SR-402-007 (14)
ATTACHMENT A
PLANNING COMMISSION
STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL ACTION
.
ORIGINAL
.
e ....
-=>
City of Santa Monica
City Planning Division
City of
Santa Moniea@
PLANNING COMMISSION
STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL ACTION
PROJECT
CASE NUMBER: Development Review Permit 02-010
LOCATION: 1685 Main Street
APPLICANT: City of Santa Monica
PROPERTY
OWNER: City of Santa Monica
CASE PLANNER: Andy Agle, Assistant Director
REQUEST: The proposed project is a 244,930-square foot public
parking structure of five levels above grade with rooftop
parking and one and one-half levels of below-grade
parking, accommodating a maximum of 880 parking spaces
with street-level leasable tenant spaces. The project site
consists of an approximately one-acre, rectangular-shaped
parcel that is bound by Fourth Street on the east, Civic
Center Drive on the south, Avenida Mazatlan alley on the
west, and the future Olympic Drive on the north. The
proposed height is 55'8" high, with the parapets projecting
42 inches, trellises projecting 11 feet, and elevator
enclosures projecting 13 feet above the roof height.
The applicant has received approval of a Development
Review Permit because more than 30,000 square feet of
floor area is proposed.
CEQA STATUS: An Environmental Impact Report was certified on March 5,
2003. A Statement of Overriding Considerations and
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan were also
approved on March 5, 2003.
1
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
March 5, 2003 Date.
Approved based on the following findings and subject to the conditions
March 5, 2003 below.
Denied
Other.
EFFECTIVE DATES OF ACTIONS IF NOT APPEALED:
March 20, 2003
EXPIRATION DATE OF ANY PERMITS GRANTED:
March 20, 2004 Development Review Permit
LENGTH OF ANY POSSIBLE EXTENSION OF EXPIRATION DATES:
Any request for an extension of the expiration date must be received in the City Planning
Division prior to expiration of this permit.
6 months
Development Review Permit
Each and all of the findings and determinations are based on the competent and
substantial evidence, both oral and written, contained in the entire record relating to the
Project. All summaries of information contained herein or in the findings are based on the
substantial evidence in the record. The absence of any particular fact from any such
summary is not an indication that a particular finding is not based in part on that fact.
FINDINGS
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
1. The physical location, size, massing, and placement of the proposed structure on the
site and the location of the proposed uses within the project are compatible with and relate
harmoniously to the surrounding sites and neighborhoods, in that the Civic Center Parking
Structure will provide critical parking resources to support adjacent community-serving
facilities, including City Hall, the Public Safety Facility, County Courthouse and Civic
Auditorium, and will help provide for the eventual conversion of nearby surface parking to
community-oriented uses. The five-level, 55'8", 244,930-square foot building will have
frontage along Fourth Street and Olympic and Civic Center Drives and will be of a scale
and massing comparable to the surrounding buildings in the neighborhood which range in
size from three to eight stories in height and include a variety of styles and uses, including
the eight-story Doubletree Hotel, four-story Public Safety Facility (under construction),
2
.
.
three-story City Hall, five-story RAND Headquarters (under construction), and eight-story
Viceroy Hotel. The building will contain pedestrian entrances adjacent to the three streets
and leasable tenant spaces with extensive glazing on the first and second levels adjacent
to Fourth Street and Olympic Drive in order to enhance the structure's pedestrian
orientation.
2. The rights-of-way can accommodate autos and pedestrians, including parking and
access, in that the design of the Civic Center Parking Structure provides pedestrian access
from Olympic Drive, Fourth Street and Civic Center Drive. Bus access will continue to be
provided from Fourth Street at Civic Center Drive. Direct vehicular access will be provided
from Avenida Mazatlan alley in order to limit the potential for congestion and pedestrian
interference on Olympic Drive, Fourth Street, and Civic Center Drive.
3. The health and safety services (police, fire, etc.) and public infrastructure (e.g. utilities)
are sufficient to accommodate the new development, in that the Civic Center Parking
Structure is located within an urbanized area that is already served by existing
infrastructure. No new safety services or public infrastructure will be required by this
project, and the project will enhance the provision of public safety services by providing
additional secured parking for the Public Safety Facility.
4. Anyon-site provision of housing or parks and public open space, which are part of the
project mitigation measures required by Subchapter 9.04.70 and Section 9.04.10.12 of the
Santa Monica Zoning Ordinance, is satisfactory to meet the goals of the mitigation
program, in that no such requirement is applicable to the construction of the Civic Center
Parking Structure.
5. The project is generally consistent with the Municipal Code, Civic Center Specific Plan
and General Plan, in that the Civic Center Parking Structure is being constructed as
specifically designated and called for in the Civic Center Specific Plan in order to allow for
the consolidation of surface parking lots in the Civic Center area into structured parking in
order to allow for more intensive, community-oriented use of that land.
6. Reasonable mitigation measures have been included for most adverse impacts
identified in the Environmental Impact Report and a Statement of Overriding
Considerations has been adopted in consideration of those significant impacts that cannot
be mitigated to a level of insignificance.
CONDITIONS
Plans
1. The approval is for those plans dated February 19, 2003, a copy of which shall be
maintained in the files of the City Planning Division. Project development shall be
consistent with such plans, except as otherwise specified in these conditions of
approval.
2. The plans shall comply with all other provisions of Chapter 1, Article IX of the
Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance) and all other pertinent ordinances and General
Plan policies of the City of Santa Monica.
3
.
.
3. Final parking layout and specifications shall be subject to review and approval of the
Transportation Management Division.
4. Minor amendments to the plans shall be subject to approval by the Director of
Planning and Community Development. A significant change in the approved
concept shall be subject to Planning Commission Review. Construction shall be in
conformance with the plans submitted or as modified by the Planning Commission,
Architectural Review Board or Director of Planning and Community Development.
Architectural Review Board
5. Prior to consideration of the project by the Architectural Review Board, the applicant
shall review disabled access requirements with the Building and Safety Division and
make any necessary changes in the project design to achieve compliance with such
requirements. The Architectural Review Board, in its review, shall pay particular
attention to the aesthetic, landscaping, and setback impacts of any ramps or other
features necessitated by accessibility requirements.
6. Prior to submittal of landscape plans for Architectural Review Board approval, the
applicant shall contact the Department of Environmental and Public Works
Management regarding urban runoff plans and calculations.
7. Construction period signage shall be subject to the approval of the Architectural
Review Board.
8. Plans for final design, landscaping, screening, trash enclosures, and signage shall
be subject to the review and approval by the Architectural Review Board.
9. The Architectural Review Board, in its review, shall pay particular attention to the
project's trellis locations; variation in awnings; massing and shadow effects relative
to Fourth Street; landscaping that "softens" the building relative to Fourth Street
while not blocking the pedestrian-accessibility of the ground-floor uses; and the
creation of a gateway element on the south facade of the project; as well as pay
attention to pedestrian orientation and amenities; scale and articulation of design
elements; exterior colors, textures, and materials; window treatment; glazing; and
landscaping.
As appropriate, the Architectural Review Board shall require the use of anti-graffiti
materials on surfaces likely to attract graffiti.
Landscaping plans shall comply with Subchapter 5B (Landscape Standards) of the
Zoning Ordinance including the use of water-conserving landscaping materials,
landscaping maintenance and other standards contained in the Subchapter.
12. Refuse areas, storage areas and mechanical equipment shall be screened in
accordance with SMMC Sections 9.04.10.02.130 through 9.04.10.02.150. Refuse
areas shall be of a size adequate to meet on-site need, including recycling. The
4
.
.
Architectural Review Board, in its review, shall pay particular attention to the
screening of such area and equipment. Any rooftop mechanical equipment shall be
minimized in height and visual area, and shall be located in such a way as to
minimize noise and visual impacts to surrounding properties. Unless otherwise
approved by the Architectural Review Board, rooftop mechanical equipment shall be
located at least five feet from the edge of the roof.
Demolition
13. Street trees shall be maintained, relocated, or provided as required in a manner
consistent with the City's Community Forest Management Plan 2000, per the
specifications of the Open Space Management Division of the Community and
Cultural Services Department. No street trees shall be removed without the
approval of the Open Space management Division.
14. Immediately after demolition of the parking lot and during construction, a security
fence, the height of which shall be the maximum permitted by the Zoning Ordinance
(8'), shall be maintained around the perimeter of the lot. The lot shall be kept clear
of all trash, weeds, etc. Mesh fabric shall be installed on the fence to reduce the
amount of dust leaving the site.
15. Prior to the issuance of any demolition of construction permits, a demolitions
materials recycling plan, which seeks to maximize the reuse / recycling potential of
existing building materials, shall be filed for approval by the Department of
Environmental and Public Works Management.
16. Until such time as demolition is undertaken, and unless the parking lot is currently in
use, the existing parking lot shall be maintained and secured by erecting a security
fence and removing all debris, bushes and planting that inhibit the easy surveillance
of the property to the satisfaction of the Building and Safety Officer and the Fire
Department. Any landscaping material remaining shall be watered and maintained
until demolition occurs.
17 Prior to issuance of a demolition permit, applicant shall prepare for Building Division
approval a rodent and pest control plan to ensure that demolition and construction
activities at the site do not create pest control impacts on the project neighborhood.
18. No demolition of buildings or structures 40 years or older shall be permitted until the
end of a 50-day review period by the Landmarks Commission to determine whether
an application for landmark designation shall be filed. If an application for landmark
designation is filed, no demolition shall be approved until a final determination is
made by the Landmarks Commission on the application.
Construction
19. Unless otherwise approved by the Department of Environmental and Public Works
Management, all sidewalks shall be kept clear and passable during the grading and
construction phase of the project.
5
.
.
20. Sidewalks, curbs, gutters, paving and driveways which need replacing or removal as
a result of the project, as determined by the Department of Environmental and
Public Works Management, shall be constructed to the satisfaction of the
Department of Environmental and Public Works Management prior to issuance of
the building permits.
Vehicles hauling dirt or other construction debris from the site shall cover any open
load with a tarpaulin or other secure covering to minimize dust emissions.
Immediately after commencing dirt removal from the site, the general contractor
shall provide the City of Santa Monica with written certification that all trucks leaving
the site are covered in accordance with this condition of approval.
22. A sign shall be posted on the property in a manner consistent with the public
hearing sign requirements which shall identify the address and phone numberofthe
owner and/or applicant for the purposes of responding to questions and complaints
during the construction period. Said sign shall also indicate the hours of permissible
construction work.
23. The property owner shall insure any graffiti on the site is promptly removed through
compliance with the City's graffiti removal program.
A copy of these conditions shall be posted in an easily visible and accessible
location at all times during construction at the project site. The pages shall be
laminated or otherwise protected to ensure durability of the copy.
Environmental Mitigation
Ultra-low flow plumbing fixtures are required on all new development and
remodeling where plumbing is to be added. (Maximum 1.6-gallon toilets and 1.0-
gallon urinals and low-flow showerhead.)
26. To mitigate solid waste impacts, prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy,
project owner shall submit a recycling plan to the Department of Environmental and
Public Works Management for its approval. The recycling plan shall include: 1) list
of materials such a white paper, computer paper, metal cans, and glass to be
recycled; 2) location of recycling bins; 3) designated recycling coordinator; 4) nature
and extent of internal and external pick-up service; 5) pick-up schedule; 6) plan to
inform tenants / occupants of service.
27 . To mitigate storm water and surface run-off from the project site, an Urban Runoff
Mitigation Plan may be required by the Department of Environmental and Public
Works Management (EPWM) pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 7.10. Applicant
shall contact EPWM to determine applicable requirements, which include the
following:
. Non-stormwater runoff, sediment and construction waste from the construction
site and parking areas is prohibited from leaving the site;
6
.
.
Any sediments or materials which are tracked off site must be removed tile
same day they are tracked off site;
· Excavated soil must be located on the site and soil poles should be covered and
otherwise protected so that sediments do not go into the street or adjoining
properties;
· Washing of construction or other vehicles shall be allowed adjacent to a
construction site. No runoff from washing vehicles on a construction site shall
be allowed to leave the site;
· Drainage controls may be required depending on the extent of grading and
topography of the site;
· New development is required to reduce projected runoff pollution by at least
twenty percent through incorporation of design elements or principles, such as
increasing permeable surfaces; diverting or catching runoff via swales, berms,
and the like; orientation of drain gutters toward permeable areas; modification of
grade; use of retention structures; and other methods.
28. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure AES-2(a), the applicant shall design exterior
building lighting to ensure that no light projects on adjacent sites. Exterior lighting
shall incorporate "cut-off' shields as appropriate to prevent an increase in lighting at
adjacent and nearby uses.
29, Pursuant to Mitigation Measure AES-2(b), landscape illumination and exterior sign
lighting shall be accomplished with low-level, unobtrusive fixtures. Such lighting
shall be shielded to direct light pools away from off-site viewers.
30. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure AES-2(c), finish materials, including glazing, shall
be of a low reflectivity to minimize glare. Development shall include low-reflective
roofing materials to reduce glare potential for nearby development that may have
downward views of the project's roof.
31 Pursuant to Mitigation Measures CON-1 and CON-3(d), the applicant shall prepare
and implement a Construction Impact Mitigation Plan to provide for traffic and
parking capacity management and construction mitigation during construction. The
plan shall be subject to review and approval by the Departments of Environmental
and Public Works Management and Planning and Community Development prior to
issuance of a building permit. The approved construction plan shall be posted on
the construction site for the duration of the project construction and shall be
produced upon request. The plan, at a minimum, shall include the following:
Names, addresses, telephone numbers and business license numbers of all
contractors and subcontractors, as well as the developer and architect;
A telephone number for local residents to call to submit complaints associated
with construction noise; the number shall be posted on the project site and shall
be easily viewed from adjacent public areas;
A description of how demolition of any existing structures is to be accomplished;
Where any cranes are to be located for erection / construction;
How much of the public street, alleyway, or sidewalk is proposed to be used in
conjunction with the construction;
7
.
.
Anticipated construction-related truck routes, number of truck trips, hours of
hauling and parking location;
· Approval from the City, or Caltrans if necessary, must be obtained for any
construction detours or construction work requiring encroachment into public
rights-of-way, or any other street use activity (e.g. haul routes);
Scheduling and expediting of work to cause the least amount of disruption and
interference to the adjacent vehicular and pedestrian traffic flow. . Weekday
daytime work on City streets shall primarily be performed between the hours of
9:00 AM and 3:00 PM;
· Limiting of queuing of trucks to on-site and prohibition of truck queuing on area
roadways;
Scheduling of preconstruction meetings with affected agencies to properly plan
methods of controlling traffic through work areas;
Timely notification of construction schedules to all affected agencies (e.g. Police
Department, Fire Department, Department of Public Works, Department of
Planning and Community Development, Los Angeles County Superior Court,
Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department, and transit agencies);
Coordination of.construction work with affected agencies five to ten days prior to
start of work;
A traffic control plan for the streets surrounding the work area, which includes
specific information regarding the project's construction and activities that will
disrupt normal traffic flow;
The extent and nature of any pile-driving operations;
The length and nature of any tiebacks which must extend under the property of
other persons;
The nature and extent of any dewatering and its effect on any adjacent
buildings;
The nature and extent of any helicopter hauling;
Whether any construction activity beyond normally permitted hours is proposed;
· Any proposed construction noise mitigation measures;
· Construction-period security measures including any fencing, lighting and
security personnel;
A drainage plan;
A construction-period parking plan which shall minimize the use of public streets
for parking;
A designated on-site construction manager;
A construction materials recycling plan which seeks to maximize the reuse /
recycling of construction waste;
A plan regarding the use of recycled and low-environmental-impact materials in
building construction;
· A construction period water runoff control plan
· A public information program to advise motorists of impending construction
activities (e.g. media coverage, portable message signs, and information signs
at the construction site);
Minimizing dirt and demolition material hauling and construction material delivery
during the morning and afternoon peak traffic periods and cleaning of streets
and equipment as necessary;
Storage of construction material and equipment within the dE~signated work area
8
.
.
and limitation of equipment and material visibility to the public; and
· Provision of off-street parking to workers that currently use the existing site, Civic
Auditorium parking lot, and construction employees, which may include the use
of a remote location with shuttle transport to the site, if determined necessary by
the City of Santa Monica.
32. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure CON-2(a), during construction, dust generated by
the development activities shall be kept to a minimum with a goal of retaining dust
through implementation of the following:
· During clearing, grading, earth moving, excavation, or transportation of cut or fill
materials, water trucks or sprinkler systems are to be used to prevent dust from
leaving the site and to create a crust after each day's activities cease.
Provisions shall be made prior to and during watering to prevent runoff from
leaving the site.
· During clearing, grading, earth moving, excavation or transportation of cut of fill
materials, streets and sidewalks within 150 feet of the site perimeter shall be
swept and cleaned a minimum of once daily;
· During construction, water trucks or sprinkler systems shall be used to keep all
areas of vehicle movement damp enough to prevent dust from leaving the site.
At a minimum, this would include wetting down such areas in the later morning
and after work is completed for the day and whenever wind exceeds 15 miles
per hour.
· Soil stockpiled for more than two days shall be covered, kept moist, or treated
with soil binders to prevent dust generation.
33. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure CON-2(b), during construction, any construction
equipment used on the site must meet the following conditions in order to reduce
NOx emissions:
. The number of pieces of equipment operating simultaneously must be
minimized through efficient management practices;
. Construction equipment must be maintained in tune per manufacturer's
specifications;
. Equipment shall be equipped with 2 to 4-degree engine timing retard or
precombustion chamber engines;
. Catalytic converters shall be installed, if feasible;
. Diesel-powered equipment such as booster pumps or generators should be
replaced by electric equipment, if feasible; and
. Limiting the operation of heavy-duty construction equipment (e.g. 175-HP
forklifts, wheeled tractors, tracked tractors) to no more than five pieces of
equipment at anyone time.
34. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure CON-2(c), low-VOC architectural coatings shall be
used in construction whenever feasible and shall coordinate with the SCAQMD to
determine which coatings would reduce VOC emissions to the maximum degree
feasible.
35. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure CON-3(a), during construction, all diesel equipment
shall be operated with closed engine doors and shall be equipped with factory-
9
.
.
recommended mufflers.
36. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure CON-3(b), during construction, electrical power shall
be used to run air compressors and similar power tools.
37. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure CON-3(c), for all noise-generating construction
activity on the project site, additional noise attenuation techniques shall be
employed to reduce noise levels to City of Santa Monica noise standards, such
techniques shall include, but are not limited to, the use of sounds blankets on noise-
generating equipment and the construction of temporary sound barriers between
construction sites and nearby sensitive receptors.
38. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure GEO-2, a geotechnical study shall be prepared for
the project site, prior to site development. This report shall include an analysis of
the liquefaction potential of the underlying materials. If the site is found to be prone
to seismically induced liquefaction, appropriate techniques to minimize liquefaction
potential shall be prescribed and implemented. If found to be necessary, suitable
measures to reduce liquefaction impacts could include, but are not limited to:
· specialized design of foundations by a structural engineer;
· removal or treatment of liquefied soils to reduce the potential for liquefaction;
· drainage to lower the groundwater table to below the level of liquefiable soils;
· in-site densification of soils; or
· other alterations to the ground characteristics.
Any recommended measures to minimize liquefaction potential specified by the
geotechnical study shall be fully implemented in accordance with Uniform Building
Code and California Building Code requirements.
39. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure GEO-3(a), the geotechnical study shall include an
evaluation of the potential for slope stability at the site. The information obtained
shall be used to design the excavation and excavation shoring to prevent
destabilization of the excavation sidewalls. Any recommendations contained in the
geotechnical report shall be fully implemented.
Pursuant to Mitigation Measure GEO-3(b), the parking lot design shall consider a
mechanism of removing groundwater, if it is shown to be present at this site. The
groundwater removal design shall consider historical ranges in depth to
groundwater. The removal system shall be designed to prevent the parking garage
from flooding.
41. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure GEO-3(c), all walls of the parking structure shall be
waterproofed to protect against corrosive effects of water contact.
Pursuant to Mitigation Measure GEO-4, Prior to issuance of a building permit for the
foundation or superstructure, whichever occurs first, soil samples of final sub-grade
areas and excavation sidewalls shall be collected and analyzed for their expansion
index. For areas where the expansion index is found to be greater than 20, the
appropriate grading and foundation designs shall be engineered to withstand the
existing conditions. The expansion testing may be foregone if the grading and
10
.
.
foundations are engineered to withstand the presence of highly expansive soils.
43. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure HHM-1 (a), all earth-moving contractors shall be
directed to be aware of the possibility of contaminants during site grading. If
contaminants are suspected, soil samples are to be obtained and analyzed to
determine whether there are contaminants, and if present, to determine the type
and concentrations of contaminants. The sample results are to be used to make a
determination as to where to transport the material for off-site disposal, or to
determine if the soils can be used onsite.
44 Pursuant to Mitigation Measure HHM-1 (b), if contaminants are detected, the results
of the soil sampling within the Phase II ESA shall be forwarded to the local
regulatory agency (City of Santa Monica Envi"ronmental Program Division, Los
Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board, and/or the State of California
Environmental Protection Agency Department of Toxic Substances Control). The
agency should review the data and either sign off on the property or determine if
any additional investigation or remedial activities are deemed necessary.
45. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure T -2, prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy,
the City shall modify the intersection striping at Ocean Avenue/Neilson Way & Pico
Boulevard to provide a protected phase for the westbound left-turn movement.
Implementation of this measure would necessitate the provision of some
combination of new signage, controller cab!nets, poles, mast arms, detectors,
and/or signal heads.
Miscellaneous Conditions
46. The building address shall be painted on the roof of the building and shall measure
four feet by eight feet (32 square feet).
47. The operation shall at all times be conducted in a manner not detrimental to
surrounding properties or residents by reason of lights, noise, activities or other
actions.
48. Street and 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 Environmental and Public Works Management.
49. Final approval of any mechanical equipment installation will require a noise test in
compliance with SMMC section 4.12.040. Equipment for the test shall be provided
by the owner or contractor and the test shall be conducted by the owner or
contractor. A copy of the noise test results on mechanical equipment shall be
submitted to the Community Noise Officer for review to ensure that noise levels do
not exceed maximum allowable levels for the applicable noise zone.
50. Final building plans submitted for approval of a building permit shall include on the
plans a list of all mechanical equipment to be place outdoors and all permanent
mechanical equipment to be place indoors which may be heard outdoors.
11
.
.
51. Prior to issuance of a Final Inspection, the application shall post a notice at the
building entry stating that the site is regulated by a Development Review Permit
(DR02-003) and that the Statement of Official Action, which includes the
establishment's conditions of approval, is available upon request. This notice shall
remain posted at all times the establishment is in operation.
Validity of permits
52. In the event permittee violates or fails to comply with any conditions of approval of
this permit, no further permits, licenses, approvals or certificates of occupancy shall
be issues until such violation has been fully remedied.
53. Within ten days of Planning Commission transmittal of the Statement of Official
Action, project applicant shall sign and return a copy of the Statement of Official
Action prepared by the Planning Division, agreeing to the Conditions of Approval
and acknowledging that failure to comply with such conditions shall constitute
grounds for potential revocation of the permit approval. By signing same, applicant
shall not thereby waive any legal rights applicant may possess regarding said
conditions. The signed Statement shall be returned to the City Planning Division.
Failure to comply with the condition shall constitute ground for potential permit
revocation.
The approval of DR02-003 shall not become effective for a period of fourteen days
from the date of determination or, if appealed, until a final determination is made on
appeal. Any appeal must be made in the form required by the Zoning Administrator.
The approval of these permits shall expire if the rights granted are not exercised
within one year from the permit's effective date. Exercise of rights shall mean
issuance of a building permit to commence construction. However, the permits shall
also expire if the building permit expires, if the final inspection is not completed or a
Certificate of Occupancy is not issued within the time periods specified in SMMC
Section 8.08.060, or if the rights granted are not exercised within one year following
the earliest to occur of the following: issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or, if not
Certificate of Occupancy is required, the last required final inspection of the new
construction. One six-month extension may be permitted if approved by the
Director of Planning. Applicant is on notice that time extensions may not be granted
if development standards relevant to the project have changed since project
approval.
Monitoring of Conditions
Pursuant to the requirements of Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, the City
Planning Division will coordinate a monitoring and reporting program regarding any
required changes to the project made in conjunction with project approval and any
conditions of approval, including those conditions intended to mitigate or avoid
significant effects on the environment. This program shall include, but is not
limited to, ensuring that the Planning Division itself and other City divisions and
departments such as the Building Division, the Environmental and Public Works
12
ATTACHMENT 8
MINUTES OF THE MARCH 5, 2003
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
'.
'"
~
e......
~
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
City.of
Santa Monica"'
WEDNESDAY, March 5, 2003
7:00 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBEHS
ROOM 213, CITY HALL
1. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:17 p.m.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Olsen led the Pledge of Allegiance.
3. ROLL CALL: Present: Darrell Clarke, Chairperson
Julie Lopez Dad
Arlene Hopkins
Jay P. Johnson
Kelly Olsen
Absent: Barbara Brown
Geraldine Moyle
Also Present: Gordon Anderson, Assistant City Manager
Andrew Agle, Assistant Director of PCD
Kimberly Christensen, AICP, Senior Planner
Lucy Dyke, Transportation Planning Manager
Kyle Ferstead, Commission Secretary
Suzanne Frick, Director of Planning / PCD
Sarah Lejeune, Associate Planner
Kevin McKeown, City Council Liaison
Barry Rosenbaum, Senior Land Use Attorney
Amanda Schachter, Principal Planner
4. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT:
Ms. Frick gave the Director's Report. She reported that on February 25, 2003, the
City Council extended the R-1 interim development standards until a permanent
revision can be approved; upheld the 1719 Ocean Front Walk appeal, including
permitting a one year extension for the project; and approved the Library Text
Amendment. On March 11, 2003, the City Council will be holding a public hearing
on extending the short-term rental housing ordinance. On April 8, 2003, the City
Council will be holding a public hearing on the McDonald's appeal.
Planning Commission Minutes
March 5, 2003
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Commissioner Hopkins made a motion to approve the minutes for February 5,
2003, as submitted. Commissioner Dad seconded the motion, which was approved
by voice vote.
6. STATEMENTS OF OFFICIAL ACTION: Consent Calendar
Commissioner Dad made a motion to approve the Statements of Official Action
(items 6-A, 6-B, 6-C, and 6-D) as submitted. Commissioner Hopkins seconded the
motion, which was approved by voice vote.
Appeal 02-009. 1450 Fifth Street
Conditional Use Permit 02-019 & Variance 02-017,3116 & 3120 Colorado Avenue
Development Review Permit 02-011. 808 Wilshire Boulevard
Development Review Permit 02-015, Conditional Use Permit 02-025. Variance 02-
002 and Text Amendment 02-008. 1343 Sixth Street
7. PUBLIC HEARING: Continued from February 19, 2003
Development Review Permit 02-010 and Environmental Impact Report 02-003,
1685 Main Street (Civic Center Parking Structurel. Application for Development
Review Permit 02DR-01 0 to permit the construction of a new 244,930-square foot
public parkinq structure of five levels above qrade with rooftop parkinq and one and
one-half levels of below qrade parkinq, accommodatinq a total of approximatelv 880
parkinq spaces with street-level leasable tenant spaces in the Civic Center District.
The Planninq Commission will also consider certification of the Final Environmental
Impact Report, which analvzes the environmental impacts of the proposed proiect,
and adoption of a Statement of Overridinq Considerations and Mitiqation and
Monitorinq Proqram for the proposed proiect. (Planner: Andv Aqle) APPLICANT I
PROPERTY OWNER: City of Santa Monica.
Prior to the staff report, the Commission made their ex parte comm~nication
disclosures for this project. Commissioner Olsen disclosed that following the
Commission meeting on February 19, 2003, and while still in the City Council
Chambers, he spoke with Councilmembers Genser and McKeown about whether an
observation deck was still part of the plans for the Civic Center Parking Structure.
Commissioner Olsen disclosed that the Councilmembers informed him that this item
was still under discussion with staff. Chair Clarke disclosed that he received a
telephone call from the Double Tree Hotel requesting information regarding
"process." He further disclosed that informed the caller to attend the public hearing.
Commissioners Dad, Hopkins and Johnson had nothing to disclose.
2
Planning Commission Minutes
March 5, 2003
Assistant Director Andy Agle gave the staff report.
Commissioner Hopkins asked if a water feature is still included in the project desi!~n.
Mr. Agle answered in the negative.
Commissioner Hopkins asked about a reference in the staff report to the City's
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) criteria. Mr. Agle explained that the
criteria is used to compete the Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
Commissioner Hopkins asked if the City's criteria exceeds State law requirements.
Ms. Frick stated that CEQA allows cities to establish criteria for "significant impact."
Commissioner Olsen asked about the proposed ground floor space on Fourth Street
and whether it will be retail or service oriented. Ms. Agle stated that the City has not
determined the use as of this date.
Commissioner Olsen asked if the proposed retail space will have appropriate
service entrances and amenities such as plumbing. Mr. Agle stated that there will be
public entrances to the spaces from Fourth Street and the parking structure,
however the interior space has not been designed. Ms. Frick added that the space
is proposed for either a single tenant or multiple tenants.
Commissioner Olsen asked if the use must be a "permitted use" in the Civic Center
Specific Plan (CCSP). Ms. Frick and Mr. Agle both replied in the affirmative.
Commissioner Olsen asked if the proposed retail space will have a loading and
servicing area. Mr. Agle stated that a van loading space is identified on the plans.
Commissioner Olsen expressed concern regarding the "Level of Service" (LOS)
cited and that this figure has not changed. Ms. Frick explained about traffic counts
for the area and stated the new traffic counts are in the process and will be coming
to the Commission in the spring.
Commissioner Dad asked why retail is being proposed forthis parking structure. Mr.
Agle stated that the use will help with pedestrian orientation by building a
relationship between the building and the sidewalk and will fulfill requirements of the
CCSP.
Commissioner Dad asked for the height of the new Public Safety Building and City
Hall. Mr. Agle stated that the Public Safety Building is 56 feet at the roof line and
City Hall is shorter.
Commissioner Dad asked when construction is proposed to start on the proposed
parking structure. Mr. Agle stated that the project must be reviewed by the
Architectural Review Board (ARB) and Coastal Commission prior to issuance of
building permits, therefore it is estimated that construction would begin by the end of
3
Planning Commission Minutes
March 5, 2003
J
2003.
'-.
,
Commissioner Dad asked how this project is related to the CCSP. Mr. Agle stated
that this project is a part of the existing CCSP and that the EIR process is just
starting for the update to the CCSP and it should be coming for Commission review
in the late summer or early autumn of 2003.
Commissioner Dad asked about the location of the storm drain. Mr. Agle referred to
map which shows the location of the existing storm drain beneath the project site.
Commissioner Dad asked why this structure is needed. Mr. Agle stated that current
CCSP calls for two parking structures to replace the existing surface parking 101 at
the Civic Auditorium and the purpose is to provide parking for City Hall, the Santa
Monica County Courthouse and Civic Auditorium.
Commissioner Dad asked for the number of parking spaces to be provided under
the existing CCSP. Mr. Agle stated that there are 1700 parking spaces.
Commissioner Johnson asked why there is a triangle of undeveloped area on the
south end of the structure on the subterranean level. Mr. Agle stated thatthere is no
way for vehicles to cross the storm drain to reach that area.
Commissioner Johnson expressed concern regarding ingress and egress of the
proposed parking structure. Ms. Frick stated that alternate locations for
ingress/egress were evaluated by the consultants. Mr. Agle stated that access from
Fourth Street, Civic Center Drive and Olympic Drive were not recommended as
such access would negatively impact traffic circulation in the area.
Commissioner Johnson asked what agency controls the storm drain. Mr. Agle
stated that the storm drain is controlled by CalTrans. Commissioner Johnson asked
if there are any plans to rehabilitate the storm drain. Mr. Agle stated that the City
reinforced the storm drain that runs under the new Public Safety Building and
expects that some reinforcement of this storm drain may be required.
Commissioner Johnson stated that he understands that the City does not protect
view corridors, however he expressed concern about the loss of views from the
Double Tree Hotel perthe renderings in the packet. Mr. Agle stated that public ViHW
sheds and corridors are protected, however private view sheds are not.
Commissioner Johnson asked how the project architect determined the effect of the
structure on the Double Tree Hotel. Mr. Agle stated that the building design was
carefully reviewed in terms of impact on adjacent structures. Ms. Frick stated that
the CCSP considered all adjacent developments when setting the height limit at 56
feet and that the Double Tree Hotel is the tallest building in the vicinity. Mr. Agle
added that the Double Tree Hotel is 25 feet taller than the proposed parking
structure.
4
Planning Commission Minutes
March 5, 200:J
Commissioner Johnson commented on the "absolutist" nature of the letter received
from Los Angeles County regarding the Courthouse.. Mr. Agle stated that many
issues in the letter have been addressed in the EIR and that there are on-going
discussions between City and County staff regarding the project. Commissioner
Johnson asked Mr. Agle if he is comfortable with the relationship between the two
agencies. Mr. Agle answered in the affirmative.
Commissioner Johnson asked about the photovoltaic cells, specifically about their
size and purpose. Mr. Agle stated that trellis' are required by the CCSP and the
photovoltaic cells are included to fulfill the City's Green Building Standards, as well
as being an opportunity for being innovative.
Commissioner Johnson asked if the building height includes the photovoltaic cells.
Mr. Agle stated that the trellis' added twelve feet to the overall height of the
structure.
Commissioner Johnson asked about the "drop down element" on the north side of
the structure. Mr. Agle deferred his question to the architect.
Chair Clarke asked if the height of the proposed building is the same as the Public
Safety Building. Mr. Agle stated that the buildings are essentially the same height,
except there is little or no mechanical equipment proposed for the parking structure.
Chair Clark asked if the proposed parking structure will have the same number of
floors as the downtown parking structures. Mr. Agle stated that the downtown
structures range in height from five to nine stories and the proposed structure falls
within that range.
Chair Clarke asked about the proposal by the Double Tree Hotel to remove the top
floor of the structure. Mr. Agle stated that the removal of the top floor would
compromise the CCSP as regarding parking needs. He further stated that currently
the Civic Center has parking for 1030 vehicles and the proposed structure will be for
880 parking spaces. Additionally, Mr. Agle stated that proposed structure meets the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) required for additional ceiling heights to
accommodate accessible vans.
Commissioner Olsen asked if one will be able to make a left hand turn from Olympic
Drive westbound to Avenida Mazatlan. Mr. Agle replied in the negative.
Commissioner Hopkins asked jfthere is a danger of loosing funding for the project if
the Statement of Overriding Considerations is not approved. Mr. Agle stated that he
is not aware of any such constraint, however the project is tied to the seismic
retrofitting .of downtown parking structures.
The applicant's representative, Assistant City Manager Gordon Anderson, was
5
Planning Commission Minutes
March 5, 2003
present to discuss the proposed project.
Commissioner Johnson asked Mr. Anderson if Avenida Mazatlan will be one-way.
Mr. Anderson stated that Avenida Mazatlan will be one-way in order to mitigate
anticipated traffic queuing problems, however it will also be two lanes wide.
Commissioner Johnson asked Mr. Anderson for the County's response to this
change. Mr. Anderson stated that the City has been meeting monthly with the
County since the early phases of the Public Safety Building and they have been
very cooperative. He further stated that the County's issues include security and
queuing into the parking structure.
Commissioner Johnson asked Mr. Anderson if the number of parking spaces
needed to accommodate employees and visitors to City Hall, the County
Courthouse and Public Safety Building was determined through a survey. Mr.
Anderson answered in the affirmative.
The City's architect, James O'Connor of Moore, Ruble, Yudell Architects and
Planners, described the proposed project in detail using a PowerPoint presentation.
Two members of the public submitted request to speak forms: Maureen Gorsen and
Craig Fajnor. Mr. Fajnor waived his time to speak in favor is Ms. Gorsen.
Commissioner Olsen asked Ms. Gorsen if she is aware of what occupied the Double
Tree Hotel site prior to the building of the hotel, specifically that it was a one-story
school district building, and that the construction of the hotel totally blocked air and
sunlight from an apartment building to the east of the hotel site. Ms. Gorsen stated
she was not aware of the history of the property.
Commissioner Hopkins asked Ms. Gorsen what her client is requesting the City
change about the project. Ms. Gorsen stated that her client would like to have the
structure reduced in height or stepped back so that afternoon sunlight will hit the
pool area of the hotel. She asserted that the proposed project will reduce the
property value of the hotel and the lower levels will be looking at a "streetwall."
Commissioner Olsen asked Ms. Gorsen if the current leasee, the Double Tree
Hotel, analyzed the effect of their building on the adjacent residential apartment
building, which is in shadow all day. Ms. Gorsen stated she did not know, however
there is no CEQA requirement to look at the built environment.
Chair Clarke asked Ms. Gorsen to summarize the specific changes her client would
like to see. Ms. Gorsen stated that parking structure is already authorized in the
CCSP, however she does not see a reason why a certain number of parking spaces
cannot be moved to another location to allow for a stepback on the top floor. She
also stated that the shadow impacts should be reexamined as they will support her
position that the proposed structure will negatively impact her client's building.
6
Planning Commission Minutes
March 5, 2003
Mr. Anderson spoke in response to the public comment.
Commissioner Dad asked wherePolice Department vehicles will park. Mr. Anderson
stated that they will park in the subterranean parking area for the Public Safety
Building. Mr. Anderson then introduced the structural designer for the parking
structure, Dirmali Botejue, with the firm International Parking Design, Inc.
Commissioner Olsen asked about the entrance to the parking structure. Ms. Botejue
stated that there is one dedicated lane each direction and one reversible lane.
Commissioner Olsen asked if the volume and peak demand times were studied for
the 880 parking spaces. Ms. Botejue stated that parking structures with 600-700
vehicle capacity require only one lane ingress/egress, however, an additional center
lane which will be reversible has been included in the design.
Mr. Anderson asked Ms. Botejue to comment on her qualifications. She responded
that she has designed over 300 parking structures and had received the National
Parking Design award. Mr. Agle stated that staff had requested the traffic consultant
do a queuing analysis based on all expected numbers, and the analysis shows that
the proposed access points would minimize queuing.
Commissioner Olsen commented on his concerns regarding the height and massing
of the proposed parking structure and asked about the new accessibility
requirements. Mr. Agle stated that van accessible spaces will be in the ground floor
level, however additional height is required for accessible parking on the upper
levels as well.
Commissioner Olsen asked Ms. Botejue if the structure is designed with the
minimum height required. Ms. Botejue answered in the affirmative.
Commissioner Olsen asked about an early proposal for a community room on the
top of the parking structure. Mr. Anderson stated that this was discussed with the
City Council, however the cost associated with the loss of parking spaces and extra
shoring required for such as use was deemed unacceptable. He further stated that
the community room issue was also of concern to the County Courthouse and
Dou ble Tree Hotel.
Commissioner Dad asked if a community room was not considered for the ground
floor retail space. Mr. Anderson stated that the size of the space required for a
community room is an issue and such a use would not enliven Fourth Street like a
retail space. He further stated that a community room may be included in another
part of the Civic Center or as part of the Big Blue Bus facility expansion.
Commissioner Hopkins asked how many parking spaces would be allotted to City
Hall staff. Mr. Anderson that this number has not been determined as the structure
7
Planning Commission Minutes
March 5, 2003
will be used first as replacement parking for downtown parking structures that are
being seismically retrofitted.
Commissioner Hopkins asked Ms. Botejue if the photovoltaic panels could be
moved away from the edge of the structure and if the traffic pattern on the roof
could be modified in order to allow for a stepback. Ms. Botejue stated that the trellis'
could be moved. Mr. O'Connor stated that the trellis' have been modified since the
model was created, however the driveway cannot be changed because it needs to
accommodate two lanes of traffic. Ms. Botejue added that conversion to compact
spaces is an option, however the City is requesting full size spaces.
Commissioner Hopkins asked if there are any other ways to stepback the top floor.
Ms. Botejue stated that the proposed structure is designed at Code minimums.
Commissioner Hopkins asked if parallel parking spaces would be an option. Ms.
Botejue stated this could be an option, however the spaces would need to be 26
feet deep instead of 18 feet deep. Mr. O'Connor stated that such a stepback
modification would not be perceivable from the street level.
Commissioner Hopkins asked if there is another way to reduce the shadow impacts
on the Double Tree Hotel. Mr. O'Connor stated that the shadow impact will not be a
great as predicted since the hotel faces northwest, not west.
Chair Clarke asked how the ground floor retail spaces will be accessed. Mr.
O'Connor stated that there will be entry from the south end, a mid-point entry and a
northern entry. He further stated that all spaces will have handicapped access.
Chair Clarke expressed concern that the design has concrete meeting concrete
along Fourth Street and suggested the addition of landscaping along the retail
spaces. Mr. O'Connor stated that the sidewalk is only ten feet wide and .the
Washingtonia Palm trees will be replaced with younger specimens. He also stated
that the proposed retail spaces will be pedestrian-oriented uses.
Chair Clarke commented that the addition of landscaping was done for the new
main library project and it improved the project. He stated that he wants landscaping
added because Fourth Street is "very hard" and hostile to pedestrians. Mr. Agle
stated that the CCSP required ground floor retail uses, however landscaping could
create a barrier between pedestrians and the ground floor uses. Chair Clarke
argued that landscaping would not be a barrier, it would be an enhancement. Mr.
Agle stated that this is an urban design approach that may not work for the Civic
Center. Ms. Frick commented that "one size doesn't fit all" and that landscaping
treatments that may be appropriate in one area may not be appropriate for an urban
area such as the Downtown and Civic Center. She suggested the Commission may
want to schedule a discussion with urban design specialists in the future. Chair
Clarke continued to stress his objection to the concrete-to-concrete or concrete-to-
glass connection.
8
Planning Commission M,inutes
March 5, 200:~
Chair Clarke asked about the trellis,' specifically which were decorative and which
were not. Mr. O'Connor explained the placement of the photovoltaic panels and the
trellis "gateway" to the Civic Center at the Olympic Drive and Fourth Street. He
stated that this gateway is designed of a light, translucent material and will be
illuminated at night.
Chair Clarke asked why the entire roof will be not be covered with the photovoltaic
panels. Mr. O'Connor stated that the purpose is to supply the electric power needed
to light the parking structure.
Commissioner Johnson commented that the south end of the structure is a very
valuable corner. Mr. O'Connor stated that there is no "backside" to the structure
,
however Olympic Drive is the focal point.
Commissioner Johnson asked if the upper basement level could be reconfigured to
include the 34 spaces from the top level. He suggested the use of the lower level
triangle. Ms. Botejue stated that the preliminary design had two full below grade
parking levels, however the location and depth of the storm drain has precluded this
design as the geometrics do not work to meet current standards. She assured the
Commission that every aspect and alternative was studied.
Commissioner Olsen asked about who will park in the upper basement and where
police vehicles will park. Ms. Botejue stated that Public Safety Building vehicles will
park in the 121 parking spaces on the upper basement level as will police and
detective vehicles.
Chair Clarke closed the public hearing. He invited the Commission to ask questions
of staff.
Commissioner Olsen asked staff to respond to the allegation that there was no
public scoping meeting for this project. Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum
stated that the claim mentioned was first raised in December 2002 and the City
Attorney has reviewed the claim and determined that the City complied with CEQA
in this matter.
In response to a question asked by Commissioner Hopkins regarding the whether a
scoping meeting was required, Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum cited the
Public Resources Code Section 21083.9, dated January 2002. He stated that this
EIR began prior to that date, therefore it does not apply to this project, and that the
project is not a statewide, regional or areawide project. He further stated that SCAG
agreed. Finally, Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum stated that the City Council
held a public hearing on this project in September 2002. Commissioner Hopkins
commented that counsel for the Double Tree Hotel asserts that a scoping meeting
is required by Coastal Commission. Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum stated
that this is an incorrect assertion.
9
Planning Commission Minutes
March 5, 2003
J
Commissioner Olsen asked staff to respond to the allegation of miscalculation df'
shadows and inaccurate street width measurements. Mr. Agle stated that the dr~ft
EIR used the figure 140 feet, which is from the edge of the proposed parking
structure to the edge of the hotel pool. He further stated that in the Response to
Comments, a new exhibit was proposed which shows a distance of 102 feet.
Chair Clarke asked staff to explain the process for voting. Ms. Frick stated that the
EIR needs to be certified prior to other motions.
Commissioner Olsen commented on the traffic counts in the EIR, which he feels are
inadequate. He cited the EIR figure of "LOS B" for Fourth Street. Senior Land Use
Attorney Rosenbaum acknowledged thatthe Commission has addressed this issue
before and stated that the traffic consultant has provided analysis as to why the
figures are accurate.
Chair Clarke commented that approval of the Statement of Overriding Consideration
acknowledges that Fourth Street may get worse, traffic-wise, it is part of the overall
CCSP. Commissioner Olsen stated that his concern is with the EIR. Senior Land
Use Attorney Rosenbaum agreed that the Statement of Overriding Consideration is
separate from the EIR and that the traffic consultant is available to speak to the
Commission's concerns.
Commissioner Dad asked staff if the EIR was not begun in June 2002. Mr. Agle
stated that there are several dates which could be used, however the date of the
Notice of Preparation is issued is another date which can be used, or the date the
contract with the consultant is signed, which was in 2001.
Commissioner Dad expressed her concern with the traffic figures used in the EIR.
She stated that the Master Environmental Assessment (MEA) has not been
adopted. She commented that the parking structure design is attractive, however
she can not vote to approve this project due to the inaccurate traffic data in the EIR.
She also took issue with the size and height of the structure and the "piecemeal"
approach use to approve the project. She expressed the opinion that the beach lots
should be used for downtown parking while those structures are retrofitted.
Mr. Agle stated for the record that the contract with the consultant was signed in
June 2001 and an internal scoping meeting was held soon thereafter.
Commissioner Dad stated again that the data is still inaccurate.
Commissioner Hopkins stated that she shares the concerns raised by other
Commissioners with regards to the integrity of the CEQA process. She expressed
the opinion that flawed methodologies were used and asked for a complete, clear
evaluation of the criteria. She expressed concerns about the miscalculations. She
concluded by saying that she does, however, like the design and complimented the
designer of the project.
10
Planning Commission Minutes
March 5, 200:3
Commissioner Johnson made a motion to certify the EIR. Chair Clarke seconded
the motion.
Commissioner Johnson commented on the references in the EIR that cited several
intersections, including Lincoln and Pico Boulevards and Fourth Street at the Santa
Monica Freeway as being at LOS "F." He expressed the opinion that the EIR is
reasonably accurate.
Commissioner Olsen pointed out that Table 4 in the EIR conflicts with the data cited
by Commissioner Johnson.
Chair Clarke asked if this project can be appealed to the City Council. Ms. Frick
answered in the affirmative.
Commissioner Hopkins asked if the project can be approved without certification of
the EIR. Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum answered in the negative.
Commissioner Johnson stated that if the Commission does not adopt the EIR, then
they loose their control over the project. He stated that this is a great project and
only requires minimal "tweaking."
Commissioner Hopkins expressed her concern that in her one plus years on the
Commission, EIRs have not improved. She also took issue with the shadow and
shading studies in the EIR.
Commissioner Johnson repeated that ifthe Commission denies the EIR, they loose
control of the project.
Commissioner Dad stated that there is no MEA in progress and maintained that the
traffic data is faulty. She stated that she has made exceptions for EIRs in other
parts of the City, but the Civic Center area is highly impacted by traffic. She
commented that it is okay if the project goes to the City Council on appeal. She also
commented that a good design has been presented and she is not compelled to
design projects. Lastly, Commissioner Dad stated that she is voting against the
project because of the faulty data presented in the EIR.
Commissioner Hopkins asked that the EIR and Statement of Overriding
Consideration be put off until a new shade/shadow study can be done. She noted
for the record that the architect has offered to do such a study. Chair Clarke
reminded Commissioner Hopkins that the project cannot be approved until the EIR
is certified. Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum stated that based on State law,
this is a legally defensible EIR, however ifthe Commission feels the document is not
legally adequate, then they should not certify it.
Commissioner Hopkins asked that the EIR be sent back for "tweaking." Ms. Frick
stated that th_e EIR is adequate and it is the applicant who decides whether the
11
Planning Commission Minutes
March 5, 200~1
project should be continued.
Commissioner Olsen commented on the shadow study issue and how the Double
Tree Hotel itself overshadows an old apartment building. He also commented that
the shadow study shown by the hotel's representative shows the sun setting in the
south.
Chair Clarke commented on the parking structure massing and shadow that will be
produced by the trellises. He also commented on the need for sidewalk level
landscaping. He then complimented the overall building design.
Commissioner Dad expressed appreciation for the comments made by
Commissioner Olsen regarding the irony of buildings and shadows. She stated that
the new parking structure will add to the problem of canyonization in the downtown
area and it may detract hotel guests, which should not matter except that the hotel
generates revenues for the school district.
When the roll call vote was taken to certify the EIR, Commissioners Olsen and
Hopkins abstained, which resulted in a technical denial. However, Commissioner
Olsen changed his vote to "aye," then Commissioner Hopkins followed suit. Ms.
Frick stated she did not need to explain her change of vote.
The EIR was certified by the following final vote:
AYES: Clarke, Hopkins, Johnson, Olsen; NOES: Dad; ABSENT: Brown, Moyle.
Commissioner Johnson made a motion to adopt a resolution for the Statement of
Overriding Consideration and Mitigation Monitoring Program. Chair Clarke
seconded the motion.
The Statement of Overriding Consideration and Mitigation Monitoring Program were
adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Clarke, Hopkins, Johnson, Olsen; NOES: Dad; ABSENT: Brown, Moyle.
Chair Clarke asked the Commission if they wished to continue this item for redesign
or asked the Architectural Review Board (ARB) to review for specific issues.
Commissioner Johnson asked that the following areas be addressed: the trellis
along Fourth Street be moved inward; the landscaping be added along Fourth
Street; and the Civic Center Drive side have a "gateway quality" like the Olympic
Drive side.
Commissioner Olsen conceded that the areas cited by Commissioner Johnson
appear to be ARB issues.
Commissioner Hopkins requested further study of a top floor stepback and impacts
of a reduction in the number of parking spaces displaced by such a stepback.
1:2
'!
Planning Commission Minutes
March 5, 200~1
Commissioner Olsen stated that this would be more than an ARB issue.
Commissioner Hopkins stated that this request is consistent with her continuing
concern regarding canyonization.
Commissioner Olsen commented that Commissioner Dad had made good points
about Fourth Street with regards to height of new and current buildings and other
tall buildings in the CCSP, including the new RAND project. He stated thatthis is not
the same as has occurred on Fifth and Sixth Streets, with massive new apartment
buildings on both sides of the street. He stated that the issue is pedestrian traffic on
Fourth Street versus the amount of open space in the Civic Center. Lastly, he askE!d
the Commission to look at this project in the context of the CCSP and as a benefit.
Commissioner Dad argued that the parking structure is not being considered as part
of the whole CCSP, but as an individual project. She conceded that there are tall
buildings on both sides of Fourth Street. However, she stated that the City has not
presented evidence that it needs this amount of parking spaces requested. She
commented that the City does need more parking, however this project does also
impair view corridors.
Commissioner Olsen asked Commissioner Dad if she supports the project.
Commissioner Dad stated she does not support the project because the EIR does
not comply.
Commissioner Olsen commented that the number of parking spaces in the
proposed parking structure are not justified in the staff report. Assistant City
Manager Gordon Anderson stated that he is not confident that the proposed
stepback would take away only 34 parking spaces. He also stated thatthe proposed
parking structure is part of the CCSP process for both current and proposed uses.
Ms. Frick stated that the parking calculations are part of the existing CCSP and will
be part of the revised CCSP. Mr. Agle added that the parking calculations for
ground floor uses is in the staff report and that the parking structure will replace
current parking in the Civic Center.
Commissioner Dad asked ifthe calculations have changed. Mr. Agle stated that the
calculations are being revised for the CCSP update. Ms. Frick stated that there is no
question that the proposed parking structure meets the parking needs for the CCSP.
Chair Clarke made a motion to approve the Development Review application with
ARB review of the following: the moving of the trellis away from Fourth Street;
massing and shadow; pedestrian scale landscaping along Fourth Street; and a
gateway feature on the southside of the structure.
Commissioner Johnson made motion to continue the project for redesign for the
following issues: that the fifth floor be setback from Fourth Street; for all the ARB
issues cited in Chair Clarke's motion; and that all awnings be redesigned to be more
creative.
13
Planning Commission Minutes
March 5, 2003:
Commissioner Hopkins seconded the motion.
Chair Clark asked Commissioner Johnson how far the setback should be.
Commissioner Johnson suggested 15-20 feet.
Ms. Frick reminded the Commission that the applicant needs to agree to a
continuance.
Commissioner Olsen asked Mr. Anderson if he is inclined to ask for a vote or modify
the design. Mr. Anderson stated that he wants a vote.
Commissioner Olsen asked Mr. Anderson if he is not interested in redesigning the
parking structure. Mr. Anderson stated he is not interested in a continuance.
Commissioner Olsen commented that anyone can appeal an ARB decision, which
would leave final approval with the Commission.
Commissioner Johnson withdrew his motion. He then made a new motion to
approve the project with the following conditions: that the ARB consider redesign of
the awnings; moving the rooftop trellis; the addition of landscaping along Fourth
Street; adding a gateway feature to the Civic Center Drive fac;ade; and setting back
the fifth floor on the eastside.
Commissioner Hopkins seconded the motion,
Commissioner Olsen asked Mr. Anderson if the ARB conditions were acceptable.
Mr. Anderson stated that this is an important project to the City Council and it can
be appealed to the City Council.
Commissioner Johnson expressed his resentment of the comments made by Mr.
Anderson.
Mr. Anderson stated that he would accept approval as submitted, but expressed the
opinion that the conditions are beyond the ARB's purview.
Commissioner Olsen commented that the Commission is the "last word" on ARB
appeals.
The motion for approval of the Development Review application was approved by
the following vote:
AYES: Clarke, Hopkins, Johnson, Olsen; NOES: Dad; ABSENT: Brown, Moyle.
[The Commission took a break from approximately 11 :20 p.m. to 11 :42 p.m.]
8. PUBLIC HEARING:
14
Planning Commission Minutes
March 5, 2003
8-A. Desi~m Compatibility Permit 02DCP-009 and VestinQ Tentative Tract Mal,Q
02TM-009 (VTTM 53666), 1243 Franklin Street. Application for a Desiqn
Compatibilitv Permit and a Vestinq Tentative Tract Map to allow the construction of
a new two-stOry. five-unit condominium buildinq with eleven subterranean parkiqg
spaces located at 1243 Franklin Street in the R-2 Low Densitv Multiple Residential
District, North of Wilshire. rPlanner: Sarah Leieunel APPLICANT: Apex DesiQn
Builders Inc. PROPERTY OWNER: Thomas and MavlinQ Yu.
The Commission had no disclosures to make for this project.
Associate Planner Sarah Lejeune gave the staff report.
Commissioner Olsen asked about .the staff report's recommendation for denial
versus the oral staff report recommenation. Ms. Lejeune stated that at the time the
staff report was written the applicant had not agreed to an extension.
Commissioner Olsen asked about the supplement staff report. Ms. Lejeune stat€~d
that the supplement staff report findings are based on the changes to the Tract Map
and corrected plans received following issuance of the staff report.
Commissioner Olsen asked about the status of the continuance. Ms. Lejeune stated
that the applicant's attorney has agreed to a continuance for redesign.
The applicant's team consisted of attorney Kenneth Kutcher, architect Paul Essick,
a representative of Apex Design Builders and the landscape architect Greg
Mesenholder. They made a presentation on the proposed condominium project.
Chair Clarke announced that no members of the public had submitted request to
speak forms.
Commissioner Hopkins asked about the neighborhood context and the proposal for
a sunken front yard. Ms. Lejeune stated that the proposed front yard design is not
compatible with the neighborhood as other properties have street level yards.
Chair Clarke asked the architect about the placement of the front door for the front
unit. Mr. Essick explained the design.
Chair Clarke commented that in R2 districts, buildings should be visually two stories
in height, but this design with the mezzanine presents the appearance of three
stories. Mr. Essick stated that reapportioning the windows could be studied.
Commissioner Johnson expressed his desire for a two-story look as well as the
elimination ofthe depressed front yard. He also asked for the elimination ofthe gate
on the left side of the rendering and the removal of the block wall.
15
Planning Commission Minutes
March 5, 200:3
Commissioner Olsen concurred with Commissioner Johnson. He also stated t~at
the front door of the front unit should be oriented toward the street. He commented
that the gate is not a pedestrian amenity.
Commissioner Hopkins expressed her agreement with the comments made by
Commissioner Johnson. She stated that the sunken front yard must be changed
Commissioner Dad expressed agreement with the other Commissioners. She asked
that the front barrier be removed for better pedestrian orientation.
Chair Clarke thanked staff for understanding the Commission's concerns.
Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum stated that the applicant needs to make a
statement to extend the Permit Streamlining Act deadline.
Commissioner Hopkins commented that roof decks are bad for the neighborhood.
Commissioner Johnson stated that he is disturbed by roof decks and the problems
they create.
Chair Clarke asked the applicant to address the Commission.
Mr. Kenneth Kutcher stated that the architect indicates he has sufficient direction for
redesign. He further stated that the applicant agrees to extend the Permit
Streamlining Act deadline by 75 days.
Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum cited the code section referenced by Mr.
Kutcher and explained that it does not apply for this case as there is no adverse
impact of public health and safety.
Staff offered a hearing date of May 21, 2003. Mr. Kutcher was agreeable to that
date and extending the Permit Streamlining Act deadline to May 22, 2003.
Commissioner Johnson made a motion to continue this project for redesign to May
21,2003. Commissioner Olsen seconded the motion.
Commissioner Hopkins restated her concerns as follows: raising up the front yard;
stepbacks on the northside; no roof decks; no gate or tall walls on the left side or
front yard; front door of front unit oriented toward street. She also asked that the
"Spanish" style be more authentically articulated.
The motion to continued was approved by the following vote:
AYES: Clarke, Dad, Hopkins, Johnson, Olsen; ABSENT: Brown, Moyle.
9. DISCUSSION: Continued Items
Public Input Permitted
16
\.
Planning Commission Minutes
March 5, 200:1
Request of Commissioners Johnson and Olsen for the Commission to discuss and
adopt a policv of prohibitinq ex parte meetinqs and other forms of lobbviqg
Commissioners bv interested parties outside of public view for Quasi-judicial items
that appear before the Commission. to establish rules and procedures for the
transmittal of written materials and e-mails from interested parties reqardinq Quasi-
iudicial items and qive direction to staff to prepare lanquaqe to amend the
Commission rules to carry out these policies. Requested via e-mail on Auqust 27.
2002. rContinued from October 9.2002.1
ACTION: Continued.
Discussion on appropriate scope. areas and subiects of analvsis to be undertakinq
bv the Master Environmental Assessment (MEA). Requested bv Commissioner
Hopkins via e-mail on October 10. 2002. rContinued from November 6.1
ACTION: Continued.
Discussion on the procedure for public appeal of an Administrative Approval and for
initiation of an Administrative Approval Revocation HearinQ. Requested by
Commissioners Brown. Hopkins and Johnson on November 20.2002. rContinued
from December 6. 2002.1
ACTION: Continued.
Request bv Commissioners Brown and Hopkins to discuss possible text
amendment to expand criteria for revocation of administrative approvals. to add
public notification and to add public appeal procedures. Requested bv
Commissioner Hopkins via e-mail on November 27. 2002.
ACTION: Continued.
Request bv Commissioner Hopkins to direct staff to prepare a Resolution of
Intention to rezone the existinq pocket parks alonq Ocean Park Boulevard to
Desiqnated Parks Districts. Requested on January 8. 2003.
ACTION: Continued.
Request to set a date for a public hearinQ to hear from staff about the status of the
Housinq Element, what is expected from the City of Santa Monica bv the State in
reqards to housinq production. what is beinq done bv other communities. how Santa
Monica compares and the option that the City has. to discuss if there are any
means available to fulfill the State requirements without rezoninQ the sinqle familv
R1 districts to allow apartments and condominiums and to hear from the public
about such rezoninq. Requested bv Commissioner Olsen via e-mail on January 28.
2003.
17
Planning Commission Minutes
March 5, 20ml
ACTION: Continued.
To discuss the merits and practicality of initiatinq a text amendment to eliminate the
siqn code and all rules and requlations related to siqns. Requested bv
Commissioner Olsen via e-mail on January 28. 2003.
ACTION: Continued.
Request of Commissioners Brown and Hopkins to direct staff to add a standinq
aQenda consent calendar subsection: Requests for Information. Requested via e-
mail on January 30.2003.
ACTION: Continued.
FUTURE COMMISSION AGENDA ITEMS: None.
PUBLIC INPUT: None.
12. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at approximately 12:40 a.m. on
Thursday, March 6, 2003.
18