to be careful about how they communicate, especially as
regards e-mails which may violate the Brown Act. He urged that in the future there
should be more transparency about how things are done and communicated. Acting
Chair Clarke agreed, then explained that due to a certain near term deadline of
November 30, 2004 to get the update moving, the Special Meetings have been
called.
Ms. Frick stated that the working constraint is a very aggressive time frame for
getting the project up, running and completed. In order to meet the milestones, and
if the Commission wants to review all the work products, then the Commission may
need to meet more often, She stated it also depends on the level of review desired
and this should be a topic of discussion on Saturday.
Commissioner Dad stated for the record that the review is important and the
community will not be reviewing the draft materials. She expressed agreement with
the comments made by Commissioner O'Day regarding the suddenness of the
15
Planning Commission Minutes
November 17, 2004
special meetings as the public notice and transparency is not apparent. She
recommended a timeline of when things are expected to be available and when
Saturday meetings may be needed. Ms. Frick stated that staff agrees and is
anticipating creating a three-month timetable. She also stated that beginning in
December there will be a Commission meeting each month dedicated to the update
process, which will keep the Commission in the loop and the public involved.
Commissioner Pugh asked City Council Liaison McKeown what he believes the
Commission's role should be. City Council Liaison McKeown stated that this is an
exceptional period, the beginning of a process that has not be done in "a
bureaucratic generation." He stated that the Council needs the Commission to be
looking at the materials quickly and moving the process along. He also stated that it
would be best for public involvement to, when possible, hold meetings in the Council
Chambers so they can be televised and/or taped for later broadcast by CityTV.
Acting Chair Clarke asked to add another discussion item, since the agenda is
being reposted. He asked that there be a discussion of the Commission visiting
other cities. Ms. Frick recommended that this expanded to a broader education
forum. Acting Chair Clarke suggested ordering a charter Big Blue Bus to take the
Commission and members of the public for a full experience of see how different
communities function. City Council Liaison McKeown recommended that this
discussion be held-over to the policy meeting December. Commissioner Hopkins
suggested that the discussion item be placed on the agenda, then continued if the
Commission so chooses on Saturday.
Action: Continued to November 20, 2004.
10. FUTURE COMMISSION AGENDA ITEMS: None.
11. . PUBLIC INPUT: None.
12. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11 :47 p.m.
11/24/2004
16
ATTACHMENT F
Excerpts from Development Agreement Manual: Collaboration
in Pursuit of Community Interests (2002)
28
what Are Development Agreements? (p. 9)
Development agreements are contracts negotiated between project proponents
and public agencies that govern the land uses that may be allowed in a particular
project. 1 Although subject to negotiation, allowable land uses must be consistent
with the local planning policies formulated by the legislative body through its
general plan, and consistent with any applicable specific plan.2
Neither the applicant nor the public agency is required to enter into a
development agreement. When they do, the allowable land uses and other terms
and conditions of approval are negotiated between the parties, subject to the
public agencies' ultimate approval. While a development agreement must
advance the agencies' local planning policies, it may also contain provisions that
vary from otherwise applicable zoning standards and land use requirements,
The development agreement is essentially a planning tool that allows public
agencies greater latitude to advance local planning policies, sometimes in new
and creative ways. While a development agreement may be viewed as an
alternative to the traditional development approval process, in practice it is
commonly used in conjunction with it. It is not uncommon, for example, to see a
project proponent apply for approval of a conditional use permit, zone change
and development agreement for the same project.
I See Cal. GOy't Code 965864 and following
2 See Cal. COy't Code 965867.5
What Does a Development Agreement Cover? (p. 26)
· Permitted uses of the property;
· Density or intensity of use;
· Maximum height and size of proposed buildings;
· Provisions for reservation or dedication of land for public purposes;
· Terms and conditions relating to financing of necessary public
improvements, as well as provisions for subsequent reimbursement for
that financing, as appropriate;
· Timeframes for commencement and completion of construction, or any
phases of construction;
· Subsequent discretionary approval provisions, as long as those approvals
do not prevent development of the project as described in the agreement;
and
· The duration of the agreement
The Advantages And Disadvantages Of Development
Agreements (p, 11)
Development agreements have three defining characteristics:
· They allow greater latitude than other methods of approval to advance
local land use policies in sometimes new and creative ways;
· They allow public agencies greater flexibility in imposing conditions and
requirements on proposed projects; and
· They afford project proponents greater assurance that once approved,
their projects can be built
29
Although these characteristics can be advantageous, they can also present
challenges. The purpose of this chapter is to discuss potential advantages and
disadvantages of development agreements, from the perspective of both the
public agency and project proponent.
Advancing Land Use Policies (p, 11)
Because development agreements are themselves ordinances, they may
supersede existing land use regulations as long as they are consistent with the
general plan and any applicable specific plan. 5 As a result, they can afford the
public agency and project proponent greater latitude concerning allowable land
uses in a particular instance. However, there are potential advantages and
disadvantages associated with having this flexibility.
5
See Cal, Gov't Code 9 65867.5.
Potential Advantages: The Ability To Better Implement Planning
Policies (p. 12)
From a planning perspective, development agreements have been instrumental
in allowing creative and award-winning land use projects because the
agreements can facilitate projects that would not have been allowed under
otherwise applicable zoning regulations. The approval of creative land use
concepts - and the construction of resulting projects - have advanced the state
of urban planning, and allowed public agencies to better combat the visual and
aesthetic impacts of "cookie-cutter" development.
In a similar vein, there are instances in which literal compliance with zoning
ordinance provisions can thwart promotion of general plan policies. For example,
the general plan may encourage the existence of open space, whereas the
applicable zoning district does not allow sufficient density to accommodate the
clustering of residential units necessary to accommodate an open space
component.
There may also be instances in which the legislative body wishes to promote
unwritten policies, such as those involving growth management. As long as the
project is consistent with the local planning policies formulated by the legislative
body through its general plan, the development agreement can provide greater
latitude to incorporate land use concepts and components that are tailored
specifically to address particular community concerns.
In each of these cases, the ability to vary from strict adherence to otherwise
applicable zoning provisions can help ensure that the public agency's land use
policies are being advanced, in sometimes new and innovative ways. These
advantages are shared by the public agency and project proponent alike.
Potential Disadvantages: May Promote Bad Planning (p, 14)
The latitude afforded the parties through use of a development agreement may
also have potential disadvantages. For example, the agency's staff and
legislative body may become convinced that, in exchange for the significant sales
tax revenue the agency is likely to receive from a particular project, or in
consideration of the fact that the project proponent is willing to construct a new
city park or other significant public amenity, the agency should agree to
30
compromise its planning standards in a manner that could reduce the quality of
life in the community. The pressure to compromise may be especially great in the
case of a "friendly developer" who has a popular presence in the community.
From the project proponent's perspective, it is possible that the legislative body
may decide to disallow uses that would otherwise be allowed, and which are
appropriate from a conventional planning perspective.
The suggestions that appear in this manual are intended to help avoid misusing
development agreements. They are based on the premise that from the outset,
the planning policies and objectives that have been embraced by the community
through adoption of the general plan, and those included in any applicable
specific plan, should be an integral part of the discussions and negotiations
between the parties to a development agreement.
By identifying applicable planning policies early on, and continuing to use them
as yardsticks in determining what land uses are appropriate, the parties should
be able to avoid unacceptable compromises when negotiating development
agreements.
Imposing Conditions (p. 14)
Development agreements provide public agencies greater flexibility in imposing
requirements on proposed development, such as development conditions,
exactions and fees, because constraints and uncertainties that affect a local
agency's ability to unilaterally impose such requirements do not apply to mutually
agreed upon development agreement provisions.6
6
See Cal. Gov't Code ~ 66000(b) (exeluding "fees eolleeted under development agreements" from the
type of fee covered under the Mitigation Fee Act),
31