SR-402-001 (8)
~P.?-C'O/
f /! ~-;.r
f-- f
12.-B
C/ED:PB:SF:AS
Council Mtg: March 8, 1988
tJ~ v l....m)
Santa Monica, California
MAR 1 5 1981
TO: Mayor and city Council
FROM: City staff
SUBJECT: Appeal of Planning commission Denial of Development
Review 356, conditional Use, Permit 437, Zoning
Administrator 5113-Y, General Plan Amendment 09, EIA
835, 1115 Second street, Five story, 96,000 sq.ft.
Parking Structure with 270 parking Spaces. Applicant:
Miramar Sheration Hotel, W. G. Wells, President.
Appellant: James Lunsford for Miramar Sheraton Hotel.
INTRODUCTION
This report recommends that the City council deny the appeal and
uphold the Planning Commission I s denial of Development Review
356, Conditional Use Permit 437, Zoning Administrator 5113-Y,
General Plan Amendment 09, EIA 835 for a five story, 96,000
sq. ft. 270 space parking structure. The Planning Commission
1
denied the project by a 7-0 vote on December 7, 19S;. Areas of
concern include height I lack of landscaping, lack of setbacks,
inconsistency with the General Plan, and general incompatibility
with the neighborhood.
The applicant, Miramar Sheraton, is
appealing that decision (Attachment A) .
BACKGROUND
The five story, 96,000 sq. ft. 270 space parking structure is
proposed for a 15,000 sq. it. site on the east side of Second
street between Wilshire Boulevard and California Avenue in a R4A
Zoning District. Miramar Sheraton currently leases the site to
the owner of the Budget Rental Car facility. A total of 41
- 1 -
12 "'B
MAR 1 5 1981 . ".-..- 11I--8
JI n v J....u
I fI S 2 ntl Sr
~ ~
parking spaces are provided at the site, 12 of which are leased
back to the Miramar Sheraton for employee parking while the
remaining spaces are available to hotel guests and visitors. The
proposed structure will provide access from a single driveway
located off Second Street. Pedestrian access to the parking
structure will be available from both Second street and Second
Court. The project does not provide setbacks from any property
line, does not step back from the street, alley or side property
lines at any point, and utilizes 100 percent lot coverage.
A Development Review permit is required in that the project is
over 15,000 sq. ft. In addition, a Conditional Use Permit is
required to allow a parking structure in a R4 district.
Ordinance 1383 (CCS) permits off-site parking structures in R4
districts in conjunction with hotel development with approval of
a CUP. Variances are required to permit zero setbacks and lOO
percent lot coverage in a R4 district, and a General Plan
Amendment is required to amend policy 1.2.3 to allow the parking
structure to be built to five stories rather than the maximum
permitted four stories.
An Initial study (EIA 835) was prepared for this project and a
variety of mitigation measures were recommended. These measures
included articulation of the flat surfaces, adding texture or
color to the exterior surfaces, utilizing planters for
landscaping, reducing the project height, stepping back the upper
levels, and providing setbacks.
- 2 -
In their denial of the project, the Planning Commission concurred
with staff that the project did not relate harmoniously with the
surrounding environs in that the parking structure did not meet
the minimum development standards for a structure in a R4
district and that the proposal was inconsistent with the General
Plan in that it did not provide design articulation, did not
enhance the streetscape, and did not provide pedestrian amenities
or architectural innovation. In addition, the Commission found
that noise generated from vehicles in the parking structure would
severely impact the neighboring residences.
ANALYSIS
The appellant's letter does not state any specific reasons for
the appeal. However, at the Planning Commission hearing the
applicant stated that the hotel needed to provide adequate
parking for its facility and that this property was purchased for
this purpose. Although there is clearly a need for parking in
this congested area, the project in its current design does not
merit approval. The utilitarian design is dominated by concrete
sheer walls, concrete parapets and galvanized steel railings at
each level. There has been no attempt at providing pedestrian
amenities, as required in Land Use Element Policy 3.3.1 or at
including design articulation, as encouraged in Policy 3.3.4, to
enhance the building's physical appearance.
As proposed, the project does not include setbacks, effectively
eliminating any ability to provide landscaping to screen the
structure from surrounding buildings. The shadow analysis
- 3 -
prepared for the Initial Study determined that a five story, 56'
parking structure would block or impair the views of apartments
on the third, fourth, and fifth floors of the Wilshire Ocean
Terrace at ll18 Third street and would block views from guest
rooms below the fifth floor of the Huntley Hotel. Although the
Zoning Code permits a four story structure at this site, a
project that provided the required setbacks (20' front, 11' side,
151 rear) would also be able to provide adequate landscaping to
screen the proj ect and / perhaps, even enhance the views from
these units by removal of the surface parking lot.
Due to the amount of written correspondence received opposing the
project/ the Planning Commission recommended that, should the
proj ect be redesigned, the appl icant work with the surrounding
residents to better understand their concerns.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT
The recommendation presented in this report does not have any
budget or fiscal impact.
RECOMMENDATION
It is respectfully recommended that the Council deny the appeal
and deny DR 356, CUP 437, ZA 5113-Y, GPA-09, EIA 835 with the
findings contained in the December 7, 1987 Planning Commission
Statement of Official Action.
Prepared by: Amanda schachter, Associate Planner
Suzanne Frick, Principal Planner
Paul Berlant, Planning Director
Planning Division
community and Economic Development Department
- 4 -
Attachments: A. Letter of Appeal by James Lunsford.
B. December 7, 1987 Planning Commission staff
Report.
C. Planning Commission statement of Official
Action.
D. Final Initial study.
E. Project Plans.
CCDR356
02/03/88
- 5 -
A-tt o.cl1 Y)"\ en -t- A
G (' M-\Q
(furth, 0'; 1 qU
JAMES W LUNSFORD
I A'oIn Uf..J<' {'O'l::-'ULTA'l:T
171i~tlln"'MA""R AVE-.rLL
SA "'TA MONICA ('A 90..0,
1>l13' 39>l-1~79
7
December ?J, lQP,7
City Planning Divislon
Community and EconomIC Development nepart~ent
Santa Monica City Hall
1685 Main Street Rm 212
Santa Monica 90401
Re: DR 356, CUP 437, ZA 5113-Y
GPA-09, EIA B35
1115 Second Street
On behalf of the Miramar sheraton Hotel.,we hereby appeal the
decision of the Planning Commission in the above matters. The
required fee of $75 is attached.
Receipt of the above appeal is acknowledged.
Cit~lanning Division
RY~ i1~hh _ ______ _ Date__L"'~,,;'~7h_
l?~~ /I c.lt-):{OIJ J7SfUL-
I
..
Mo..c h Yl1 €YIT" e
.
-..
e
e
----""1n
iP
CITY PLANNING DIVISION
Community and Economic Development Department
ME't-'l:ORANDUM
DATE: December 7, 1987
TO: The Honorable Planning commission
FROM: Planning staff
SUBJECT: DR 356, CUP 437, ZA 51l3-Y, GPA-09, EIA 835
Address:
Applicant:
1115 Second Street
Miramar Sheraton Hotel,
W. G. Wells, President
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The subj ect property is a 15, 000 sq. ft. parcel located on the
east side of Second street between Wilshire Boulevard and
california Avenue having a frontage of 100 feet. Surrounding
uses consist of the 17-story Huntley Hotel to the north (R4A),
the 2-story Santa Monica Medical Center office building to the
south (R4A), the 6-story wilshire Ocean Terrace apartment
building to the east (R4A) and the Miramar Sheraton Hotel to the
west (R4A, C3) which occupies the entire block and inclu"des a
lobby and service building directly across from the project site.
Zoning District:
R4A
Land Use District:
High Density Residential
Parcel Area:
lOOt X 1501 = 15,000 Sq.Ft.
PROPOSED PROJECT
Proposed is a 96,000 sq. ft. 5 story parking structure providing
270 parking spaces. The structure reaches a maximum height of 56
feet. The site is currently leased by Miramar Sheraton to the
owner of the Budget Rental Car facility. The project site
provides a total of 41 parking spaces; 12 spaces are leased back
to the Miramar Sheraton for employee parking and the remaining
spaces are available to hotel guests and visitors. As proposed,
parking in the structure will be available for a fee to both
hotel guests and the general public. The structure would operate
24 hours per day. Ingress and egress to the parking structure
will be provided from a single driveway located off Second
Street. There will be one entry lane and one exit lane.
Pedestrian access to the parking structure will be available from
both Second Street and Second Court.
- 1 -
-.
-
.
A Development Review Permit is required in that the project is
over 15,000 sq. ft. A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is required to
allow a parking structure in a R4 district. On September 9, 1986
the city Council adopted Ordinance 1383 to amend Section 91104A
(SMMC). This ordinance permits off-site parking structures in R4
Districts in conjunction with hotel development with approval of
a CUP. Variances are required to permit a structure with zero
setbacks and lOOt lot coverage in a R4 District. A General Plan
Amendment is required to amend Policy l.2.3 to allow the parking
structure to be built to 5 stories rather than the required 4
stories.
MUNICIPAL CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFOR}~NCE
The proposed project is inconsistent with the Municipal Code in
that variances will be required for setbacks and lot coverage and
is inconsistent with the General Plan in that a General Plan
Amendment will be required to allow the structure to exceed the
height limit as shown in Attachment A.
CEQA STATUS
An Initial study has been prepared for this project and a variety
of mitigation measures have been included. HO\vever, staff is
recommending that the proj ect be denied. Copies of the Draft
Initial study were distributed to the Planning Comm~ssion at the
beginning of the 30 day public review period. Public comment was
received and the responses are contained ~n the Final Initial
study. The Final Initial study is attached (Attachment B}.~~
FEES
The project is exempt from the Housing and Parks Mitigation Fee
as outlined in the Land Use and Circulation Element.
ANALYSIS
Consistency with Land Use Element policies and the Zoninq
Ordinance
The proposed proj ect is located in a High Dens~ ty Resldential
area. The property is zoned R4A. Policy 1.2.3 of the Land Use
Element permits parking structures in "A" Off Street Parking
Districts. However, these structures are only permitted if they
conform with the height, bulk, setback and landscape standards
required for the residential district. As proposed the project
is built to the front, rear and side property lines and utilizes
100% lot coverage. The lack of setbacks provides little
opportuni ty to include landscaping to screen the surrounding
structures from the project. A General Plan Amendment has been
filed to permit the project to exceed the 4 story helght limit.
A 5 story, 561 parking structure would block or impair the views
of apartments on the third, fourth, and fifth floors of the
Wilshire Ocean Terrace and will block views from guest rooms
below the fifth floor of the Huntley Hotel.
- 2 -
e
.
Under the existing Zoning Ordinance the R4 standards require
setbacks from all property lines as well as a 50% lot coverage
(Attachment A). The applicant has required variances to
eliminate these requirements. Ordinance l383 amended Section
9110A SMUC to permit parking structures in R4A Districts in
conjunction with hotel facilities with the approval of a
Conditional Use Permit. staff has no objections to a parking
structure at this location. However, staff feels that the size,
scale, lack of articulation, lack of setbacks and lack of
landscaping are inappropriate for a parking structure in a
residential district.
Parking and Traffic Analysis
A traffic impact study prepared by DKS Associates analyzed future
traffic generation for the proposed project on two intersections.
The study included traffic anticipated to be generated by
projects either planned, proposed or under construction. The
study concluded that the impact of the proposed project on the
local street system would be minimal.
The Miramar Sheraton is not currently proposing expansion of the
hotel facilities. The parking structure is proposed in order to
meet the hotel's existing parking demand. Based on City parking
standards the hotel should provide 418 parking spaces. Although
additional off street parking is highly desirable in this
neighborhood, since the hotel ~s not expanding, the hotel is not
required to provide additional parking. In addition, the parking
plan does not provide handicapped parking stalls and has not been
approved by the City'S Parking and Traffic Engineer. ~
Project Design
The proposed project is designed to be utilitarian and,
therefore, provides no articulation or landscaping. The front
and rear elevations are dominated by a concrete sheer wall with
concrete parapets and galvanized steel railings on each level.
The sicte elevations are blank concrete block walls with no
openings or articulation. Land Use Element Policy 3.3.1 requireS
that pedestrian amenities be provided at the ground floor
frontages, such as windows, awnings or arcades. Policy 3.4.3
requires that new development provide streetscape improvements
lito contribute to the overall public open space systemlf. Policy
3.3.4 encourages that buildings provide design articulation. The
proposed project design is inconsistent with each of these
policies in that no pedestrian amenities are provided, the
structure is built property line to property line and does not
step back at any point, and that the concrete and steel building
materials do not enhance the Second street environment.
Conclusion
The project, which requires a cUP, variances and a General Plan
Amendment, is inconsistent with the policies and objectives of
the Land Use Element as well as with the requirements of the
zoning Ordinance in that the proj ect blocks views, provides no
- 3 -
e
e
design amenities, exceeds the height, story, setback and lot
coverage requirements and is not compatible w1th the surrounding
mix of commercial and residential structures.
RECOmfENDATION
It is respectfully recommended that the Planning Commission deny
DR 356, CUP 437, ZA 51l3-Y, GPA-09, EIA 835 ~ith the following
findings:
1. The development is inconsistent with the findings and purpose
of Ordinance 1321 as set forth below.
2. The physical location and placement of the proposed structure
on the site is incompatible with and does not relate
harmoniously to surrounding sites or neighborhoods in that
the Land Use Element limits the height, bulk, setback and
landscape requirements of parking structures in "A" Off
street Parking Districts to the standards 1n the residential
district. Furthermore the R4A zoning regulations state that
50% lot coverage be provided as well as a 20 foot front yard
setback, II foot sideyard setbacks and a l5 foot rearyard
setback.
3. The proposed development is inconsistent with the General
Plan of the City of Santa Monica and the Zoning Ordinance in
that the parking structure does not provide design
articulation, does not enhance the streetscape, and does not
provide pedestrian amenities or architectural innovatio~. In
addition, the project does not conform with the appropriate
R4A standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance.
Prepared by: Amanda Schachter, Associate Planner
AS:nh
DR356
11/30/87
Attachments: A. Municipal Code and General Plan Conformance.
B. Final Initial Study.
C. Public Comment Received After 30 Day Public
Review of Initial study.
D. Response from Applicant.
- 4 -
e
ATTACHMENT A
MUNICIPAL CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE
Category Municipal Code
Permitted Use Permits
Residential
Uses and
Parking Lots
Ordinance 1383
Permits
Parking
structures in
Conjunction
with Hotels by
Conditional
Use Permit
Height 6 storieS/55 I
Setbacks
Front yard
201
Sideyard
III
Rearyard
151
Lot Coverage
50%
Parking
418 Parking
Spaces
Land Use
Element
Permits
Parking
structures in
"A" Off-street
Parking
Districts
4 Stories/50'
20'
11'
151
50%
418 Parking
Spaces
- 5 -
e
Project
96,000 Sg.Ft.
Parking
structure
5 stories/56 I
None Prov~ded
None Provided
~
None Provided....
100%
270 Spaces
Proposed
80 Spaces
Existing on Main
Parking Lot
41 Spaces Existing
on Project site
e
e
QUESTIONS REGARDING THE
MIRAMAR SHERATON PARKING STRUCTURE
- ........--........:.. I I t ....- 14
.....
-
e
e
a~'p.{STH~
.I-J
Q.I
III
~ ~
III .j,J
(1J tJ)
~
.I.) 't:I
tf) c
~'" 0
'0 U
M Ql
-1"'\ C/J
.t:
Eo<
lnu=rol t t-e:>
e
e
WHY VARIANCES?
Without va~iances a pa~king structu~e cannot be built. The site
is only lOa x lSO' in size. Without variances a parking structure
is physically and economically infeasible. The area is simply
not large enough for required access ways and parking bays while
still providing front, side and rear yards.
ARE THE VARIANCES UNREASONABLE?
Generally not. The rear yard would be greater than existing
codes contemplate, the distance between the lower floors of the
Huntley Hotel and structure would be only 21 less than that
required between 4 story buildings. The distance between the
non-conforming medical building would be only 14' instead of the
32' required, primarily due to the width of the medical site, but
only 4 offices have windows on this end and 141 is more than most
first and second floor offices in the downtown area have. _~
None of the existing properties on Second Street have 20' front
yards. The medical bUIlding has 5' and the 17 story hotel has
only 7'.
CAN VARIANCES BE CONSIDERED?
Yes. variances can be considered on their merIts. Remember that
new construction on this site is limited to only 4 storIes while
the Huntley Hotel is allowed to tower 12 storIes above that
forever and the medical office building will continue to enjoy
commercial use of residential property for many years to come.
Even the apartments to the rear have a permanent height advantage
ove~ this site.
e
e
THE SITE
A 15,000 sq.ft. surface parking lot situated mid-block across
from the Miramar Sheraton Hotel. present use is a surface
parking lot and car rental facility.
The si te is surrounded by a 17 story hotel on the north, 6 story
apartment on the east and 2 story non-conforming medical building
on the south.
THE PROJECT
Construct a 531 high, line to line parking structure with
variances of front, side and rear yard requirements.
~
~
WHY PARKING?
Because parking is the single, most critical need in the area.
The five prperties fronting the 1100 block of Second Street have
a net shortage of 395 spaces. The structure will provide 230 new
parking spaces.
230 parking spaces is more than all the street parking spaces on
both sides of Second Street from wilshire to Montana, including
the side streets. It is as many spaces as there are on Ocean
Avenue from the Pier to Washington AVenue. Can you imagine the
parking relief of this much new parking?
.
e
30'
APARTMENT
F>AR \<lNG
S"TRVC.TURE.
REAR YARD CONTEMPLATED BY CODE
APARiMF-N.
I
37-
.
r--17' I .zO' t
ALL.t:y
PROPOSED DISTANCE BETWEEN STRUCTURES AT REAR
e
e
4 STORY ~O'
BUILD//'J G-
II # SIDcVAR.DS
"'} STO RY SO'
BUILDING-
II' SI DE:'I'AR.OS
PI..
I
NORTH SIDE YARD CONTEMPLATED BY CODE
-
""
~ARK IN C.
S"RL1C rVRE:
0' S 10 la,.'{All.O
PROPOSED DISTANCE BETWEEN STRUCTURES, NORTH SIDE
. .
e
L _
I
4 STO~'( So'
~IJIL.DINC. ~
e
32'
4 <;, TC~Y -50'
Bl/lLOINC-
~/
P L
SOUTH SIDE YARD CONTEMPLATED BY CODE
pL.
...
.....
2 5T08-Y
M60 ,<:A L
BU/LOINCr
PROPOSED DISTANCE BETWEEN STRUCTURES, SOUTH SIDE
AAa..c\1 m €Vl t" C
STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL ACTION
PROJECT
NUMBER: DR 356, CUP 437, ZA 51l3-Y, GPA-09, EIA 835
LOCATION: 1115 Second Street
APPLICANT: Miramar Sheraton Hotel, W. G. Wells, President
REQUEST:
To Allow the Construction of a Five Story,
High, 270 Space Parking Structure on a Lot on
East side of Second Street opposite the Main
tel Complex. The Existing Surface Parking
and One-story Commercial Structure Would
Removed.
56'
the
Ho-
Lot
be
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
l2/7/87
Date.
x
Approved based on the fOllowing findings and
subject to the conditions below.
Denied.
Other.
FINDINGS
1. The development is inconsistent with the findings and purpose
of Ordinance 1321 as set forth below.
2. The physical location and placement of the proposed structure
on the site is incompatible with and does not relate
harmoniously to surrounding sites or neighborhoods in that
the Land Use Element limits the height, bulk, setback and
landscape requirements of parking structures in nAil Off
Street Parking Districts to the standards in the residential
district. Furthermore the R4A zoning regulations state that
50% lot coverage be provided as well as a 20 foot front yard
setback, 11 foot sideyard setbacks and a 15 foot rearyard
setback.
3. The proposed development is inconsistent wi th the General
Plan of the City of Santa Monica and the Zoning Ordinance in
that the parking structure does not provide design
articulation, does not enhance the streetscape, and does not
provide pedestrian amenities or architectural innovation. In
addition, the project does not conform with the appropriate
R4A standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance.
- 1 -
4. The design does not relate harmoniously to the surrounding
uses in that noise from the vehicles in the parking structure
will severely impact the neighboring residences.
VOTE
Ayes:
Nays:
Abstain:
Absent:
Farivar, Hecht, Lambert, Mechur, Nelson, Perlman, pyne
None
None
None
I hereby certify that this statement of
accurately reflects the final determination
commission of the City of Santa Monica.
Official Action
of the Planning
signature
date
print name and title
STDR356
AS:nh
l2jllj87
- 2 -
e
e
PE:'ITION
TO:
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
REFERENCE:
PROPOSED PARKING STRUCTURE
SHERA~O~ MIRN'~R HOTEL
1115 2nd S~RE~T, SANTA MO~ICA
We the lli~derslgned, Q?pOse the co~st=uctlon of the five s~o~
Sheraton Mlramar parkl~g s~r~cture at 1:15 2nd Street. As
pro?osec, it does not fl~ in wi~~ ~~e neighborhood. A
suz~erranean structure, conSlsten~ wlth the ex~stlns Clty lot
coverage standards, woulc rrce~ the neecs 0= the hotel Wlt~o~t
ca~slng as great a negatlve lW?ac~ on the conT.lli~lty.
...
..
X A:.~E
AD::?ESS
~E~EP50:"rE xo.
<<4 {' ~~AJ /I;g .3ilJi 7f= IiJ.g
d (. cl.u-- ( ,
213 -tJ/o 1
{L
e
e
PETI'!'IO~
TO:
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
REFERE~CE :
PROPOSED PARKING STRUCTURE
SHERATON MIRM1AR HOTEL
1115 2nd STREET, Sk~TA MO~ICA
We the undersigned, oppose the constr~ctlon 0= ~'e f~ve storj
Sheraton M1ramar parklng structure at 1115 2nd Street. ~~
proposed, i~ does not :it in w1th the neighbor~ood. A
subterranean structure, cons~sten~ ~~th the eX1stlng Cl~Y lot
coverage standards, woeld rreet the neecs of the hotel wlthout
caus~ng as great a negatlve 1ffi?act on the commQ~~ty.
~
...
~~~~ ADDR~SS
r:-:S:'::;PHO:\"=: KO.
~\\(yl~\\\~ \\\ ~ ~,," ~*-
c- ~ ~O ~
-')?~. ~\...~~
'-\ '\ \ O~ \ "\:
___ '_..iil1IIliiilL)~'" -o_~~,_