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 )