Loading...
SR-402-001 (33) Yt0,,-oo/ /2-,tJ FEB 2 it 1987 C/ED:RAS:ljw council Mtg: February 24, 1987 Santa Monica, California /4 ~8 - 2.':1 c;,1. TO: Mayor and city Council FROM: city staff SUBJECT: Appeal of Planning commission Decision Approving Development Review 343, EIA 826, To Permit The Construction of a 4 story 200 Bed Youth Hostel with Associated Offices, a Retail Travel store And The Rehabilitation and Incorporation of The Rapp Saloon, a Designated City Landmark. Applicant: The Los Angeles Council, AYH and American Youth Hostels, Inc. Appellants: David M. Shell on Behalf of Santa Monicans for Reasonable Downtown Growth and Louise Gabriel on Behalf of the Santa Monica Historical society. INTRODUCTION This report recommends that the City Council deny the appeals and approve Development Review 343, EIA 826, for the construction of a 4 story, 200 bed youth hostel with associated offices, a retail travel store and the rehabilitation and incorporation of the Rapp Saloon, a designated City Landmark. The six Planning commissioners present unanimously approved the project. Separate appeals have been filed by David M. Shell on behalf of Santa Monicans for Reasonable Downtown Growth and Louise Gabriel on behalf of the Santa Monica Historical Society. BACKGROUND The proposed proj ect is to permit the construction of a four story, 200 bed youth hostel. The project includes the rehabilitation and incorporation of the Rapp Saloon, a designated city Landmark. Once rehabilitated, the Rapp Saloon will be used as a community and commons room. Other facilities on the ground - 1 - l:l-Il fEa 2 ~ 1987 1'138 2nd Sf . floor include a retail travel store, council offices, a kitchen, dining area, commons room and outdoor courtyard. The second, third and fourth floors house dormitory style rooms with 2-10 beds in each room. There is also a manager t s apartment and deputy manager's apartment on the second and third floors respectively. The project totals 25,364 square feet not including the basement. A Use Permit will be required to permit the residential uses in the C3 District. The project is located within the Downtown Parking Assessment District and, therefore, on-site parking is not required. The applicant is proposing to provide six parking spaces with access from the alley for use by permanent staff and disabled visitors. The proposed youth hostel is designed to provide inexpensive accommodations for educational and recreational travelers who are members of American Youth Hostels and/or the International Youth Hostel Federation. Separate dormitory and bathroom facilities for men and women will be provided. Generally, youth hostels are available to travelers from 4:30 P.M. to 9:30 A.M. and the length of stay is limited to three days. At the January 5, 1987 meeting, the Planning Commission heard the applicants request for this youth hostel (Exhibit A). Following the public hearing, the Planning Commission approved the applicants request to construct a 200 bed, 4 story youth hostel with findings and conditions outlined in the statement of Official Action (Exhibit B). - 2 - Separate appeals of the Planning commission determination were filed on January 26, 1987 by David M. Shell on behalf of Santa Monicans for Reasonable Downtown Growth and Louise Gabriel on behalf of the Santa Monica Historical Society (Exhibits C and D). Mr. Shell's basis of appeal is that the project is not consistent with long or short-range planning for the city, that the project was processed without ample opportunity for public input, that the use is not appropriate in the proposed location, and that the project provides no apparent benefit to the City of Santa Monica. Mrs. Gabriel1s basis of appeal is that the Rapp Saloon should be reserved for use as a repository of Santa Monica history. ANALYSIS Opponents of the project have raised concerns regarding the amount of time they were given to review the project and provide input into the review process, particularly at the Coastal Commission level. The project was brought before the Coastal Commission in advance of City approvals because the project applicant needed to secure $730,000 in funds earmarked for the construction of a youth hostel and wi thin the control of the Coastal commission. In accordance with Coastal Commission procedures, owners and occupants within a 100 I radius of the property were mailed notices concerning this hearing. On June 12, 1986 the Coastal Commission approved the westside Hostel project with a special condition that the applicant submit revised plans which show an on-site bicycle rack in a secured area for at least 100 bicycles. - 3 - In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, city of Santa Monica Guidelines for Implementation, a Draft Initial Study and Neighborhood Impact Statement for the project was released for a 30 day pUbic review period commencing on November 24, 1986. comments received and responses to the comments are incorporated into the Final Initial study (Exhibit E). As outlined in the January 5, 1987 staff report, the applicants held two community forums on March 26, 1986, and December 17, 1986, to discuss the proposed project. On August 20, 1986, they were featured speakers at a Chamber of Commerce Breakfast meeting and have made presentations to the convention and visitors Bureau, the Third Street Development corporation and the Chamber of Commerce Legislative Committee. Opponents have also expressed concern regarding the proj ect I s consistency with the Land Use and Circulation Elements of the General Plan, particularly in regards to the proposed use. Policy 1.4.1 of the Land Use Element states that the Downtown should have a concentration of "comparison retail uses and other complementary uses (such as hotels, offices, cultural facilities, restaurants, social services, and housing) on or near the Third Street Mall as necessary to provide a catalyst for its revitalization. II As proposed, the project is consistent with the polices and objectives of the Land Use Element of the Downtown in that the hostel will provide overnight accommodations for educational and recreational travelers, and the Rapp Saloon, a historic community resource, will be rehabilitated on its original site and will be designed to be used independently from - 4 - the rest of the project for cultural activities and meetings by the community. Opponents of the project have also expressed concern regarding parking for the project and have indicated that they believe that the Final Initial study is inadequate in its parking and traffic analysis. In that the project is located within the Downtown Parking Assessment District on-site parking for this project is not required. This would be true regardless of the proposed use. The applicant will be required to contribute to any future assessments in the area. Although on-site parking is not required, six uncovered parking spaces with access from the alley have been provided. In addition, a Traffic Impact study was prepared by Kaku Associates and is incorporated into the Final Initial study. In summary, Kaku Associates analyzed the potential project generated impacts on the local street system, the potential impact of other projects in the general vicinity of the proposed project that are either currently under construction or being planned for development in the near future and the proposed parking plan in relation to city parking requirements and availability. The study concluded that the impact of the proposed project on the local street system will be very minimal with little change in the future operating conditions in the vicinity of the project. Additionally, the Traffic Consultants found that 7 to 25 percent of users of similar youth hostels arrive by private automobile. Using these percentages for a 200 bed hostel, approximately 15 to 50 parking spaces would be needed. Based on similar youth - 5 - hostels, the peak parking demand generated by the hostel will occur after 4: 00 P.M. and before 10: 00 A.M. Previous parking studies conducted in the downtown area have indicated that the peak parking usage falls off significantly after 4:00 P.M. Therefore, the traffic study concluded that parking availability in structure No. 2 will be more than adequate to accommodate the vehicles generated by hostel visitors. In approving the project, the Planning Commission required parking for employees and visitors of the youth hostel to be provided free of charge at the expense of the building operator and in the event that the current operation of the City Parking structure is modified to require a fee to be paid by users of the structure, American Youth Hostel shall post a sign in their facility to indicate that they will pay for the cost of parking. Opponents of the project have also indicated their concern that the hostel could be converted into a regular hotel in the future. In approving the project, the Planning Commission limited the project to a maximum of 200 beds and required that any significant change in the operational conditions of the use shall require a new public hearing before the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission also imposed conditions requiring that 95 percent of the users be limited to a 3 day stay, that sleeping rooms of the hostel be closed to hostelers between 9:00 A.M. and 4:00 P.M. 7 days per week and that the membership requirements of American Youth Hostels, Inc. be in full force and effect at this hostel to include a photo identification card and proof of permanent residency. - 6 - Opponents of the project have indicated their wish to utilize the Rapp Saloon as a repository for Santa Monica history. Throughout the planning process, the applicants have indicated their willingness to work with the Santa Monica Historical Society and the community to make the Rapp Saloon available for use for cultural activities and meetings (Exhibit F). In approving the project, the Planning Commission required that the applicant work with the Director of Planning and the Landmarks Commission to establish a system whereby the Rapp Saloon can be open to the general public independent of the rest of the hostel. In requiring this condition, the Planning commission indicated that the applicant shall have the discretion to determine what types of programs would be suitable to be held at the Rapp Saloon. CITY COUNCIL AUTHORITY Under the prov is ions of Sect ion 4, Ordinance 1321, the city Council may affirm, reverse or modify any determination of the Planning Commission in regard to a Development Review Permit and the decision of the City Council shall be final. In approving an application, the Council, on appeal, must make appropriate findings and may add conditions necessary to protect the public welfare. BUDGET/FISCAL IMPACT The recommendations presented in this report do not have a bUdget/fiscal impact. - 7 - RECOMMENDATION staff respectfully recommends that the city Council deny both appeals and affirm the decision of the Planning commission adopting the findings and conditions contained in the January 5, 1987 staff report, as amended and approved by the Planning Commission on February 2, 1987 as its own. Prepared by: R. Ann Siracusa, Director of Planning Karen Rosenberg, Associate Planner City Planning Division Community and Economic Development Department Attachments: Exhibit A: Exhibit B: Exhibit C: Exhibit D: Exhibit E: Exhibit F: ccdr343 January 5, 1987 Planning Commission staff Report. statement of Official Action. Letter of Appeal, David M. Shell for Santa Monicans for Reasonable Downtown Growth. Letter of Appeal, Louise Gabriel for Santa Monica Historical society. Final Initial Study and Neighborhood Impact Statement. January 7, 1987 letter from Kenneth Genser, Western Regional Hostel Coordinator to Louise Gabriel, President Santa Monica Historical society. - 8 - EXHIBIT A r ( CITY PLANNING DIVISION Community and Economic Development Department MEMORANDUM DATE: January 5, 1987 TO: The Honorable Planning Commission FROM: R. Ann Siracusa, Director of Planning SUBJECT: DR 343, EIA 826, To Permit the Construction of a 4 Story 200 Bed Youth Hostel with Associated Offices, a Retail Travel store and the Rehabilitation and Incorporation of the Rapp Saloon, a designated City Landmark. Address: Applicant: 1438 Second Street The Los Angeles council, AYH and American Youth Hostels, Inc. SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION The subject property is a 15,000 square foot parcel located on the west side of Second Street between Broadway and Santa Monica Boulevard having a frontage of 100 feet. Surrounding uses consist of commercial businesses (C3) to the north, a movie theater and commercial businesses (C3) to the south, a City parking structure and commercial businesses (C3) to the east, an apartment building and commercial businesses (C3) to the west. Zoning District: C3 Land Use District: Downtown Frame Parcel Area: 100' x 150'. PROPOSED PROJECT The proposed project is to permit the construction of a four story 200 bed youth hostel. The project includes the rehabilitation and incorporation of the Rapp Saloon, a designated city Landmark. Once rehabilitated, the Rapp Saloon will be used as a community and commons room. Other facilities on the ground floor include a retail travel store, council offices, a kitchen, dining area, commons room and outdoor courtyard. The second, third and fourth floors house dormitory style rooms with 2-10 beds in each room. There is also a manager' s apartment and deputy manager's apartment on the second and third floors respectively. The project totals 25,364 square feet not including the basement. A Use Permit will be required to permit the residential uses in the C3 District. The project is located within the Downtown Parking Assessment District and therefore, - 1 - ( ( on-site parking is not required. The applicant is proposing to provide six parking spaces with access from the alley for use by permanent staff and disabled visitors. The proposed youth hostel is designed to provide inexpensive accommodations for educational and recreational travelers who are members of American Youth Hostels and/or the International Youth Hostel Federation. separate dormitory and bathroom facilities for men and women will be provided. Generally Youth Hostels are available to travelers from 4:30 p.m. to 9:30 a.m. and the length of stay generally is limited to three days. MUNICIPAL CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE The proposed project is consistent with the Municipal Code and in conformity with the General Plan as shown in Attachment A. CEQA STATUS An Initial study has been prepared for this project and approval of a negative declaration is recommended. Copies of the Initial study were distributed to the Planning Commission at the beginning of the 30 day public review period. Comments received and the responses to the comments are incorporated into the Final Initial study (Exhibit B). FEES The proj ect is exempt Program contained in Element. from the Housing and Parks Mitigation the adopted Land Use and Circulation ANALYSIS Background Concerning Rapp Saloon The 900 square foot structure located at 1438 Second street and commonly known as the Rapp Saloon was designated an official city Landmark by the Santa Monica Landmark's Commission on August 20, 1975 (Exhibit C). On June 19, 1984 Rosario Perry, Esq. representing the owners of the property, Marilee Moran and Lousa Marzicda, Trustees for Lewis F. Shell filed a proper application for a Certificate of Appropriateness requesting removal or demolition of the Rapp Saloon pursuant to Section 9612 (SMMC). On July 12, 1984 the Landmarks Commission conducted a pUblic hearing on the certificate of Appropriateness application where the Commission voted to form a subcommittee to develop a plan for the preservation of the building. A Certificate of Appropriateness is required for any alteration, restoration, removal, relocation or demolition of designated Landmarks in the City. During the period of 360 days set forth by Section 96l1Dl.a (SI1MC) the Landmarks commission, City staff and property owners worked together to negotiate a means to preserve the building as outlined in the statement of Official Action (Exhibit D). At the - 2 - ( C conclusion of the 360 day negotiation period on June 15, 1985 the Certificate of Appropriateness was issued by operation of law since all efforts to preserve the building on site were unsuccessful. The issuance of the Certificate of Appropriateness was subject to the following condition: The rights granted herein shall be effective only when commenced within a period of 180 days from the effective date of approval (June 15) and shall expire and become null and void if such work is suspended or abandoned for a 180 day time period after being commenced in conformance with Section 9612. I (SMMC). . Subsequently on November 26, 1985 the ci ty Council approved Resolution 7123 to extend the time period for exercising this Certificate of Appropriateness for an additional 180 days in order to give the City and owner ample time to explore the option of relocating the building (Exhibit E). This option never had to be fully explored in that American Youth Hostels decided to purchase the property, retain the Rapp Saloon on site and develop the Wests ide Hostel Project which is the subject of this report. Coastal Commission Action, Other Required APprovals, community Outreach On June 12, 1986 the Coastal Commission approved the Wests ide Hostel project with a special condition that the applicant submit revised plans which show an on-site bicycle rack in a secured area for at least 100 bicycles. This project was brought before the Coastal Commission in advance of City approvals because the project applicant needed to secure $730,000 in funds earmarked for the construction of a youth hostel and within the control of the Coastal Commission. In addition to requiring Architectural Review Board approval the project will also require approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness by the Landmarks Commission after Planning Commission review for the rehabilitation and addition to the Rapp Saloon pursuant to Sections 9611, 9612 (SMMC). As previously indicated the project will also require a variance to permit a second apartment unit in the project. Throughout the process the applicants have made presentations to the community regarding this project. On March 26, 1986, and December 17, 1986 the applicants held two community forums. On August 20, 1986 the applicants were the featured speakers at a Chamber of Commerce Breakfast Meeting. The applicants have also made presentations to the Convention and visitors Bureau, the Third street Development Corporation and the Chamber of Commerce Legislative Committee. Parking and Traffic Analysis In that the proposed proj ect is located within the Downtown Parking Assessment District, on-site parking for this project is not required. However, the applicant will be required to - 3 - ( ( contribute to any future assessments in the area. The applicant has provided six uncovered parking spaces with access from the alley as well as bicycle racks in the basement for 100 bicycles per a Coastal Commission condition of approval. A traffic impact study prepared by Kaku Associates analyzed the potential parking demand for this project and found that 7 to 25 percent of users of similar youth hostels arrive by private automobile. Using these percentages for a 200 room hostel, approximately 15 to 50 parking spaces would be needed. It is intended that the hostel visitors arriving by private vehicle will park in Municipal Parking structure No. 2 located directly across Second street from the project. In that the peak parking demand generated by the hostel will be between 4:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m. and previous parking studies conducted in the downtown area indicated that the peak parking demand significantly declines after 4:00 p.m., the traffic study determined that parking availability in structure No. 2 between 4:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m. will be more than adequate to accommodate the vehicles generated by the hostel visitors. Visitors to the youth hostel who park overnight in structure No. 2 will not be subject to the 3 hour parking limit in that they will generally arrive after 4:00 p.m. and leave before 10: 00 a. m. and the 3 hour parking 1 imi t is enforced between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. in the event that the current operation of the City Parking structures is changed in the future, visitors_to the hostel will be given free parking and continue the youth hostel will be assessed for any user charge. The traffic analysis also concluded that the impact of the proposed project on the local street system will be very minimal with little change in the future operating conditions in the vicini ty of the proj ect. Any changes will primarily be due to traffic generated by other projects in the area. Consistency with Land Use and Circulation Element Policies The proposed project for the rehabilitation and reuse of the Rapp Saloon and construction of a youth hostel is consistent with the objectives and policies of the Land Use Element because it will preserve an existing historic resource in its original location and provide overnight accommodations for educational and recreational travelers in the downtown area and encourage the evening use of downtown businesses and entertainment establishments. Additionally, in that the architects have designed the project to enable the Rapp Saloon to be used independently from the rest of the project as a community room, it will provide a downtown location for cultural activities and meetings. Project Design The proposed project is designed to be compatible with the historic Rapp Saloon by providing a glass entry court to differentiate the Rapp Saloon from the new building, respecting the Rapp Saloon by reinforcing its scale at the ground floor with the new addition and stepping back the upper floors from the periphery of the parcel along the street frontage. - 4 - ( ( In their analysis, the Initial study consultants recommended that the Landmarks Commission carefully review the proposed connection of the new addition to the Rapp Saloon to insure that it does not permanently alter the structural integrity of the Rapp Saloon. In order to mitigate this, the consultants suggest that the Landmarks Commission consider the use of all-weather connections such as awnings or another non-permanent structure. The consul tants also recommend that the Landmarks commission carefully review the proposed materials for the new building to insure that they are appropriate and do not compete with the existing building. They have recommended following the secretary of Interior I s Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating' Historic Buildings as a guide in reviewing the project. These recommendations have been incorporated as recommended conditions of approval for both the Landmarks Commission and Architectural Review Board. Conclusion The proposed rehabilitation and re-use of the Rapp Saloon and construction of a 24,506 sq. ft. addition for use as a youth hostel is consistent with the policies and objectives of the Land Use Element in that a historic resource will be preserved in its original location and the use will contribute and promote pedestrian activity in the downtown during both daytime and evening hours. RECOMMENDATION It is respectfully recommended that approve DR 343, EIA 826, with the conditions. the Planning commission following findings and DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FINDINGS 1. The development is consistent with the findings and pur- pose of Ordinance 1321 as set forth below. 2. The physical location and placement of proposed structures on the site are compatible with and relate harmoniously to surrounding sites and neighborhoods in that the proposed project includes the rehabilitation and re-use of the Rapp Saloon a designated City Landmark and the proposed addi- tion will be designed to respect the integrity of the Rapp Saloon by providing ample step backs and a glass entry to differentiate the new building from the old building. 3. The existing and/or proposed rights-of-way and facilities for both pedestrian and automobile traffic will be ade- quate to accommodate the anticipated results of the pro- posed development inclUding off-street parking facilities and access thereto in that the traffic study concludes that there will be ample parking available in City Parking Structure #2 for use by youth hostel visitors during their - 5 - ( ( peak demand hours of 4:00 p.m. to 9:00 a.m. and six park- ing spaces will be provided on site as well as room for 100 bicycles in the basement. 4. The existing and/or proposed pUblic and/or private health and safety facilities (including, but not limited to, sanitation, sewers, storm drains, fire protection devices, protective services, and public utilities) will be ade- quate to accommodate the anticipated results of the pro- posed development. 5. The proposed development is consistent with the General Plan of the City of Santa Monica and the zoning ordinance in that the project will conform to the height, bulk, use and urban design pOlicies for the Downtown Frame as specified in the Land Use Element of the General Plan and conform to the appropriate C3 standards contained in the zoning Ordinance. SPECIAL CONDITIONS 1. The Architectural Review Board, in their review, shall pay particular attention to the project's pedestrian orienta- tion and amenities; scale and articulation of design ele- ments; exterior colors, textures and materials; window treatment; glazing; and landscaping. 2 . A Park and Recreation Facil i ties Tax of $ 200. 00 per residential unit shall be due and payable at the time of issuance of a building permit for the construction or placement of the residential unites) on the sUbject lot, per and subject to the provisions of section 6670 et seq. of the Santa Monica Municipal Code. 3. Approval of this project shall be subject to approval of a Use Permit to permit residential uses in the C3 District. 4. Plans for final design shall be subject to approval of a certificate of Appropriateness by the Landmarks Commission in accordance with Sections 9611 and 9612 (SMMC). 5. In their review, the Landmarks Commission and Architec- tural Review Board shall pay particular attention to the proposed connection of the new addition to the existing building, the proposed conversion of the rear window on the Rapp Saloon to a door, the seismic reinforcement of the Rapp Saloon and the proposed materials for the new addition to insure that the new addition respects and does not compete with the existing historic structure. 6. In their review the Landmarks commission and Architectural Review Board shall consider referring to the Secretary of Interior's standards for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings as a guide. - 6 - Parking fore employees and visitors shall be provided free of charge. STANDARD CONDITIONS 7. ( of the youth hostel 1. Plans for final design, landscaping, screening, trash en- closures, and signage shall be subject to review and ap- proval by the Architectural Review Board. 2. Minor amendments to the plans shall be sUbject to approval by the Director of Planning. A significant change in the approved concept shall be subject to 'Planning Commission Review.' Construction shall be in substantial conformance with the plans submitted or as modified by the planning Commission, Architectural Review Board or Director of Planning. 3. The rights granted herein shall be effective only \o1hen exercised within a period of one year from the effective date of approval. Upon the written request of the appli- cant, the Director of Planning may extend this period up to an additional six months. 4. The appl icant shall comply with all legal requirements regarding provisions for the disabled, including those set forth in the California Administrative Code, Title 24, Part 2. 5. The parking lot shall be striped, screened and landscaped in conformance with Sec. 9127.J.l and Sec. 9129.F.7 (SMMe) . 6. Final parking lot layout and specifications shall be sub- ject to the review and approval of the Parking and Traffic Engineer. 7. Refuse areas, storage areas and mechanical equipment shall be screened in accordance with Sec. 9127J. 2-4 (SMMC). Refuse areas shall be of a size adequate to meet on-site need. 8. Openable windows shall be provided throughout the project, in a manner consistent with applicable building code and energy conservation requirements. 9. street trees shall be maintained, relocated or provided as required in a manner consistent with the City's Tree Code (Ord. 1242 CCS), per the specifications of the Department of Recreation and Parks and the Department of General Ser- vices. No street tree shall be removed without the ap- proval of the Department of Recreation and Parks. 10. street and/or alley lighting shall be provided on public rights-Of-way adjacent to the project if and as needed per the specifications and with the approval of the Department of General Services. - 7 - ( ( 11. This determination shall not become effective for a period of twenty days from the date of determination or, if ap- pealed, until a final determination is made on the appeal. Prepared by: Karen Rosenberg, Associate Planner I<R: nh OR343 12/29/86 - 8 - ( ATTACHMENT A MUNICIPAL CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE Category Permitted Use Height F.A.R. Parking Municipal Code C3: Permits Hotel Use and Retail Use 6 stories, 90' N/A None Required With Downtown Parking Assessment District Land Use Elem.ent Downtown Frame: Permits Hotel Uses, Retail Use, Commercial Use 4 stories, 56' 2.5 N/A - 9 - ( Project Youth Hostel and Retail Travel store 4 stories, 44' to top of structure, 47' to top of parapet 1. 69 6 Parking Spaces provided EXHIBIT B JO [, STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL ACTION PROJECT Ie NUMBER: DR 343, EIA 826 LOCATION: ~438 Second street APPLICANT: The Los Angeles Council, AYH and American Youth Hostels, Inc. REQUEST: To Permit the Construction of a 4 story 200 Bed Youth Hostel with Associated Offices, a Retail Travel store and the Rehabilitation and Incor- poration of the Rapp Saloon, a designated City Landmark. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION 1/5/87 Date. x Approved based on the following findings and subject to the conditions below. Denied. other. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FINDINGS , , I 1. The development is consistent with the findings and pur- pose of Ordinance 1321 as set forth below. 2. The physical location and placement of proposed structures on the site are compatible with and relate harmoniously to surrounding sites and neighborhoods in that the proposed project includes the rehabilitation and re-use of the Rapp Saloon a designated City Landmark and the proposed addi- tion will be designed to respect the integrity of the Rapp Saloon by providing ample step backs and a glass entry to differentiate the new building from the old building. 3. The existing and/or proposed rights-of-way and facilities for both pedestrian and automobile traffic will be ade- quate to accommodate the anticipated results of the pro- posed development including off-street parking facilities and access thereto in that the traffic study concludes that there will be ample parking available in city Parking Structure #2 for use by youth hostel visitors during their - 1 - peak demand hours of 4:00 p.m. to 9:00 a.m. and six park- ing spaces will be provided on site as well as room for 100 bicycles in the basement. 4. The existing and/or proposed public and/or private health and safety facilities (including, but not limited to, sanitation, sewers, storm drains, fire protection devices, protective services, and public utilities) will be ade- quate to accommodate the anticipated results of the pro- posed development. i 5. The proposed development is consistent with the General Plan of the city of Santa Monica and the Zoning ordinance in that the project will conform to the height, bulk, use and urban design policies for the Downtown Frame as specified in the Land Use Element of the General Plan and conform to the appropriate C3 standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance. SPECIAL CONDITIONS 1. The Architectural Review Board, in their review, shall pay particular attention to the project's pedestrian orienta- tion and amenities; scale and articulation of design ele- ments; exterior colors, textures and materials; window treatment; glazing; and landscaping. 2. A Park and Recreation Facilities Tax of $200.00 per residential unit shall be due and payable at the time of issuance of a building permi t for the construction or placement of the residential unites) on the subject lot, per and subject to the provisions of Section 6670 et seq. of the Santa Monica Municipal Cod~. , I 3. Approval of this project shall be subject to approval of a Use Permit to permit residential uses in the C3 District. 4. Plans for final design shall be subject to approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness by the Landmarks Commission in accordance with sections 9611 and 9612 (SMMC). 5. In their review, the Landmarks Commission and Architec- tural Review Board shall pay particular attention to the proposed connection of the new addition to the existing building, the proposed conversion of the rear window on the Rapp Saloon to a door, the seismic reinforcement of the Rapp Saloon and the proposed materials for the new addition to insure that the new addition respects and does not compete with the existing historic structure. 6. In their review the Landmarks Commission and Architectural Review Board shall use the Secretary of Interior's Stan- dards for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings as a guide. - 2 - 7. Parking for employees and visitors of the youth hostel shall be provided free of charge at the expense of the building operator. In the event the current operation of the City parking structures is modified to require a fee to be paid by users of the structure, American Youth Hos- tels shall post a sign in their facility to indicate that they will pay for the cost of parking. 8. That the operational rules of American Youth Hostels, Inc. shall be guaranteed as follows: a. There shall be no alcohol or illegal drug use permitted on the premises. b. 95% of the hostel visitors shall be limited to a 3 day stay. c. The sleeping rooms of the hostel shall be closed to hostelers between 9: 00 a.m. and 4: 00 p. m. 7 days per week. d. The membership requirements of American Youth Hostels, Inc. shall be in full force and effect at this hostel to include a photo identification card and proof of permanent residency. 9. The hostel shall be limited to a maximum of 200 beds. 10. All conditions of approval established by the California Coastal Commission at the time of this approval shall be incorporated as conditions of approval of this project. 11. Any significant change in the operational conditions of this use shall require a new pUblic hearing before the planning Commission. 12. Approval of this project is for a 4 story, 41 room hostel with a 200 bed maximum limitation. 13. The applicant shall work with the Director of Planning and Landmarks Commission to establ ish a system whereby the Rapp Saloon can be open to the general public independent of the rest of the hostel. The applicant shall have the discretion to determine what types of programs would be suitable to be held at the Rapp Saloon. 14. The city of Santa Monica Building Department with the con- currence of the Planning Department and the Landmarks Com- mission shall approve a seismic reinforcement plan for the Rapp Saloon. - 3 - STANDARD CONDITIONS , 1. Plans for final design, landscaping, screening, trash en- closures, and signage shall be subject to review and ap- proval by the Architectural Review Board. J, 2. Minor amendments to the plans shall be subject to approval by the Director of Planning. A significant change in the approved concept shall be subj ect to Planning Commission Review. Construction shall be in substantial conformance with the plans submitted or as modified by the Planning Commission, Architectural Review Board or Director of Planning. 3. The rights granted herein shall be effective only when exercised within a period of one year from the effective date of approval. Upon the written request of the appli- cant, the Director of Planning may extend this period up to an additional six months. 4. The applicant shall comply with all legal requirements regarding provisions for the disabled, including those set forth in the California Administrative Code, Title 24, Part 2. 5. The parking lot shall be striped, screened and landscaped in conformance with Sec. 9l27.J.l and Sec. 9129.F.7 (SMMC) . 6. Final parking lot layout and specifications shall be sub- ject to the review and approval of the Parking and Traffic Engineer. " 7. Refuse areas, storage areas and mechanical equipment shall be screened in accordance with Sec. 9l27J. 2-4 (SMMC). Refuse areas shall be of a size adequate to meet on-site need. 8. Openable windows shall be provided throughout the project, in a manner consistent with applicable building code and energy conservation requirements. 9. street trees shall be maintained, relocated or provided as required in a manner consistent with the City'S Tree Code (Ord. 1242 CCS), per the specifications of the Department of Recreation and Parks and the Department of General Ser- vices. No street tree shall be removed without the ap- proval of the Department of Recreation and Parks. 10. street and/or alley lighting shall be provided on public rights-of-way adjacent to the project if and as needed per the specifications and with the approval of the Department of General Services. - 4 - 11. This determination shall not become effective for a period of twenty days from the date of determination or, if ap- pealed, until a final determination is made on the appeal. I VOTE Ayes: Farivar, Israel, Hecht, Latimer, Nelson, Perlman Nays: Abstain: Absent: Burns I hereby certify that this statement of accurately reflects the final determination commission of the city of Santa Monica. Official Action of the Planning 4?"'~~ <--_- signature ....--?/ .d~ '~~ - :2- /;2-/~r date / - print name and title KR: nh STDR343 01/14/87 / I - 5 - ~ '\ ~ -rp-15 co ,~id ( ( DAVID M. SHEu:JTY OF SA'ITA MONICA ATTORNEY AT LAWCITY PLANN,;~(~ OFFICE 1433 Santa Monica Boulevard SUite 119 Santa Monica, Callforma 901\14 JAM 26 P2 :37 (213) 829-1091 - ~XHIBIT C January 26, 1987 Honorable James Conn, Mayor Members, Santa Monica City Council 1685 Main Street Santa Monica, CA 90401 Re: Appeal from Decision of Planning Commission January 5, 1987 Case No. DR 343, EIA 826 1438 Second Street Proposed Development Dear Mr. Mayor and Hor.orable Council Members: Santa Monicans for Responsible Downtown Growth, an organization composed of Santa Monica residents who live, work, and own property, both residential and commercial, in the City of Santa Monica, hereby appeal the decision of the Planning Commission, dated January 5, 1987, whereby the Commission approved of the develop of the above-described property. Among the members of the Organization, are persons who own and operate businesses in downtown Santa Monica, persons who work i~:the area and persons who shop in the area. The organization was formed for the purpose of insuring that development in the downtown Santa Monica area conforms to the planning requirements of the city and the revitalization of the downtown area. The organization is particularly concerned with the development of the property located at 1438 Second Street for several reasons. First, the project as proposed, the development of a youth hostel, does not comport with the long- or short-range planning of the city. Second, the project has wisked through the various permitting processes based upon the sole criteria that the proponent of the project needed immediate approval in order to secure funding. This was most evident during the proceedings before the California Coastal Commission wherein no notice was given to concerned citizens of the proceedings, and the approval of the Coastal Commission was without an opportunity for those who may oppose the project to come forward. ( ( APPEAL January 26,19B7 - pAGE 2 - ~ Third, although this organization does not oppose hostels per se, this particular project is not appropriate at this location. As set forth below, the Land Use and Circulation Element describes the various uses for the Downtown Frame and the Oceanfront District. This project properly belongs in the latter. Further, because of the intense use projected for the project, it is inconceiveable that there will not be adverse impacts on the environment which need to be discussed and mitigated through an environmental impact statement. Fourth, has been no meaningful dialogue between the proponents of the project and other concerned parties with regard to the benefits to the City of Santa Monica. For example, the proponents of the project intend to finance the project with monies from the Coastal Commission, the coastal conservancy, and possibly monies from the City of Santa Monica. American Youth Hostels, Inc., however, is a non-profit, tax-exempt organization and is not subject to the various taxes which support the services which must be provided because of the project. Further, the proposed project has been variously described as either a "hotel" for purposes of approval before the Planning Commission and a "fraternity house" for purposes of approval before the Coastal Commission. The difference between the two is significant because of the various parking requirements which would be imposed. To date, reviewing agencies have refused to impose even minimal requirements for parking even though it is conceded that the project will generate a need for such parking. As noted during the Coastal Commission proceedings, had this been a "hotel", there would have been at least ~~ parking spaces required. It has also been conceded that the proposed site of the free parking for the project is almost at capacity without the proposed project. As is set forth below, approval by the City Council at this time, without a clear definition of the impacts of the project and without any concern for consistency with development in the downtown area, would do irreparable harm to both the organization and to the residents of Santa Monica. INTRODUCTION The proposed development is the new construction of a four story, 200 bed youth hostel, which by its own terms will not serve the residents or citizens of Santa Monica. In addition to excluding use of the new development by Santa Monica residents, the youth hostel, which will be owned in fee and operated by American Youth Hostels, Inc., (AYH) will not pay the City of ( ( APPEAL January 26, 1987 - PAGE 3 - Santa Monica Business Tax, which tax is used by the City to provide for vital city services such as police protection. Further, AYH, Inc., is exempt from paying property taxes. To date, the proponent of the development has failed to identify any benefit to the City of Santa Monica. The clear answer is that AYH, Inc., will benefit significantly by having the large new development placed in the middle of an area of town where revitalization is necessary, but the citizens, residents, and businesses of Santa Monica will only bear the burdens. CONSISTSNCY WITH LAND USE AND CIRCULATION ELEMENTS One issue Wh1Ch has been glossed over with regard to the consistency of the proposed proJect w1th the land use laws of the City of Santa Monica is the myth that the 1nstant proJect may be considered as a hotel development. The Land Use and Circulation Elements, adopted October 23, 1984, makes the follow1ng comments regarding the downtown area: "The Downtown Frame will accomodate reta11, hotels, general off1ce, cultural, and high-dens1ty resident1al uses, at maximum intensity somewhat less than in the Core. If In both cases, for the Downtown Frame and the Downtown Core, hotels are recommended for the downtown area. Nowhere are hostels ment10ned for the downtwon area. The Land Use Element further requires IIthat the majority of the ground floor street frontage be composed of pedestrian-oriented uses", to "fm]ake downtown a primary location for commercial use, with priority given to comparison retail uses" and finally "require that a majority of ground floor street frontage on a block by block basis be active pedestrian-oriented use (shop-fronts, cultural activities, cafes, and other uses catering to walk-in traffic)". The hostel does not comport with the policies or requirements of the Land Use Element. The hostel is designed for the exclusive use of AYH, Inc., members and in particular "1S designed to provide inexpensive accomodations for educational and recreational travelers who are members". Memorandum dated January 5, 1987 to the Planning Commission from R. Ann Siracusa. As noted above, this development provides significant benefits to the proponents of the project but no benefits to the City of Santa Monica. Among the benefits to the proponents are the ( ( APPEAL January 26, 1987 - PAGE 4 - purchase, in fee, of a 15,000 square foot parcel of land with taxpayer dollars, with tax-exempt status shielding the proponents from most Federal, State, and local taxation, and no requirements on the use of the property. For example, the approval by the Planning Commission does not prohibit AYH, Inc., from extending the time for traveler visitations from the announced 3-day period to a 14-day period. In essence, AYH, Inc., is allowed to convert the use to a "hotelll even though the approvals garnered thus far have been based upon other oral representations. Because of the rushed manner in which this project has been approved, short shrift has been given to the ramifications of of the project on the surrounding area and the long-term uses of the proJect site. With regard to parking as a general matter, the Circulation Element makes it clear that on-site parking is to be required. "Revise parking standards to require all new development to accomcdate proJect-generated parklng ln off-street parklng facilltles." Page 129 This development, however, has not been required to make any accomodation for parking. Instead, the proponents of the proJect have downplayed the significant parking problems WhlCh will occur because of the development. For example, the proponents of the proJect have conslstently relied upon the hours of operation, between 4:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m. to demonstrate that the parking demand generated by the project will not impact city parking structures. This of course is nonsense. Members of AYH, Inc., who use city parking structures are not required to vacate such structures and ln all probabl1ity will not. ThlS of course has not been analyzed but rather swept under the procedural rug. One final note on consistency is the location of the development with relationship to existing and proposed bicycle routes in the city. It has been represented that at least 71% of the users of the hostel will arrive by bicycle. The Circulation Element sets forth both the eXlsting and proposed bicycle routes, none of which would service the project slte. It is noted that the nearest bicycle route to the proJect is one block west on Ocean Avenue. See Final Initial Study (FIS) at 10. No other discusslon of the potential impacts of 140 bicyclists emerging from the proJect at 9:00 a.m. are presented. ( ( APPEAL January 26, 1987 - PAGE 5 - What is clear is that the Land Use Element contemplates that projects like the one before the commission properly belong elsewhere. In part~cular, the Oceanfront District, is specifically designed to "contain a concentration of new visitor- oriented uses". Specifically, the objective announced for the oceanfront district is described as "Expand visitor accommodations and related uses in the Oceanfront area, while protecting the existing residential mix." Page 87. The pollcies for the Oceanfront area include "[d]evote Oceanfront District prlmarlly to visitor accomodations and commercial recreation." It is unclear on what basis the staff as well as others declare that the instant proJect lS consistent with both the letter and spirit of the Land Use Element. What is clear is that there has been no ~ffort to support thlS assumption. The City CounCll must be aware that the Land Use Element was designed to provide a guide to development in the City. Once the City Council beglns to slgnificantly devlate away from this gUlde, it will have a difficult time in dlsapproving of other non- conforming uses. ISSUANCE OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION The City of Santa Monica contracted to have an initial study done to determine whether an environwental impact report would be developed for the project. The Final Initial Study and Neighborhood Impact Statement, prepared by Jim Hinzdel & Associates, Inc., determines that a negative declaration would satisfy the requirements of the California Environmental Quallty Act. Such determination was in error for several reasons. First, the Final Initial Study makes the bald assertion that the project is "cons1stent wlth those permitted [uses] 1n the Downtown Frame Area." No facts are presented to support the assertion. Further, as is set forth below, had the Coastal Commission been informed that the hostel was in fact a hotel, the Coastal Commlssion would have imposed on-s~te parking requirements. Second, the FIS falls to discuss the i~pacts on parking which will inevitably be generated by the project. Various assumptions are used to downplay the signiflcance of the parking and ( ( APPEAL January 26, 1987 - PAGE 6 - circulation issues. The FIS assumes that the vehicles attracted to the area by the proJect will only utilize the existing parking structure between the hours of 4:00p.m. and 9:00a.m.. This does not serve the purpose of an environmental study. The facts upon which this assumption is made are that the proJect is closed from 9:00a.m. to 4:00p.m. and that the number of cars generated by the project is 11mited. The FIS does not provide any correlation between the closing of the proJect and the use of the parking structures. Further, the data provided by the proponents of the proJect as to the number of cars which will be generated because of the development is not supported by proJect descriptions or locations. As was noted by the Coastal Commission, this is southern Californla where vehicular traffic does to conform to the norm. At a minimum, the FIS was requlred to identify the data relled upon and to explore potential adverse impacts based upon a worst case scenarlO as well as the scenario presented by the proponents of the development. For example, it is reasonable to assume that the hostel users will arrive by car in at least 40% of the cases. This would generate at least 80 cars wlth a need for parklng. Further, it is reasonable to assume that the 80 cars are not going to eXlt the parklng structure at 9:00 a.m., and in most cases, not at all. Glven these assumptlons, it is clear that parking structure No. 2 is not adequate to serve t~e parklng needs of the hostel or the surroundlng bUSlnesses. The FIS completely failed to present the Clty Council wlth the potential problems and impacts and with alternatives to mitigate the adverse impacts. Further, the FIS does not address the cumulative impact on parking which will likely occur when other projects are on line which each desire to use the eXlsting park1ng structures. A reasonable assumption which was not considered was that as more projects corne on line, the parking in the assessment district will become wholly inadequate. Further, it is reasonable to assume that users of the proJect will not move their vehicles simply because the project is closed. -rt 1S incumbant upon the decision-maker to evaluate the impacts of a proJect within the parameters of reasonable assumptions and not to simply ignore those probabilities because they would suggest the preparation of a full environmental document. In thlS case, the FIS and the recommended negative declaratlon fail to advise the decision- maker of the potential impacts of the development. It is inconceivable that a proJect of this ~agnitude, with the admltted intense use associated therewlth, could be supported by a negative declaration. ( ( APPEAL January 26, 1987 - PAGE 7 - The FIS also focuses on the increased police service which will be required at parking Structure No.2, but fails to acknowledge that additional police services may be necessary simply because of a h1gher concentration of individuals at the proJect site and adjacent areas. The information regarding extended police services was generated through a phone conversatlon. The record is barren of any documentation which would negate the potentlal of increased crime incidents in the area directly associated wlth the development. A further area which the FIS fails to discuss is the increase in bicycle traffic to an already congested area. The only comment made in the FIS regarding the increased blcycle trafflC is that the "nearest b1cycle route is one block west along Ocean Avenue." No other statements or facts are presented. It is reasonable to assume that 100 bicyclists leav1ng the proJect slte at 9:00a.m., enterlng the traffic system of the area, and peddling around town would create some s1gnificant impact both on pedestrlan traffic and vehlcular traffic. _For the FIS to not even mention this impact renders 1ssuance of a negatlve declaration lmproper. If AYE, Inc., is to be believed that most of its patrons wlll use blcycles, the FIS at a minlmum should have provlded a discussion as to the potential for adverse impacts assoclated wlth thlS high concentratlon of blcycle traffic, the impacts on pedestrlan traffic, and the lmpact on the general circulat~on patterns of the area. It is probable that had even a cursory reVlew of the adverse impacts associated with this volume of bicycle traff~c from the development been done, proposals to rnitlgate such impacts would have been forthcoming. In short, there are potential significant impacts associated w2th the project and an environmental impact report should be prepar~d to address the issues and any rnit1gatlon measures necessary. PARKING One obvious probleM with the project is the fact that it will provide no on-site parking except for employees and an unspecified number of handicapped spaces. A conservative figure on the number of vehicles which will appear at the proJect site daily is 50. This is the case because of the nature of Southern California residents and the location of the project itself. The on-site parking requirement was waived by the Coastal Commission ( ( APPEAL January 26, 1987 - PAGE 8 - for two apparent reasons. First, it was noted to the Commission that th~s was not a hotel but rather a hostel. Second~ the Coastal Commission, wh11e expressing concern with the parking in Santa Monica, was more concerned with the overall obJectives of the Coastal Act of providing access to the coast. The City of Santa Monica, however, should be more concerned with the parking problems which are and have been obvious. The second issue of whether this is a hotel, it is my understanding that the requirements for the length of stay in the project is governed by the organization and not by any enforceable ord1nance or statute. What is to prevent the proJect from actually converting in practice to a hotel by allowing guests to stay for up to 14 days at a tlme? The City, of course, has no control over the internal operation of the proponents of the proJect. USE OF HOSTEL One matter that is not clear is who will he allowed to use the facllltles of the proposed project. Wlll reSldents of Santa Monlca be able to use such facllities or will such use be restrlcted to resldents of other citles, counties, and countries? If the Clty resldents are not allowed to use the fac~l~t~es~ of what beneflt ~s the proJect to the City? If the hostel is to be used by folks from the valley as a convenlent and cheap three day week-end, agaln, what is the benefit to the City? Further, doesn't the hostel d~rectly compete with the buslness of Santa Monlca WhlCh currently provide lodglng on a tewporary basls, yet, the hostel wlll not be required to pay the varlOUS taxes WhlCh are lev~ed upon such other buslnesses? As a resident of Santa Monica, it would appear that the hostel is getting preferential treatment wlthout any significant benefit resulting therefrom. CONCLUSION What is presented to the City Council is a 26~OOO square foot project, WhlCh has no apparent benefit to the Clty of Santa Monlca, for which a negatlve declaration is recommended, and for which on-site parking is being waived. The City of Santa Monica, as recent as April, 1985, has taken the posltion that it is general policy to require on-site parking for major new development in the Downtown area. In the instant case, the proposal before the City has abandoned the general policy relating to parklng. It is respectfully requested that the City Councll reJect the proposed development, or ln the alternative, defer any decision until a full environmental impact report is developed and circulated as required by law. Further, ( ( APPEAL January 26, 1987 - PAGE 9 - it is respectfully requested that the City Council, as a cond1tion of any approval, require that the project be sent back before the California Coastal Commission for reVlew in light of the actions taken by the City Council and the apparent inconsistencies between the presentations by the proponents of the development before the Planning Commission and the Coastal Commission. - 0 'l~ CO' ~ p-tt -i'....-_ EXHIBIT D ( ( danfa cJf(onica .!JCiBI:,s;lc!Y dociefJj Founded under the City of Sanf87Mc:IHtc85Ce~~~fal to collect and preserve the history and culture of Santa Monica January 26, 1987 Honorable James Conn, Mayor Members, Santa Mon~ca C~ty Council 1685 Ha~n Street Santa Mon~ca, CA 90401 RE: Appeal from Dec~s~on of Plann~ng Co~~~ss~on January 5, 1987 Case ~o. DR 343, EIA 826 1438 Second Street Proposed Development Dear ~lr. :rayor and Honorable Councll ~lerrbers: Please acce?t my earller letter of January 20, 1987 on nenaL= of the Santa Hon~ca H~stor~cal Soclety as statlng the grounds for t~e Santa ~onlca Hlstorlcal Soclety appeal of the pla~~~ng COr.~lSl0r.'S January 5, 1987 declslon regarclng the use of the Hlstorlcal ?app Saloon. The January 20, 1987 letter was prev~ous12 sab~lt~ec to the plannlng CO~lSlon and the dl~ector or plan~lns. We belleve that the use descrlbed In attuched let~er would ~e ~ore cons~stent w~th Santa ~on~ca landnark declslon WhlCh 0as glven to the Rapp Saloon ~n 1975. Very truly yours, ~~~~~/ IOursg;ABRI EL Vlce Pres~dent and Spokesperson Santa Mon~ca ~istorical Soc~ety LG;ld Encls. BOX 3059, WILL ROGERS STATION, SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA 90403 . (213) 828-2170. (213) 394-2605 - \ ( ( ./ r. · 8.anla cNonica Jeisfol'ica! 8.ociefu Founded under the City of Santa Monica Centennial to collect and preserve the history and culture of Santa Monica January 20, 1987 .---........ . . ~ - .! Mr. Ken Genzer Western RegIon Hostel Development CoordInator 130-A San VIcente Boulevard Santa Monlca~ CalIfornIa, 90402-1513 'l i . I Dear Ken: ~ Thank you for your letter dated January 7, 1987. regardIng the Rapp Saloon and the relatIonshIp to Its preservatIon WIth regard to the proposed AmerIcan Youth Hostels I proJect. I welcome your offer to communIcate WIth regard to the potentIal use of the Rapp Saloon by the HIsotrIcal SOCIety. There are two InItIal Items WhICh need clarIfIcatIon. FIrst, your letter IndIcates that you "contacted the HIstorIcal SOCIety durIng the InItIal contemplatIon of our proJect". I have searched my records and am unable to fInd any communIcatIons from AYH to the HIstorIcal SOCIety or myself regardIng the scope of the proposed proJect. I searched for correspondence or notes WhICh would pre-date your applIcatIon to the CalIfornIa coastal CommISSIon, and found only a letter WhICh referenced a dISCUSSIon about the Rapp Saloon SIte and a packet about youth hostels In general. In the sc~e letter you saId that you would keep me Informed as to your progress. r further searched for correspondence and notIces from the Coastal CommISSIon or AYH regardIng the hearIng WhICh was held before the Coastal CCWffiISSIon and could fInd none. I would greatly appreCIate your prOVIdIng me WIth Infor- matIon regardIng the referenced contacts In order that I may pass such Infor- matIon on to the board of dIrectors of the HIstorIcal SOCIety. I fIrst be- came aware of the scope of your proJect through a newspaper artIcle. Second~ you IndIcate that net) here are no lImIts for what we are WIllIng to explore" WIth regard to the Rapp Saloon. I have read documents WhICh reflect that AYH Intends to refurbIsh the Rapp Saloon and use It as a comm- unIty room and posslbly to be offered for publIC meetIngs or events. I have also read that AYH intends to use the Rapp Saloon as "a hostel commons room and a community room". Your letter now IndIcates that AYH IS "more than WIllIng to dISCUSS the potentIal use of the Rapp Saloon by the HIstorIcal Socletyn. As you are well aware from your tenure on the PlannIng Commlssion~ the HIstorIcal SOCIety has expressed an interest In the Rapp Saloon as a repOSItory of is ant a MonIca history for many years. It IS curIOUS that now. after receiVIng Coastal CommISSIon and PlannIng CommISSIon approval, that you take the tIme to conSIder the preservatIon the Rapp Saloon for Santa MonIcan1s. Your letter IndIcates. however, that your conSIderatIon of the hIstorical value of the Rapp Saloon IS condItIoned on fInanCIal conSIderations. BOX 2059. WILL RO<;ERS STATION, SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA 90403 . (213) 828--2170. (213) 394*2605 . (. ( ( . ). ',t . GENSER LETTER January 20, 1987 -Page 2- As I understand the financing of the proposed proJect. AYH IS to receIve over $700,000 from the Marina Del Rey developments. Also, AYH IS to receIve a loan of some sort from another state agency In the amount of approxImately $300,000. FInally, AYH may seek grants from the City of Santa MonIca In the amount of approxImately $500,000. GIven the magnItude of funds beIng made avaIlable to AYH WIth no rIsk attached, it would appear that fInanCIally AYH is in a positIon to gIve somethIng back to Santa Monica. I appreCIate your offer to explore AYH's commItment to preserVIng Santa MonIca's oldest structure and the apparent commItment to Integrate Santa MonIca's past WIth your development. To thIS end, I would request that we meet WIth Interested persons to explore the potentIal for refurbIShIng;;h Rapp Saloon and utIlIZIng Santa MonIca's oldest structure for the prese,' atloo of Santa MonIca's past, keepIng In mInd that the HIstorIcal SOCIety ha In the past been In the forefront of collectIng and maIntaInIng Santa Mon~'s past for future use of the reSIdents of Santa MonIca and all others. I would suggest that such a meetIng be set up as soon as possIble. The HIstorIcal SOCIety IS deeply commItted to the Ideals set forth above and would lIke you to share In our goals. SIncerely, ~~~ LOUIse GabrIel President, HIstorIcal SOCiety CC: Mayor James Conn Members, Santa Monica City CounCIl Members. Santa MonIca PlannIng CommiSSIon R. Ann SIracusa, DIrector of PlannIng EXHIBIT F ( ( ~YH\ American Youth Hostels, Inc. Western Region Hoslel Development Coordmator 13().A San Vicente Boulevard . Santa MODIca, CMomla 90402 1513 (213) 395.0223 January 7, 1987 Ms. Loulse Gabrlel, Presldent Santa Monlca Hlstorlcal Soclety 515 Fourth Street Santa Monlca, Callfornla 90402 JAU 1 3 i337 Dear Lou1se: I am glad that we had the opportun1ty to speak after the Plann1ng Cornm1ss10n's publ1C hear1ng on the proposed Wests1de International Hostel. As I explalned to you then, and as I would like to re1terate now, we are, (and have always been) more than w1ll1ng to d1SCUSS the potent1al use of the Rapp Saloon by the Hlstor1cal Soc1ety. ~There are no llID1tS for what we are w1lllng to explore. Obv10usly, though, whatever lS ser10usly consldered must make financ1al and operat1onal sense for both our organ1zat10ns. AYH has always wanted to 1ntegrate Santa Mon1ca's past wlth the development of our fac1llty. We have always wanted to make the Rapp Saloon available for publlC use. And we have always wanted to 1nsure the preservatlon of Santa Mon1ca's oldest structure. It lS for these reasons that we contacted the Hlstorlcal Soclety durlng the ln1tlal contemplat1on of our proJect. ~nd lt lS for these same reasons that we are agaln suggestlng that our organlzatlons conslder work1ng together. If you w1sh to explore thlS further, please let us know. Slncerel}T, Kenneth Genser, Western Reglon Hostel Development Coordlnator cc: Tony Stanton, Los Angeles Counell, AYH The Mayor and Members of the Santa Monlca Clty Councll ~nn Slracusa, Dlrector of Plann1ng f'.tmnaLAdnullllitracv, Offices POBox 37613 w..h.ngron DC 20013 7613 OrZe2j 783.-6161 . ToI", 334777 AYI-'l"X: CD Founded 193i 'dember of Intnnaoonal Yout-"'- Hostc-l Federatlon A non-profit aMOClArton OTpI'J.:-ed. 35 a c:ommumt"i' 5Cn-,ce to pro'o'lcie ...-ear rou."ld opportu.r-....1:1d for outdoor recreatIon and mexpc:"l:il...-e educationaL tr..:\'eL duough h05telm~ ~ / /4 f)}))L~(;i - - ~/iC~-...&J.s!~~r-- l~v-e1!~t;~ C:'&-" ~ '" O:1L'~n'71L11 J7'.::/~~n~Cer.MaW . ~ '77. ~~-<.. - ,) ,A // '- /'" """- ~~i~ J w.. /}~"-eN S;'V7.,.. o.c.,rQ / j;,: .I~; ,;,-- r /' '. I '1-' WALTER KS, INC. id'<'''''F''~Ik-/ -}~V \1 _ I I, '. ... '~-f '+/E\~'~-~~:E ./7- .1' :Q.<;- J'" 141 EL.. CAMrNC 278-071' t.;'-. 1 "\. I "'I'-...rtl ~1' iZ7iZ-'g28 ~,~~!'~ .--~r_y'~~~i!!.. ~ ~~~: ~ e 9-~/ re: Public Hearlng - August 12. 1986 Adoption of the Specif~c Plan for the 3rd Street Mall Area. August 7, 1986 Willlam Jennlngs. Mayor Pro Clty of Santa Mon1ca Clty Rallt Counc~l Off~ce 1685 Mal.D Street Santa Monlc~. CA 90401 Tem Dear Mr. Jennlngs. During the past year and 8 half there has been a surge of lnterest in developlng or redeveloplng build1ngs on the 3rd Street Mall. This new development is evidenced by the lssuance of rUllclng perml.ts for the construction of either new buildings prlmarlly for the purpos~ of provldl.ng space for offlce use or the renovatlon of eXlstl.ng older buildings whose space has remalned VBcant for years or at best been used for storage. The followlDg 11st of buildlogs clarifies the fact that SlDce 1985 to the present more than 115t200 square feet of gross area on the 3rd Street Mall ( 1 buildl.ng is located with~n the dl.strict but on 4th Street ) has been developed or is in the process of being developed as offIce space. In determin1ng an estimate of the total square footage of offIce space I have not lDcluded the frontage space facing the mall to a depth of 50' because at that localIon, office space has been precluded by the terms of the Spec~flc Plan. I may have also overlooked buildlngs on 2nd and 4th street WhICh have been renovated for offIce space such as UnIty SaVIngs at 4th and Santa MODIca Boulevard. ( 1 ) YEAR ADD~SS APPROX. GROSS RENTABLE AREA * OF NEW OFFICE SPA~E ~---------------------------------------------------------------- ------------~-------------~--~----------------------------------- 1985 1312-1316 SM Mall 10,700 sq. ft. 132DC SM Ma 11 7,000 sq. ft. 1986 1415-1421 8M Mall 30,000 sq. ft. New Bldg.* 1425-1427 8M Mall 5,000 sq. ft. 1986 1251-53 8M Mall 2,000 sq. ft. 1987 1332-34 SM Mall 13,000 sq. ft. New Bldg.* 1987 1456 8M Mall 15,000 sq. ft. * (Does not take lnto considerat1on 7.500 sq. ft. ground floor) 1987 1443 4th Street 10,000 sq. ft. * 1987 1336-38 SM Mall 15,000 sq. ft. * old bldg. to ------------------- be renovated ------------~----~- 115.200 sq. ft. of gross area. * not totally rented ~--------------------~---------~---~---------------------------~- ----~----------------------------------~-~---~---------------~--- Park~ng reqUIrements for office space ~n Santa MODIca d~ctate that one park~ng space 1S required for every 300 square feet of gross area. Thereforet this 115,200 square feet of new offlce area withIn the parking distrlct would require an avallab~lity of 383 car spaces. Approximately 70,000 square feet of the area 11sted above has not yet been leased. It would appear that the 300 new spaces in Garage Number Five, 200 of them for monthly Parkers, WIll just barely take care of the unleased portlon of those buildings for WhICh permits have been issued since 1985. But what about new bu~lding permlts to be issued from thlS tIme forward for new office buildIng development In the dlstrlct? W1th the revitalization of the mall it is antIcipated, and lt ~s hoped, that a much larger number of other buildings ( 2 ) WIll seek permlts.to convert eXlstlng space to offices and/or bUIld new bUIldings which will contaIn prlmarily office space. One of the major 1ssues that confronts property owners, faced wIth the decisIon to support or not to support the proposed assessment dIstrIct as deplcted in the 3rd Street Mall Speclflc Plan, 1S the potentlal for sn imbalance ID parking availabillty to be created if there 1S to be unllmlted future granting of building permits for the construction of office space in those properties encompasslng the area of the proposed assessment district - the east side of 4th street to the west SIde of 2nd street and from the south slde of Wilshlre to the north side of Broadway. ThIS imbalance would be caused by the fact that the need for additlonal parklng In the distrIct to meet the needs of proposed offIce buildlng development will occur much sooner than addItional parkIng spaces will be made available. The tIme lag between the intent to build additional office space and the constructlon of addItional parkIng facllltles may be two to three years, Inasmuch as the proposed addltlonal parklng spaces to be bUllt 10 phase 2 & 3 15 in 300 space increments. This time lag ~s made even more apparent because of the method of flnancing the addltional parking spaces. The financing is proposed to be obtalned by levying an annual assessment of $1.50 per gross foot . on all addItlonal space developed over and above the existing gross floor space withln the dIstrict as was determined in June or July of this year. My calculatIons Indicate it will require almost 280,000 gross square feet of new additional offIce space ( 3 ) 1n the d1strlct ~o flnance an additional 300 park1ng spaces based on the proposed assessment fee ut111zing the cost f1gures for constructlon of the iU1ti01 300 parkIng spaces 1n Garage Number Flve. Thls conclusion 1S based upon the fact that the present portlon of the annual princ1pal and 1nterest payment attr1butable to the cost of the garage~ plus the arch1tectural. eng1neerlng. and contIngency fees IS $418.887. Common sense would indIcate that future garage development will cost even more money and. therefore. the amount of assessed gross area will also have to be lDcreased. Aside from mortgages to fInance Improvements or Initial ownershIp of buildings. real estate taxes and the proposed Bnnual assessment fee for mall owners of $1.07 on gross square footage WIll equal an annual charge (like a mortgage) of nearly $2.40 for every net rentable square foot in a buildIng. It 15. therefore. lmperatlve that owners in the district. partlcularly on the mall where the levy 15 the highest. keep theIr buildings rented. ParkIng availabIllty for tenants and patrons 15 cruclal if vacancy is not to occur. Two matters are very cruc1al particularly If the SpecifIC Plan is developed as now portrayed. One, the availability of parkIng perm1ts must be expanded to meet tenant demand and the permIts must be distributed on a fair and equitable bas1s. Secondly. and perhaps more importantly. the issuance of new buildIng permits which will allow for the creation of add1tional ( 4 ) offIce space. whether it be new buildIngs or conversions of ex~stlng storage or retaIl to office space. must not be Issued untIl parkIng IS available in the district and certIfied as such In accordance wlth the code reqUIrements of the CIty of Santa MonIca. I feel that thIS is only faIr otherWIse our parkIng structures will be subJect to B situatIon akIn to " mUSIcal chairs " There is an alternatIve. All property owners and merchants feel that the key issue to revitalizatIon of the dIstrict is to brIng more people to the Santa Monica Mall. A great number of property owners and merchants feel that the development of more parkIng. which will encourage more development and whIch will ensure more people to the mall is more Important than some of the $6.000.000 proposed Improvements to the common area of the dIstrIct in terms of landscape Bnd hardscape. The suggestIon is that an additIonal 300 car spaces. a total of 600 in all. be developed inItIally and that the landscape and hardscape budget be reduced accordingly by the cost of the addItIonal parkIng spaces. The formula proposed for further parking development beyond 600 spaces should be maIntained as suggested. 1e.. the assessment of $1.50 for all additional net gross footage. so that the parking availability will always preceed or at least not lag future development. One result of more development ID the d1str~ct WIll be that the proposed initial annual assessment levy to pay for capital ( 5 ) Improvements will, In addItion to the stipulated parkIng assessment $1.50 per square foot. be levied agaInst all ne~ addItional square footage In the dIstrIct. This fact will mean that there WIll be a significant increase In the amount of money that IS available for the payment of the prIncIpal and Interest on the orIgInal bonds. Inasmuch as each property owner's assessment WIll be rev~ewed annually and adJusted annually the more gross footage that is added to the distrIct the lower the annual assessments on the $13,000,000 bond Issue WIll be for each property owner SInce the fixed amount for prIncipal and interest will be spread over more square footage. I realize It will take a great deal of Ingenuity to scale back and In Some cases to eliminate proposed landscape and hardscape common area improvements. I can at thIS tIme make no concrete suggestIons, but I know It can be done. Passageways, and alley ways can be developed by owners as a conditIon to their remodeling efforts. Evidence of thIS work has already been amply demonstrated. It would appear to me that perhaps some of the Improvements could be conceptualized but the actual improvement postponed to a later date. TO CONCLUDE - Success of the revitalizat10n process will be measured by the number of new bdSinesses that are attracted to the mall. The number of new bUSInesses will not be determined by whether ( 6 ) $3,000,000 or $6,000,000 18 spent on common area lmprovements - that lS. not by the glltter of the capital lmprovements, but rather the manner ln Wh1Ch the common area 1S malntalned, the perceptIon of the area's security, the upkeep and malntenance of the lndlvldual bUlldlngs in the dlstrlct and most Importantly, the availabil1ty and ease of parklng that will be provided 1n the area. Walter N. Marks, Inc. Walter N. Marks, Jr. V~ce President Owners of propertIes 1312-1320 Santa Monlca Mall. cc: City Councll Members: Christine Reed, Mayor James Conn David EpsteIn Herb Katz Alan Katz DennIs Zene ThIrd Street Development Corp.: Ernie Kaplan Ernesto Flores Tom Carroll Gwen Meyer Third Street Property Owners Assoc.: Ed Wenner ( 7 )