SR-402-001 (31)
... 4-
r'O;;2"--- PO /
f2--B
C/ED:PB:SF:AS
Council Mtg: March 8, 1988
tMR 8 1988
Santa Monica, California
TO: Mayor and city Council
FROM: City Staff
SUBJECT: Appeal of Planning Commission Denial of Development
Review 356, Conditional Use, permit 437, Zoning
Administrator 5113-Y, General Plan Amendment 09, EIA
835, 1115 Second Street, Five story, 96,000 sq.ft.
Parking Structure with 270 Parking Spaces. Applicant:
Miramar Sheration Hotel, W. G. Wells, President.
Appellant: James Lunsford for Miramar Sheraton Hotel.
INTRODUCTION
This report recommends that the City Council deny the appeal and
uphold the Planning Commission I s denial of Development Review
356, Conditional Use Permit 437, Zoning Administrator 5113-Y,
General Plan AInendrnent 09, EIA 835 for a five story, 96,000
sq. ft. 270 space parking structure.
The Planning commission
denied the project by a 7-0 vote on December 7, 1988. Areas of
concern include height, lack of landscaping, lack of setbacks,
inconsistency with the General Plan, and general incompatibility
with the neighborhood.
The applicant, Miramar Sheraton, is
appealing that decision (Attachment A).
BACKGROUND
The five story, 96,000 sq.ft. 270 space parking structure is
proposed for a 15,000 sq. ft. site on the east side of Second
street between Wilshire Boulevard and California Avenue in a R4A
Zoning District. Miramar Sheraton currently leases the site to
the owner of the Budget Rental Car facility. A total of 41
- 1 -
12-B
MAR 8 1988
. . r.
parking spaces are provided at the site, 12 of which are leased
back to the Miramar Sheraton for employee parking while the
remaining spaces are available to hotel guests and visitors. The
proposed structure will provide access from a single driveway
located off Second street. Pedestrian access to the parking
structure will be available from both Second Street and Second
Court. The project does not provide setbacks from any property
line, does not step back from the street, alley or side property
lines at any point, and utilizes 100 percent lot coverage.
A Development Review permit is required in that the project is
over 15,000 sq.ft. In addition, a Conditional Use Permit is
required to allow a parking structure in a R~ district.
Ordinance 1383 (CCS) permits off-site parking structures in R4
districts in conjunction with hotel development with approval of
a CUP. Variances are required to permit zero setbacks and 100
percent lot coverage in a R4 district, and a General Plan
Amendment is required to amend Policy 1.2.3 to allow the parking
structure to be built to five stories rather than the maximum
permitted four stories.
An Initial Study (EIA 835) was prepared for this project and a
variety of mitigation measures were recommended. These measures
included articulation of the flat surfaces, adding texture or
color to the exterior surfaces, utilizing planters for
landscaping, reducing the project height, stepping back the upper
levels, and providing setbacks.
- 2 -
~ .
In their denial of the project, the Planning Commission concurred
with staff that the project did not relate harmoniously with the
surrounding environs in that the parking structure did not meet
the minimum development standards for a structure in a R4
district and that the proposal was inconsistent with the General
Plan in that it did not provide design articulation, did not
enhance the streetscape, and did not provide pedestrian amenities
or architectural innovation. In addition, the Commission found
that noise generated from vehicles in the parking structure would
severely impact the neighboring residences.
ANALYSIS
The appellant's letter does not state any spec1fic reasons for
the appeal. However, at the Planning Commission hearing the
applicant stated that the hotel needed to provide adequate
parking for its facility and that this property was purchased for
this purpose. Al though there is clearly a need for parking in
this congested area, the project in its current design does not
merit approval. The utilitarian design is dominated by concrete
sheer walls, concrete parapets and galvanized steel railings at
each level. There has been no attempt at providing pedestrian
ameni ties, as required in Land Use Element Pol icy 3.3. I or at
including design articulation~ as encouraged in Policy 3.3.4, to
enhance the building's physical appearance.
As proposed, the project does not include setbacks, effectively
eliminating any ability to provide landscaping to screen the
structure from surrounding buildings. The shadow analysis
- 3 -
prepared for the Initial Study determined that a five story, 561
parking structure would block or impair the views of apartments
on the third, fourth, and fifth floors of the Wilshire Ocean
Terrace at 1118 Third street and would block views from guest
rooms below the fifth floor of the Huntley Hotel. Although the
zoning Code permits a four story structure at this site, a
project that provided the required setbacks (201 front, 111 side,
15' rear) would also be able to provide adequate landscaping to
screen the project and, perhaps, even enhance the views from
these units by removal of the surface parking lot.
Due to the amount of written correspondence received opposing the
project, the Planning commission recommended that, should the
project be redesigned, the applicant work with the surrounding
residents to better understand their concerns.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT
The recommendation presented in this report does not have any
budget or fiscal impact.
RECOMMENDATION
It is respectfully recommended that the council deny the appeal
and deny DR 356, CUP 437, ZA 5113-Y, GPA-09, EIA 835 with the
findings contained in the December 7, 1987 Planning Commission
Statement of Official Action.
Prepared by: Amanda Schachter, Associate Planner
Suzanne Frick, Principal Planner
Paul Berlant, Planning Director
Planning Division
community and Economic Development Department
- 4 -
Attachments: A. Letter of Appeal by James Lunsford.
B. December 7, 1987 Planning Commission Staff
Report.
C. Planning Commission Statement of Official
Action.
D. Final Initial study.
E. Project Plans.
CCDR356
02/03/88
- 5 -
< ,
~d+ o..c..\1 YYI e;1-t- A
(, (' Mt6
ffurth D! 1 q~t
JAMES" LUNSFORD
1 ^ -.Tl '-'tool' l'l>-'S\:L'T'" ''IT
I?"~ 11101\" t.'lAV.R A"'I!:"L~
""^"T^ ).lONJ( ^ C'"A IID4D~
IJlU' 31le.l~71l
7
December /.3, lQP,7
City Planning Di~i~lon
Co'nmunity and EconomIc Developln~nt Departnent
Santa Monica CIty Hall
1685 MaIn Street R,n 212
Santa Monlca 90401
Re: DR 356, CUP 437, ZA 5113-Y
GPA-09, ErA 835
1115 Second Street
On behalf of the Mlramar Sheraton Hotel..we hereby appeal the
decision of the PlannIng CommIssion in the above matters. The
~equired fee of $75 is attached.
Receipt of the above appeal IS ackno~ledged.
Cit~lanning Division
RY~ M~--- _ _ ___- _ _ pate_I3-~";\.e,7___
j),~ ,f ~Il.. )(Off' J7sflR-
1
. ,
Ma...c h 'r'Yl en --r B
.--. .-
.,....:..
I~
CITY PLANNING DIVISION
Co~~unity and Economic Development Department
M E M 0 RAN DUM
DATE: December 7, 1987
TO: The Honorable Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Staff
SUBJECT: DR 356, CUP 437, ZA 5113-Y, GPA-09, EIA 835
Address:
Applicant:
1115 Second street
Miramar Sheraton Hotel,
W. G. Wells, President
SITE LOCATION k~D DESCRIPTION
The subject property is a 15,000 sq.ft. parcel located on the
east side of Second street between W~lsh~re Boulevard a~d
Cal~for:na Avenue having a frontage of 100 feet. Surrcund:.ng
uses consist of the 17-story Huntley Hotel to the north (R4A),
the 2-story Santa Mon~ca Medlcal Center office build~ng to the
south (R4A), the 6-story Wilshire Ocean Terrace apartment
building to the east (R4A) and the Miramar Sheraton Hotel to the
west (R:'A, C3) wh~ch occuples the ent~re block and incluc:tes a
lobby and service building directly across from the project site.
Zo:ung D:.strict:
R4A
Land Use District:
High Density Residential
Parcel Area:
lOa' x 1501 = 15,000 Sq. Ft.
PROPOSED PROJECT
Proposed is a 96,000 sq. ft. 5 story parking structure providl~g
270 parking spaces. The structure reaches a maximum height of 56
feet. The site is currently leased by Miramar Sheraton to the
owner of the Budget Rental Car facility. The project site
provides a total of 41 parking spaces; 12 spaces are leased back
to the Miramar Sheraton for employee parking and the remaining
spaces are available to hotel guests and visltors. As proposed,
parking in the structure will be available for a fee to both
hotel guests and the general public. The structure would operate
24 hours per day. Ingress and egress to the parking structu~e
will be provided from a single driveway located off Second
Street. There will be one entry lane and one eXlt lane.
Pedestrian access to the parking structure will be available fro~
both Second street and Second Court.
- 1 -
A Development Rev~ew penni t is requ~red ~r. that the proj ect is
over 15,000 sq. ft. A Conditional Use Per~~t (CUP) is re~~lred to
allow a parking structure in a R4 district. On Septenber 9, 1986
the City Council adopted Ordinance 1383 to amend Section 91l04A
(S}rnC). This ordinance permits off-site parking structures in R~
Districts in conjunction with hotel development with approval of
a CUP. Variances are required to permit a structure with zero
setbacks and 100% lot coverage in a R4 District. A General Plan
Amendment is required to amend Policy 1.2.3 to allow the parking
structure to be built to 5 stories rather than the required 4
stories.
MUNICIPAL CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE
The proposed project is inconsistent with the Municipal Code in
that variances will be required for setbacks and lot coverage and
is inconsistent with the General Plan in that a General Plan
Anendment will be required to allow the structure to exceed the
height linit as shown in Attachnent A.
CEQA STATUS
An Initial Study has been prepared for this proJect and a var:ety
of mitigation measures have been included. Hm:ever, staf= 1S
recOIr,mend1ng that the proJ ect be denled. Ccp::es of t::e Draft
Initial Study were distributed to the Plannlng CO~rr.1SS10n at the
beg~nnlng of the 30 day public review period. PUblic corment was
recelved and the responses are contalned In the Flnal Inl.tlal
S~udy. The Final Inltlal Study ~s attached (Attach~en~ B) .~_
FEES
Tte proj ect is exe:-pt fron the Ho'Using and Parks l:~ t.lgatlc~ Fee
as outlined in the Land Use and Clrculatio~ Ele~ent.
ANALYSIS
Consistency with Land Use Ele~ent Policles a~d tte Zc~~~a
Ordlnance
The proposed project is located in a High Densi'ty Resldentlal
area. The property is zoned R~A. Policy 1.2.3 of the Land ~se
Element permits parking structures in 'tAli Off Street Parklrg
Districts. However, these structures are only permitted if they
conform with the height, bulk, setback and landscape standards
required for the residential district. As proposed the proJect
is built to the front, rear and side property lines and utl1izes
100% lot coverage. The lack of setbacks provides little
opportunity to include landscaping to screen the surroundIng
structures from the project. A General Plan Amendment has been
filed to permit the project to exceed the 4 story helg~t I1nlt.
A 5 story, 56' parking structure would block or impair the views
of apartments on the third, fourth, and fifth floors of the
WIlshire Ocean Terrace and wll1 block views from guest roo:-:s
below the fifth floor of the Huntley Hotel.
- 2 -
. .
Under the existing Zoning Ordinance the R4 standards req'.Jire
setbacks from all property lines as well as a 50% lot coverage
(Attachment A). The applicant has re~.Jired variances to
eliminate these requirements. Ordinance 1383 amended Section
9ll0A SMMC to permit parking structures in R4A Districts in
conjunction with hotel facilities with the approval of a
Conditional Use Permit. Staff has no objections to a parking
structure at this location. However, staff feels that the size,
scale, lack of articulation, lack of setbacks and lack of
landscaping are inappropriate for a parking structure in a
residential district.
Parking and Traffic Analysis
A traffic impact study prepared by DKS Associates analyzed future
traffic generation for the proposed project on two intersections.
The study included traffic anticipated to be generated by
proj ects either planned, proposed or under construction. The
study concluded that the impact of the proposed project on the
local street system would be re~nir.al.
The Miramar Sheraton is not currently propos1ng expansion of the
hotel facilities. The parklng structure ~s proposed in order to
meet the hotells existing park~ng demand. Based on Clty parking
standards the hotel should prov~de 418 parking spaces. Although
additional off street parklng is highly des1rable in th~s
neighborhood, since the hotel is not expandlng, the hotel is not
required to provide additional parking. In addltion, the parking
plan does not provide hand1capped parking stalls and has not been
app~oved by the City'S Park1ng and Traff1c Engineer. ~
P:"oJect Design
The proposed project is designed to be utilitarian and,
therefore I provides no articulat10n or landscaping. The front
and rear elevations are dominated by a concrete sheer wall with
concrete parapets and galvanized steel railings on each level.
The sioe elevations are blank concrete block walls with no
openings or articulation. Land Use Element Policy 3.3.1 requireS
that pedestrian amenities be provided at the ground floor
frontages, such as windows, awnings or arcades. Pol icy 3. 4 . 3
requires that new development provide streetscape improvements
"to contribute to the overall public open space system". POllCY
3.3.4 encourages that buildings provide design articulation. The
proposed project design is inconsistent with each of these
policies in that no pedestrian amenities are provided, the
structure is built property line to property line and does no~
step back at any point, and that the concrete and steel building
materials do not enhance the Second Street environment.
Conclusion
The project, which requires a CUP, variances and a General Plan
Amendment, is inconsistent with the policies and obJectives of
the Land Use Element as well as with the regulre:nents of the
Zoning Ordinance in that the proj ect blocks VleWS, provides no
- 3 -
. .
design amenities, exceeds the helght, stery, setback and le"=.
coverage requirements and is not compatible wlth the surroundi~g
mix of commercial and residentlal structures.
RECOMMENDATION
It is respectfully recommended that the Plann1ng COF~ission deny
OR 356, CUP 437, ZA Sl13-Y, GPA-09, EIA 835 with the following
findings:
1. The development is inconsistent with ~he findings and purpose
of Ordinance 1321 as set forth below.
2. The physical location and placement of the proposed structure
on the site is incompatible with and does not relate
harmoniously to surrounding sites or neighborhoods in that
the Land Use Element limits the height, bulk, setback and
landscape requirements of park1ng str'.lctt.:res in "An Off
Street Parking D1stricts to the standards 1n the residen"=.ial
district. Furthermore the R4A zoning regulations state that
50% lot coverage be provlded as well as a 20 foot front yard
setback, 11 foot sideyard setbacks and a 15 foo~ rearyard
setback.
3. The proposed develop:nent lS 1nC0Y1S1sten": Wl th the General
Plan of the City of Santa Monlca and the Zonlng Ordinance ln
that the parking structure does not provlde deslgn
articulation, does not enhance the streetscape, and does no~
provide pedestrian amenities or architectural 1nnovat1o~. In
addition, the proJect does not confo~ with the appropr~ate
R4A standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance.
Prepared by: ~a~da Schachter, Associate Planner
AS:nh
DR356
11/30/87
Attachments: A. Municipal Code and General Plan Conformance.
B. Final Initial Study.
c. PUblic Comment Received After 30 Day PUblic
Review of In~tial Study.
D. Response from Applicant.
- 4 -
, -
ATTACHHENT A
MUNICIPAL CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE
Category Municipal Code
Permitted Use Permits
Residential
Uses and
Parking Lots
Ordinance 1383
Permits
Parking
Structures in
conjunction
with Hotels by
Cond~tlonal
Use Pernlt
Helght 6 Stories/65,
Setbacks
Front yard
20'
Sideyard
11'
Rearyard
15'
Lo~ Cove:::-age
50%
Parklng
418 Parking
Spaces
Land Use
Element
Permits
Parking
Structures in
"A" Off-Street
Parking
Districts
4 Stories/50'
20'
11'
15'
50%
418 Parklng
Spaces
- 5 -
Project
96,000 Sq.Ft.
Parking
Structure
5 Storles/56,
None Provided
NC:1e Prov:l.ded
None Provlded-
100%
270 Spaces
Proposed
80 spaces
Existing on Ma:l.:1
Parking Lot
41 Spaces Existing
on Project Site