SR-402-010 (11)
.
.
1.-2 -B
tj{)~'-DIO
.J 1\ tJ r, ~r.l'ln
JA1~ } ~ ':~j'O
Santa Monica, California
C/ED:PB:DKW:WW
council Mtg: January 9, 1990
elL!
TO: Mayor and City council
FROM: city staff
SUBJECT: Appeal of Planning commission Requirement that Imposed
a Two and Three story Height Limit as a Condition of
Approval for Development of a Commercial project
Consisting of Ground Floor Retail and Service station
Uses and Second and Third Floor Office Uses Constructed
Over a Subterranean Parking Garage Located at 800
Wilshire Boulevard. Applicant: Wilshire Lincoln
Properties. Appellant: Mike Marino for Wilshire
Lincoln Properties.
INTRODUCTION
This report recommends that the City Council either remand the
proposed project back to the Planning Commission for review of a
revised proposal which does not exceed the site review thresholds
or uphold the Planning Commission's certification of EIR 884 and
approval of DR 467 and VAR 5423 that imposed a two and three
story height limit as a condition of approval for construction of
a mixed commercial development at 800 Wilshire Boulevard. (See
Exh ib it II A ") .
The originally proposed site review project
consisted of a 104,853 square foot, four to six story commercial
building and relocated service station constructed on a 37,500
square foot parcel site.
On July 5, 1989, the Planning
commission voted 4-2 to approve the project subject to a two to
three story height limit that would permit a maximum of 75,000
square feet.
Mike Marino appealed the Commission action on
behalf of Wilshire Lincoln properties. (See Exhibit "B").
- 1 -
~-8
M ] :1~O
JAt-J 1 ~5 19110
.
.
BACKGROUND
On July 5, 1989, the Planning Commission reviewed the applicant's
site review proposal to permit development of a four to six story
variegated office building with ground floor retail and relocated
service station uses on a 37,500 square foot parcel of land
located at the southeast corner of Wilshire and Lincoln
Boulevards. Existing site uses consist of a one story service
station/repair facility, a one story commercial office building
and a car leasing/rental agency. The site was zoned C4 under
former zoning Code standards that apply to the proposal which is
located in the Wilshire corridor and Lincoln-North Land Use
Districts. The project applications were filed on April 21,
1985 and therefore require review under Ordinance 1321 (CCS).
Under Ordinance 1321 a 2.5 FAR, 56 foot building height may be
constructed by right in the Wilshire Corridor District and a 2.0
FAR, 45 foot building height may be constructed in the Lincoln
North District. with approval of site review, a 3.0 FAR/S4 ft.
height may be permitted in the Wilshire Corridor and a 2.5 FAR/56
ft. height may be permitted in the Lincoln North District.
The proposed project includes a 3.0 FAR/82 foot building height
in the Wilshire Corridor and a 2.5 FAR/56 foot building height in
the Lincoln North District and is therefore subject to site re-
view approval.
Development Review is also required under Ordinance 1321(CCS) to
permit the relocation of the existing eight pump service station
- 2 -
.
.
with repair use from the northwest corner of the site to the
southeast corner of the site.
The relocated service station
will run parallel to a 20 foot wide alley that separates the site
from residential and commercial uses located to the east. The
Enviromnental Impact Report prepared by Cotton Beland for the
project concluded that when mitigated, the project will not
result in significant adverse impacts. Planning staff determined
that site review approval of a four to six story building had not
been adequately justified by the applicant and recommended ap-
proval of a 5 storyj2.5 FAR development in the Wilshire Corridor
reduced to a three storyj2.0 FAR development in the Lincoln North
District. Planning staff recommended a maximum of 82,500 square
feet of commercial floor area. The staff also recommended the
elimination of subterranean garage ingress and egress from the
abutting 20 foot wide alley and to require exclusive vehicle ac-
cess from the Lincoln Boulevard frontage.
The Planning Commission denied the applicant's site review
request to permit a four to six story, 104,853 sq. ft. building,
modified the staff report recommendation to permit a three to
five story, 82,500 sq. ft. building, and voted to instead grant a
development review permit for the construction of a two to three
story, 75,000 sq. ft. building.
The Commission action requires
that the modified proposal reflect the following revisions:
a. Redesign the building to reduce the perceived mass
and to increase articulation;
b. Limit the building height to 3 stories/45 feet along
Wilshire Boulevard and 2 stories/30 feet along Lincoln
Boulevard;
- 3 -
.
.
c. Relocate the service station facility closer to the
Wilshire Boulevard frontage;
d. Provide all vehicle access from adjacent arterial
streets (Wilshire/Lincoln);
e. Limit the FAR along Wilshire to 2.0 and along Lincoln
to 2.0;
f. Retain an interior courtyard;
g. Require further Planning Commission review of the
project prior to Architectural Review Board application
submittal to determine consistency with required design
modifications.
In addition, the COTTlmission deleted a condition reflecting the
applicant1s offer to provide: 1) minimal cost parking for evening
and holiday visitors utilizing Miles Playhouse in Lincoln Park;
2) a minimum $250,000.00 in-kind financial contribution to
renovate Miles Playhouse; 3) the provision of neighborhood
oriented retail stores and; 4) sponsorship or funding of one
annual symphony event per year for the next five years.
On July lS, 1989, Mike Marino, the project representative
appealed the Planning commission action indicating that liThe
Planning Commissionls decision is contrary to applicable general
plan policies and zoning regulations and results in an infeasible
and uneconomic project which will prevent the provision of
substantial benefits to the City."
On December 13, 1989, David Hibbert, the project architect
submitted revised site plan, floor plan and elevation drawings
that show a four story, 80,597 square foot (74,994 sq. ft.
adjusted) building that consists of a ground floor office and
retail uses, second, third and fourth floor office uses and a
ground floor service station use constructed over a subterranean
- 4 -
.
.
parking garage. The retail floor area has been reduced to cover
less than 10% of the ground floor uses. The setback between the
service station and the rear 20 foot wide alley has been reduced.
Alley access to the service station has been eliminated with
traffic egress provided from Lincoln Boulevard. Alley access is
still provided to the site's loading zone spaces. In an
accompanying letter, the project architect indicated the plan
approved by the Planning Commission "simply could not be built",
and that the 2.0 FAR imposed by the Commission as a condition
would result in leasing depths that are impractical and will not
match up to the standard of recently approved buildings in the
downtown area. (See Exhibit "C").
ANALYSIS
Site review is considered a "bonus" zoning provision under the
Land Use Element that requires the Planning Commission, or City
Council on appeal, make findings that the location, size and uses
of a specific site review project is compatible with surrounding
neighborhood development, that rights-of-way can accommodate
projected traffic, and that the project is generally consistent
with the Municipal Code and General Plan. While formal site
review criteria have not been adopted by the city, the Planning
commission has recently suggested that in order that a project be
considered for the site review bonus, the project must provide
outstanding public amenities, mitigation, and design elements
that directly balance the added impacts or increased height and
FAR.
- 5 -
.
.
The Planning Commission determined that while the proposed
project contained design elements that included an interior
landscaped courtyard, generous landscaped setbacks, provision of
parking spaces in excess of the code requirement, preservation
and modernization of the service station use, and incorporation
of extensive architectural design elements, findings could not be
made to indicate the location, size and use of the building and
service station as proposed by the applicant would be compatible
with the surrounding mixed neighborhood. The Commission
determined that the design elements and amenities did not: 1)
adequately balance or address the perceived mass and scale of the
four to six story building in a neighborhood dominated by two and
three story structures, and 2) did not directly serve to benefit
the general public. The Commission determined the development
of an interior courtyard that would serve to primarily benefit
employees of the development, the preservation of the older
service station adjacent to low-scale residential uses, limited
building articulation, the proposed mass and scale and other
development features shown adjacent to low-scale residential uses
did not adequately mitigate traffic, shade and shadow and related
impacts discussed in the Environmental Impact Report. The two to
three story, 75,000 sq.ft., building would more effectively
reduce traffic and shade and shadow impacts identified by the
Planning Commission during the public hearing.
Under Ordinance 1321 development review guidelines, the Planning
Commission is given authority to impose conditions and modify a
proposal in order to mitigate adverse impacts associated with
- 6 -
.
.
development. The reduction of building height to two and three
stories, reducing FAR to 2.0 overall, restricting ingress and
egress, relocating the service station to the front of the site
and redesigning the building to reduce mass and increase
articulation are mitigation measures that fall within the
discretionary purview of the Commission.
The revised three to four story alternate building proposal
submitted by the project architect on December 13, 1989, has not
received review as part of the public hearing process. The
revised building plans were accompanied by a shade and shadow
analysis that provides a comparison of worst-case shadow impacts
for a three to four story building and a two to three story
building on adjoining buildings. The shadow analysis indicates
that a two to three story building that covers the entire 37,500
sq. ft. site will project shadow lengths similar to a three to
four story building that covers 2/3 of the site. However, since
different building footprints and configurations were used to
measure shadow lengths for the three to four story building and
the two to three story building, the actual shadow lengths of a
two to three story building that contains the same footprint and
configuration of the three to four story building may be
substantially reduced.
An independent traffic study conducted by Linscott, Law and
Greenspan Engineers to accompany the revised architectural plans
indicates that traffic volumes and impacts for the revised three
to four story project will be significantly less than the
originally proposed four to six story proj ect. However, since
- 7 -
.
.
the proposal reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission did
not include ground floor office uses, and revised plans show a
majority of ground floor office uses, the staff feels that the
traffic analysis does not accurately reflect the proposal
approved by the Planning Commission. The development parameters
and mix of uses have changed from the project conceptually
approved by the Planning Commission.
In addition, during the July 5, 1989 Planning Commission hearing,
several Commission members and members of the public expressed a
desire to retain pedestrian oriented ground floor retail uses
along the Wilshire Boulevard and Lincoln Boulevard frontages.
(See Exhibit "DII). The revised proposal does not reflect the
ground floor use preferred by the Commission.
The proj ect architect representing the applicant has requested
that the revised three to four story project be remanded back to
the Planning Commission for further consideration. On July 5,
1989, the Planning Commission determined that a building that
exceeded two to three stories would be unacceptable for
development on the site. The three to four story proposal
submi tted by the proj ect architect does not completely address
development concerns expressed by the Planning Commission during
the public hearing. Thus, staff does not feel that the City
Council should approve the revised three to four story building
as proposed.
The Planning staff believes that the 37,500 square foot parcel
contains adequate lot area and parcel depth to accommodate the
- 8 -
.
.
development of a two to three story mixed commercial building and
service station with adequate articulation and design features
that are compatible with surrounding neighborhood development.
The modified building plans submitted by the proj ect architect
show an up to four story, 75,000 square foot building area which
will increase the perceived mass over the three story height
limit required by the Planning Commission. The Planning staff
believes that the revised plans submitted by the project
architect on December 13, 1989 do not fully address the concerns
expressed by the Planning Commission during the public hearing.
The FAR, height and square footage restrictions imposed as
conditions by the Planning Commission are within amounts
specified in the Zoning Ordinance and under the General Plan.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT
The recommendation presented in this report has no budget and/or
financial impacts.
RECOMMENDATION
Planning staff had originally recommended a project of 5 stories,
2.5 FAR on Wilshire and 3 stories, 2.0 FAR on Lincoln. This
recommendation was based on the lack of amenities to justify the
II bonus II FAR and height under site review and identified
environmental effects. The Planning commission went beyond
staff's recommendation and approved a project which is less than
the FAR and height limits permitted without site review. The
applicant/appellant has proposed a revised plan of four and three
stories. This alternative has not had benefit of commission
- 9 -
.
.
review and full environmental documentation although the larger
original proposal was reviewed in an EIR in which a smaller
project was considered as an alternative.
At this juncture, staff recommends either:
l) remanding the
project to the Planning Commission for a full analysis of the
revised three to four story proposal that includes public review
and evaluation of a traffic study for the revised proposal or, 2)
upholding the Planning Commission's action by approving the two
to three story project approved by the Planning Commission.
However, under either scenario, staff does not recommend
exceeding the site review thresholds that pertain to the
development site.
If the Council is not of a mind to approve a larger project than
that approved by the Commission, staff then recommends denial of
the appeal subject to the findings and conditions in the
Commission's actions.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FINDINGS
1. With the project modifications and conditions approved by
the Commission, the physical location, size, massing, and
placement of proposed structures on the site and the loca-
tion of proposed uses within the project are compatible
with and relate harmoniously to surrounding sites and
neighborhoods, in that the building is located on Wilshire
Boulevard, which is characterized by a range of commercial
development, including office buildings with similar
building heights as approved by the Commission; and that
the proposed development, wi th its three-story height,
will step down along Lincoln Boulevard and along the alley
elevation, will provide an adequate amount of landscaping,
and provide an appropriate transition between the commer-
cially-zoned land on wilshire and Lincoln Boulevards and
the residentially-zoned land to the east on Ninth Street.
2 . The rights-of-way can accommodate autos and pedestrians,
including parking and access, in that the site design
will provide adequate driveway and parking facilities and
- 10 -
.
.
the site is adjacent to two improved streets: Wilshire
and Lincoln Boulevard.
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 project is
proposed to be an in-fill of an already developed area
with all necessary services and infrastructure already in
place.
4. Anyon-site provision of housing or parks and public open
space, which are part of the required project mitigation
measures required in Subchapter SG of the City of Santa
Monica Comprehensive Land Use and Zoning Ordinance, satis-
factorily meet the goals of the mitigation program, in
that the project will be required to comply with the re-
quirements of this program.
5. The proj ect is generally consistent with the Municipal
Code and General Plan, in that the project as conditioned
is designed to meet all code and General Plan require-
ments, with the exception of the required parking
variance.
6. Reasonable mitigation measures have been included for all
adverse impacts identified in an Initial Study or Environ-
mental Impact Report, in that all reasonable mitigation
measures recommended by the EIR have been included as con-
ditions of approval for the project.
VARIANCE FINDINGS
1. There are special circumstances or exceptional charac-
teristics applicable to the property involved, including
size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, or to
the intended use or development of the property that do
not apply to other properties in the vicinity under an
identical zoning classification, in that the number of on-
site parking spaces exceeds the code requirement and the
inclusion of compact and tandem parking spaces will not
detrimentally affect the circulation and parking patterns
of the project.
2. The granting of such variance will not be detrimental or
injurious to the property or improvements in the general
vicinity and district in which the property is located, in
that similar proj ects in the past have utilized compact
and tandem parking with no significant impact on circula-
tion patterns or neighboring properties and that provided
parking is in excess of that required.
3. The strict application of the provisions of this Chapter
would result in practical difficulties or unnecessary
hardships, not including economic difficulties or economic
hardships, in that past projects have incorporated compact
and tandem parking spaces with no significant impacts and
- 11 -
.
.
the total number of parking spaces provided exceeds the
required number.
4. The granting of a variance will not be contrary to or in
conflict with the general purposes and intent of this
Chapter, or to the goals, objectives, and policies of the
General Plan, in that the project as conditioned is con-
sistent with the General Plan.
5. The variance would not impair the integrity and character
of the district in which it is to be located, in that more
parking than is required will be provided and the variance
will not affect the appearance of the project.
6. The subject site is physically suitable for the proposed
variance, in that it is a recycling of commercial land
with the provision of adequate access and circulation.
7. There are adequate provisions for water, sanitation, and
public utilities and services to ensure that the proposed
variance would not be detrimental to public health and
safety, in that the project is an in-fill in a developed
area with all necessary improvements.
8. There will be adequate provisions for public access to
serve the subject variance proposal, in that adequate
driveways will be provided and pedestrian sidewalks are in
existence.
9. The strict application of the prov~s~ons of Chapter 10 of
the City of Santa Monica Comprehensive Land Use and Zoning
Ordinance would result in unreasonable deprivation of the
use or enjoyment of the property, in that similar varian-
ces have been granted in the past which have not created
any deleterious effects and parking is provided for the
project in excess of that required.
CONDITIONS
Plans
1. This approval is for those plans dated November 15, 1988,
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 Chap-
ter 1, Article IX of the Municipal Code, (Zoning Or-
dinance) and all other pertinent ordinances and General
Plan policies of the City of Santa Monica.
3. Final parking lot layout and specifications shall be sub-
ject to the review and approval of the Parking and Traffic
Engineer.
- 12 -
.
.
4. Minor amendments to the plans shall be subject to approval
by the Director of Planning. A significant change in the
approved concept shall be subject to Planning Commission
Review. Construction shall be in conformance with the
plans submitted or as modified by the Planning Commission,
Architectural Review Board or Director of Planning.
5. Plans for final design, landscaping, screening, trash en-
closures, and signage shall be subject to review and ap-
proval by the Architectural Review Board.
6. The Architectural Review Board, in its review, shall pay
particular attention to the project's pedestrian orienta-
tion and amenities; scale and articulation of design ele-
ments; exterior colors, textures and materials; window
treatment; glazing; and landscaping.
Fees
7. The City is contemplating the adoption of a Transportation
Management Plan which is intended to mitigate traffic and
air quality impacts resulting from both new and existing
development. The Plan will likely include an ordinance
establishing mitigation requirements, including one-time
payment of fees on certain types of new development, and
annual fees to be paid by certain types of employers in
the city. This ordinance may require that the owner of
the proposed project pay such new development fees, and
that employers within the project pay such new annual em-
ployer fees related to the City'S Transportation Manage-
ment Plan.
Demolition
8. Until such time as the demolition is undertaken, and un-
less the structure is currently in use, the existing
structures shall be maintained and secured by boarding up
all openings, erecting a security fence, and removing all
debris, bushes and planting that inhibit the easy surveil-
lance of the property to the satisfaction of the Building
and Safety Officer and the Fire Department. Any landscap-
ing material remaining shall be watered and maintained
until demolition occurs.
9. Unless otherwise approved by the Recreation and Parks De-
partment and the Planning Division, at the time of demoli-
tion, any street trees shall be protected from damage,
death, or removal per the requirements of Ordinance 1242
(CCS).
10. Immediately after demolition (and during construction), a
security fence, the height of which shall be the maximum
permitted by the Zoning Ordinance, shall be maintained
around the perimeter of the lot. The lot shall be kept
clear of all trash, weeds, etc.
- 13 -
.
.
11. 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.
Construction
12. Unless otherwise approved by the Department of General
Services, all sidewalks shall be kept clear and passable
during the grading and construction phase of the project.
13. Sidewalks, curbs, gutters, paving and driveways which need
replacing or removal as a result of the project as deter-
mined by the Department of General Services shall be re-
constructed to the satisfaction of the Department of
General Services. Approval for this work shall be ob-
tained from the Department of General Services prior to
issuance of the building permits.
14. 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.
15. street trees shall be maintained, relocated or provided as
required in a manner consistent with the City'S Tree Code
Cord. 1242 CCS), per the specifications of the Department
of Recreation and Parks and the Department of General Ser-
vices. No street tree shall be removed without the ap-
proval of the Department of Recreation and Parks.
16. A construction period mitigation plan shall be prepared by
the appl icant for approval by the Department of General
Services prior to issuance of a building permit. As ap-
plicable, this plan shall I) Specify the names, addresses,
telephone numbers and business license numbers of all con-
tractors and subcontractors as well as the developer and
architect; 2) Describe how demolition of any existing
structures is to be accomplished; 3) Indicate where any
cranes are to be located for erection/construction; 4 )
Describe how much of the pUblic street, alleyway, or side-
walk is proposed to be used in conjunction with construc-
tion; 5) Set forth the extent and nature of any pile-
driving operations; 6) Describe the length and number of
any tiebacks which must extend under the property of other
persons; 7) Specify the nature and extent of any dewater-
ing and its effect on any adjacent buildings; 8) Describe
anticipated contruction-related truck routes, number of
truck trips, hours of hauling and parking location: 9)
Specify the nature and extent of any helicopter hauling;
10) state whether any construction activity beyond normal-
ly permitted hours is proposed: 11) Describe any proposed
construction noise mitigation measures; 12) Describe con-
struction-period security measures including any fencing,
lighting, and security personnel: 13) Provide a drainage
plan; 14) Provide a construction-period parking plan
- 14 -
.
.
which shall minimize use of public streets for parking;
15) List a designated on-site construction manager.
17. A sign shall be posted on the property in a manner consis-
tent with the public hearing sign requirements which shall
identify the address and phone number of the 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.
18. A copy of these conditions shall be posted in an easily
visible and accessible location at all times during con-
struction at the project site. The pages shall be lami-
nated or otherwise protected to ensure durability of the
copy.
Environmental Mitigation
19. 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 shower head.)
20. Prior to issuance of a certificate of Occupancy, project
owner shall present documentation to the General Services
Department certifying that existing Santa Monica
occupancies with toilets installed prior to 1978 have been
retrofitted with ultra low-flow toilets (1.6 gallons per
flush or less) such that development of the new project
will not result in a net increase in wastewater flows.
Flow from existing occupancies which will be removed as
part of the new development may be deducted from flow
attributable to the new development if such occupancies
have been occupied within one year prior to issuance of a
Building Permit for the proposed project. Flow
calculations for new development and existing occupancies
shall be consistent with guidelines developed by the
General Services Department.
21. To mitigate solid waste impacts, prior to issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy, project owner shall submit a
recycling plan to the Department of General Services for
its approval. The recycling plan shall include 1) list of
materials such as 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.
22. To mitigate circulation impacts, prior to issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy, proj ect owner shall submit a
transportation demand management plan to the Department of
- 15 -
.
.
General Services for its approval. This plan shall in-
clude: 1) Name, address and telephone ntl~her of desig-
nated person(s) responsible for coordinating transporta-
tion demand management measures at the development. 2)
Demand management measures to be employed at the site to
reduce circulation impacts which would otherwise occur.
Such measures may include, but are not limited to programs
addressing: A. Education and Marketing to alert employees
and visitors to the site to demand reduction programs and
incentives; B. Parking Management such as parking charges
for single-occupant vehicles, reduced rates for car and
vanpools; C. Ridesharing programs such as a rideshare
matching program, incentives, and car and vanpool sub-
sidies; D. Transit programs such as provision of bus
schedules to employees and visitors, subsidized bus tokens
and passes to employees and visitors; E. Bicycling pro-
grams such as provision of secure bicycle storage facili-
ties, provision of showers and lockers; F. Alternative
Work Schedules for building employees to avoid peak AM and
PM traffic hours and reduce overall trips; G. Trip Length
Reduction by programs to increase proportion of employees
residing within three miles of the project site. The
goal of the Transportation Demand Management Plan shall be
to reduce vehicle trips which would otherwise occur by
twenty percent.
23 . Landscaping plans shall comply with Subchapter 5B
(Landscaping standards) of the zoning ordinance including
use of water-conserving landscaping materials, landscape
maintenance and other standards contained in the
Subchapter.
Miscellaneous Conditions
24. The building address shall be painted on the roof of the
building and shall measure four feet by eight feet (32
square feet).
25. The operation shall at all times be conducted in a manner
not detrimental to surrounding properties or residents by
reason of lights, noise, activities, parking or other
actions.
26. No medical office use shall be permitted at the site.
27. If any archaeological remains are uncovered during
excavation or construction, work in the affected area
shall be suspended and a recognized specialist shall be
contacted to conduct a survey of the affected area at
project's owner's expense. A determination shall then be
made by the Director of Planning to determine the sig-
nificance of the survey findings and appropriate actions
and requirements, if any, to address such findings.
28. Refuse areas, storage areas and mechanical equipment shall
screened in accordance with SMMC Section 9040.l3-9040.l5.
- 16 -
.
.
Refuse areas shall be of a
need, including recycling.
in its review shall pay
screening of such areas and
size adequate to meet on-site
The Architectural Review Board
particular attention to the
equipment.
29. street and/or alley lighting shall be provided on public
rights of way adjacent to the project if and as needed per
the specifications and with the approval of the Department
of General Services.
validity of Permits
30. In the event permittee violates or fails to comply with
any conditions of approval of this permit, no further per-
mits, licenses, approvals or certificates of occupancy
shall be issued until such violation has been fully
remedied.
31. within ten days of Planning Division 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 Condi-
tions of approval and acknowledging that failure to comply
with such conditions shall constitute grounds for poten-
tial revocation of the permit approval. By signing same,
applicant shall not thereby waive any legal rights appli-
cant may possess regarding said conditions. The signed
statement shall be returned to the Planning Division.
Failure to comply with this condition shall constitute
grounds for potential permit revocation.
32. This determination 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 the ap-
peal. Any appeal must be made in the form required by the
Zoning Administrator.
Monitoring of Conditions
33. Pursuant to the requirements of Public Resources Code
Section 2l0S1.6, the city Planning Division will coordi-
nate a monitoring and reporting program regarding any re-
quired 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 General Services Department,
the Fire Department, the Police Department, the Community
and Economic Development Department and the Finance De-
partment are aware of project requirements which must be
satisfied prior to issuance of a Building Permit, Certifi-
cate of Occupancy, or other permit, and that other respon-
sible agencies are also informed of conditions relating to
their responsibilities. Project owner shall demonstrate
- 17 -
.
.
compliance with conditions of approval in a written report
submitted to the Planning Director and Building Officer
prior to issuance of a Building Permit or certificate of
Occupancy, and, as applicable, provide periodic reports
regarding compliance with such conditions.
Special Conditions
34. Lighting for the relocated gas station shall be designed
and directed so as to not spillover into adjacent residen-
tial districts.
35. To mitigate adverse height, bulk, and traffic impacts of
the project as identified in the EIR and by the Commis-
sion, the fourth, fifth and sixth floors of the project
shall be eliminated along Wilshire Boulevard, stepped down
to two floors along Lincoln Boulevard, and the design of
the modified building shall incorporate ground floor ar-
ticulation and stepping back of upper floors. Floor area
shall be limited to a 2.0 FAR in the Wilshire Corridor
District and 2.0 FAR in the Lincoln-North District,
resulting in a maximum 75,000 square foot adjusted build-
ing area and building height shall be restricted to three
stories/45 feet in the Wilshire Corridor and two stories/
30 feet in the Lincoln-North District. The building foot-
print and setbacks shall remain in substantial conformance
with the plans approved by the Planning Commission. The
Architectural Review Board shall review the redesigned
project to ensure that it is consistent with the basic
design themes of the approved variegated three-two story
version of the project. The interior courtyard shall be
maintained on the site. Ingress/Egress to the Subter-
ranean garage shall be provided from Lincoln Boulevard
and/or Wilshire Boulevard only. The redesigned project
shall be returned to the Commission to determine consis-
tency with this condition.
36. On-site parking shall be provided without charge to ten-
ants and employees at the project site unless and until
such time as a preferential parking district is es-
tablished in the project area, which in the judgment of
the Planning Director and Parking and Traffic Engineer
will adequately protect neighborhood residents from poten-
tial parking impacts of the project.
37. To mitigate traffic impacts identified in the environmen-
tal impact analysis, no medical office, or branch bank
uses shall be permitted in the project.
38. If requested by the Santa Monica Transportation Depart-
ment, project owner shall provide and maintain a bus shel-
ter built to city specifications along the Wilshire and
Lincoln frontages of the project to facilitate use of bus
transit by project employees and visitors.
- 18 -
.
.
39. The exterior building materials shall be light in color.
No mirrored or darkly-tinted glass shall be used on the
exterior of the building. The ARB shall pay particular
attention to these elements of the development.
40. Prior to issuance of a certificate of Occupancy for the
project, and if required by the General Services Depart-
ment, applicant shall perform to the satisfaction, or re-
imburse the City for the cost of the following traffic
mitigation measures:
-Restripe the existing eastbound approach on Wilshire
Boulevard to provide an exclusive right-turn lane. This
would provide this approach with one exclusive left-turn
lane, two through lanes and an exclusive right-turn lane.
-Re-stripe the existing westbound approach to provide an
additional lane. This measure would provide a total of
five lanes on the westbound approach, resulting in double
left-turn and right-turn lanes and a single through lane.
41. The service station shall be relocated to the northern end
of the site where it will provide less impacts for the
adjacent residential uses. Adequate landscaping materials
or screening that deflects headlight glare shall be pro-
vided around the relocated service station.
42. The service station shall contain a mechanical exhaust
system that directs air and odors away from the adjacent
residential district.
43. Construction equipment, fixed and mobile, operated within
1000 feet of a dwelling unit shall be equipped with prop-
erly operating and maintained muffler exhaust systems.
44. South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 403 will
be adhered to, insuring the clean-up of construction re-
lated dirt on approach routes to construction sites.
45. The helicopter landing pad is not a permitted land use and
shall be eliminated from drawings submitted to the Ar-
chitectural Review Board in order to comply with the
City's Ordinances governing location of helipads.
46. The ground floor retail uses shall be pedestrian oriented
uses that emphasize and encourage neighborhood resident
use. Ground floor retail uses shall be provided along the
Wilshire Boulevard frontage. The developer shall work
cooperatively with City staff, neighborhood representa-
tives and the Neighborhood support Center staff in iden-
tifying appropriate tenants and uses. The development of
a restaurant or other eating establishment that contains
more than 50 seats or includes the sale of on-sale al-
coholic beverages shall require further Planning Commis-
sion review/approval.
- 19 -
.,
.
.
PROJECT MITIGATION FEE CONDITION
1. In accordance with Sections 9046.1 - 9046.4 of the Santa
Monica Municipal Code, prior to issuance of a building
permit the developer shall execute an irrevocable letter
of credit or other form of security acceptable to the City
for the payment of an in-lieu fee for housing and parks
equal to $2.25/sq.ft. for the first 15,000 sq. ft. of net
rentable office floor area and $5.00/sq.ft. for the
remaining net rentable office floor area. This fee shall
be adjusted for inflation by the percentage change in the
Consumer Price Index (tlCPI") between October 1984 through
the month in which the payment is made. Upon mutual
agreement of the developer and the City, the developer may
satisfy the Project Mitigation measures by providing low
and moderate income housing or developing new park space
on or off the project site. To fulfill this obligation an
agreement shall be secured in writing by the developer and
approved by the City Attorney and City staff prior to is-
suance of a building permit. This fee will be approxi-
mately $ 174,906.25.
Prepared by: Paul Berlant, Director of Planning
D. Kenyon Webster, Principal Planner
Wanda Williams, Associate Planner
Attachments: Exhibit A-Planning Commission staff Report and
Statement of Official Action
Exhibit B-Appeal Letter
Exhibit C- Project Architect Letters, Shadow study
and Independent Traffic study
Exhibit D- Planning Commission Minutes
PB: DKW:WW
PC/ccdr467
01/03/90
- 20 -