SR-402-010 (17)
'It? -z.," 1/10
1~.1l
SEP 2 6~89
C/ED: CPD: DKl1: bz
Council Mtg: September 26, 1989
Santa Monica, California
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: city Staff
SUBJECT: Appeal of Planning commission Denial of CUP 512, DR
446, ZA 5345-Y, EIA 872, Located at 2900 Wilshire
Boulevard and 1217 Yale street; Appellant: Zealund
Corporation
INTRODUCTION
Before the Council is an appeal of a Planning commission denial
of a Conditional Use Permit, site Review Permit, Variance and
Certification of an Environmental Impact Report to permit the
construction of a six-story, 76,483 square-foot office building
wi th three levels of subterranean parking and a two-story, 11-
unit apartment building with one level of subterranean parking.
This application is subject to review under the provisions of the
previous zoning ordinance. This matter was originally scheduled
for Council review in July 1989, but was continued at the request
of the applicant. staff recommendation is to uphold the Planning
commission and deny the appeal.
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The subject property is a 42,500 sq. ft. parcel located on the
southeast corner of Wilshire Boulevard and Yale street having a
frontage of 170 feet on Wilshire Boulevard and 250 feet on Yale
Street. The site is currently developed with Madame Wong's res-
taurant/club, \vhich would be demolished to permit the proposed
- 1 -
~.8
SEP 2 6 1989
.....
,
,
development. Surrounding uses consist of a four-story, medical
office building (C6) to the north; a one story, low-densi ty
residential structure (R2) to the south~ a two-story commercial
building and one and two-story low-density residential buildings
(C6, R2A and R2) to the east and a single-story commercial center
and low-density residential buildings (C6, R2A and R2) to the
west.
Zoning Districts: C4, R2A and R2
Land Use Districts: Wilshire corridor Commercial and
Low-Density Residential
Parcel Area:
C4:
170' X 150' = 25,500 square feet
170' X 100' = 17,000 square feet
1701 X 250' = 42,500 square feet
R2A and R2:
Total Parcel Area:
PROPOSED PROJECT
The proposed proj ect entails the construction of a six-story,
76,483 square-foot commercial office building on the C4 zoned
property and a two-story, ll-unit apartment complex on the adja-
cent R2A and R2 zoned properties. A site Review Permit is re-
quired to permit the commercial development to exceed a height of
4 storieS/56' and a Floor Area Ratio (F.A.R.) of 2.5. The Site
Review process permits consideration of development up to a
height of 6 storiesj84I and an F.A.R. of 3.0. The office build-
ing is proposed to be six stories with a height of 831 and an
~ F.A.R. of 3.0.
A Conditional Use Permit is required to permit the subterranean,
commercial parking garage to extend beneath the residentially
zoned property, as provided for by previous Code, Section 9l48A.
- 2 -
,~ .". I . .-
A variance is proposed to permit encroachment of the subterranean
garage into the required four-foot unexcavated side yard of the
residentially zoned property, to permit 30% compact spaces and to
permit 39 surplus commercial spaces to be tandem.
MUNICIPAL CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFO~ffiNCE
The proj ect is subj ect to the previous zoning code due to the
date the application was deemed complete (prior to April 29,
1988) .
The proposed project is consistent with the Municipal
Code and conforms with the quantitative standards of the General
Plan as shown in Attachment A, with the following exceptions: a
variance is requested to permit the 39 surplus, commercial park-
ing spaces to be tandem spaces; 30% of the commercial parking
spaces to be compact spaces; and to allow encroachment of the
subterranean parking garage into the required 4' unexcavated side
yard setbacks on the residentially zoned property.
CEQA STATUS
An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was been prepared for this
project. A 3o-day public review period was conducted. Comments
were received and the responses to the comments are incorporated
~
,
into the Final EIR.
FEES
The commercial portion of this project is subject to the Housing
and Parks proj ect Mitigation Measures of the Land Use and Cir-
culation Elements of the General Plan.
The proj ect mitigation
- 3 -
,
,
f' .
measures may be satisfied by payment of an in-lieu fee to the
City as established by Ordinance 1367 (CCS).
The residential portion of this project is subject to a Parks and
Recreation Facilities Tax of $200.00 per unit.
ANALYSIS
Project Description
The office building features a recessed, colonnaded entrance
along Wilshire Boulevard with recessed, arched window openings at
the second level above the entrance and recessed window walls.
The third and fourth floors step back ten feet along portions of
the front facade. The fifth and sixth floors step back at ten-
foot increments on all four corners of the structure. Landscaped
terraces are proposed on each corner of the two uppermost levels.
Arched windows are repeated centrally on the sixth floor of the
Wilshire Boulevard elevation.
proposed exterior materials in-
c1ude warm-tone granite and lightly tinted glazing with clear
glazing on the ground level.
The front setback of the proposed office building varies between
six feet and twenty-eight feet with a predominant setback of fif-
teen feet on the third through sixth floors. The setback on Yale
street varies between six feet and eight feet. A twenty foot to
twenty-two foot landscaped setback on the eastern side of the
development is adjacent to an existing, two-story commercial com-
plex.
The predominant setback between the proposed commercial
- 4 -
and residential structures is approximately 45 feet. A wall and
landscaping will separate the two uses.
The II-unit apartment complex is designed as a U-shaped building
with an open courtyard on the south side of the structure. The
Mediterranean style building features a stucco exterior, arched
windows, balconies with metal railings on three elevations and a
clay tile roof. unit plans include ten flats, ranging in size
from 1,050 to 1,300 square feet, and one two-story unit with an
area of 2,150 square feet. All units have two bedrooms, 2 baths,
kitchen and a living/dining area.
proposed setbacks for the
,
,
apartment building are 20' on the front, 15' on the rear and 9'
to 48' on the sides. Building height is proposed to be 21 feet.
Parking and Circulation Design
Access to the commercial parking garage is provided via a 30'-
wide driveway located on Yale street approximately 1301 south of
Wilshire Boulevard. A vehicle stacking distance of 115' is pro-
vided on-site prior to the ramp entrance. Two tuck-under loading
spaces are provided on the south side of the building, midway
along the drive aisle. The trash enclosure will be located on
the first level of the subterranean garage.
The location of the commercial driveway on Yale street, rather
than Wilshire Boulevard, is supported by the Land Use and Cir-
culation Element, Policy No. 4.3.7, which states that "new drive-
ways and mid-block access points shall be limited, especially
along major roads." However, the Circulation Element also calls
for minimization of impacts on residential side streets. These
- 5 -
policies are weighed on a case-by-case basis, since the Circula-
tion Element does not provide strict standards for location of
"
,
commercial access points.
Required parking for the office structure is 255 spaces, based on
the code parking requirement of one parking space for every 300
square feet of floor area. The three-level, subterranean garage
provides a total of 295 parking spaces, which exceeds the code
requirement by 40 spaces.
Thirty-nine of the total spaces are
proposed to be tandem parking spaces and 89 spaces (30% of total)
are proposed to be compact parking stalls. Current code permits,
by right, a maximum of 40% of the total number of parking spaces
to be compact.
The proposed tandem spaces represent surplus,
rather than COde-required, parking spaces.
The residential parking is separated from the commercial parking
within the first level of the subterranean garage. A separate
driveway for use of the apartment residents is provided on Yale
street approximately 80' south of the commercial driveway. The
code requires two parking spaces per unit for a total requirement
of 22 spaces.
The previous code did not have a guest parking
requirement for residential units.
For purposes of comparison,
current code vlou1d require two guest spaces for a total of 24
spaces. Twenty-seven standard parking spaces are provided within
the residential parking garage, which exceeds the code require-
,-
,
ment by 5 spaces. This equates to the provision of approximately
2.5 spaces for every unit.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
- 6 -
The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) analyzed various areas of
potential project-related impacts, including: traffic, circu1a-
tion and parking: aesthetics, shadows, light and glare; water and
sewer service; business displacement and neighborhood effects.
The EIR concluded that the project would not generate significant
environmental impacts which could not be mitigated. Some of the
major areas addressed in the EIR are discussed below.
Traffic and circulation Analysis
six critical, signalized intersections were analyzed in the EIR
to determine volume/capacity ratios (v/e) and levels of service
(LOS) during the morning and evening peak hours.
These six
intersections are:
Wilshire Boulevard and Yale street;
Santa Monica Boulevard and Yale street:
Wilshire Boulevard and Berkeley street;
Wilshire Boulevard and 26th street;
Colorado Avenue and stewart street: and
Olympic Boulevard and Stewart Street.
The traffic impact analysis determined that prior to mitigation,
the project would create significant traffic impacts during the
evening peak hour at the following three critical intersections:
Wilshire Boulevard and Yale street;
Santa Monica Boulevard and Yale street; and
Wilshire Boulevard and 26th street.
The EIR proposed mitigation measures not only reduce the project-
related, significant traffic impacts, but also reduce the V/C
ratios below the projected cumulative base conditions by amounts
ranging between 2% and 18% (Please refer to Table 6 in Appendix B
- 7 -
of the EIR. [A correction should be noted that the similar Table
4, on page 4-14 of the EIR, contains typographical errors. Table
6 is the correct source.]). These mitigation measures are
detailed in section 4.1.3.1 of the EIR and outlined below:
Wilshire Boulevard and Yale street
Restripe both approaches of Yale street to accommodate a
101 exclusive left-turn lane and a 151 through lane. This
would require prohibition of parking during p.m. peak
hours on both sides of Yale street for a distance of ap-
proximately 1201 north and south of Wilshire Boulevard.
This would require a no-parking restriction on approxi-
mately 14 on-street, parking spaces during p.m. peak
hours.
Santa Monica Boulevard and Yale street
Restripe both approaches of Yale street to accommodate a
10' exclusive left-turn lane and a 151 through lane. This
would require prohibition of parking during p. m. peak
hours on both sides of Yale street for a distance of ap-
proximately 110 I north and south of Santa Monica
Boulevard. This would require a no-parking restriction on
ten, on-street parking spaces during p.m. peak hours.
wilshire Boulevard and 26th Street
Restripe Wilshire Boulevard to accommodate a 12' exclusive
right-turn lane in the westbound direction. No loss of
parking will occur, as parking is prohibited on the north
- 8 -
side of Wilshire Boulevard, east of 26th street, due to
the existing bus stop.
The EIR states that the above mitigation measures would create
the. unavoidable significant impact of eliminating 14 on-street
parking spaces on Yale street near Wilshire Boulevard and ten on-
street parking spaces on Yale street near Santa Monica Boulevard.
However, staff does not believe this poses a significant impact
for several reasons.
The 24 on-street parking spaces are pro-
,
f
posed to be prohibited only during the p.m. peak hours.
By
limiting parking, the overall cumulative traffic conditions with
the proposed project would be improved over what is projected to
be the cumulative base traffic conditions ivithout the proposed
project.
This improvement goes beyond mitigating the project-
related impacts and would improve the actual operation of area
traffic, thus providing a beneficial tradeoff. Furthermore, the
project provides 40 surplus parking spaces above code require-
ment. Therefore, the loss of 14 on-street parking spaces during
the p.m. peak hours on Yale street near Wilshire Boulevard could
potentially be regained within the subterranean garage of the
proposed project. Due to these factors, staff did not consider
the restriction of a limited number of on-street parking spaces
during certain hours to be a significant impact and, therefore, a
statement of Overriding Considerations would not be required
should the Council wish to approve the project.
- 9 -
/
/'
Wastewater Generation
The EIR estimates that the office project and 11-unit apartment
complex would generate 6,019 gallons per day (gpd) of wastewater.
Current wastewater generation for this site is 1,343 gpd, result-
ing in a net increase of 4,676 gpd. The net increase represents
approximately seven percent of the city I s six-month wastewater
allocation.
The applicant could be required to attempt to
achieve a zero-net flow through a City-approved program should
the Council wish to approve the project.
SITE REVIEW CONSIDERATION
The site Review Permit is required to permit the project to ex-
ceed a height of 4 stories/56' and an F. A. R. of 2.5 and to be
considered for a maximum height of 6 storiesj84I and an F.A.R. of
3.0. The proposed project is at the maximum requested F.A.R. and
is one foot less than the maximum permitted height. The ErR
determined that, with appropriate mitigation measures, the sig-
nificant project-related impacts could be eliminated.
One of these mitigation measures is that the height and bulk of
the proj ect be considered in detail to ensure that the office
/
,
,
building steps down or otherwise relates to the adjacent residen-
tial zone. Compliance with this mitigation could require reduc-
tion in number of stories of the development, redesign to provide
additional architectural stepbacks or reduction in floor area.
A reduction imposed solely on the floor area or floor area ratio
of the project would not directly affect the pertinent issues of
- 10 -
height and bulk of the project, as a reduction in floor area
could potentially be accommodated by decreasing the building
footprint without reducing the building's height or perceived
bulk. Therefore, a more direct control of height and bulk could
be accomplished by restricting the number of stories and es-
tablishing setback requirements for the project.
A redesign of the project would be required to satisfy the design
related EIR mitigation measures, as well as to comply with Land
Use Element, pOlicy 3.2.1, which states that "al1owab1e height
limits for commercial and industrial uses should step down or
otherwise relate to the height limit of the adjacent residential
zone, to reduce visual intrusion, shading and scale incongruity."
staff recommended to the Planning Commission that the project be
( redesigned to a maximum of five stories, not to exceed a height
of 70 feet, with the building footprint and setbacks to be main-
tained as proposed. Any additional refinement to the building
facade which may be necessitated by the loss of the sixth floor
to ensure the proportion and rhythm of the structure may be pres-
ented to the Architectural Review Board. Assuming no additional
stepbacks are required on the upper levels, the reduction of the
building to five stories per the staff recommendation to the
Planning Commission would have resulted in a total floor area of
64,178 (a reduction of 12,305 sq. ft.) and an F.A.R. of 2.52 (a
reduction of 0.48).
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
- 11 -
On April 5, 1989 the Planning commission conducted a public hear-
ing regarding the proposed project. The Planning Commission had
been presented with a staff recommendation for approval of the
project subject to a reduction of one story in height, accompa-
nied by the reduction in square footage discussed above, as well
as a variety of other conditions (see attached Planning Commis-
sion staff report). The applicant indicated to the commission a
preference to develop the project at the originally-proposed six
stories.
Concerns raised by the Planning commission included the com-
patibility of the proposed six-story development with the sur-
rounding neighborhood, lack of project elements justifying the
provision of a site review bonus, the use of Yale street instead
of Wilshire for access to the commercial development, the removal
of on-street parking as a traffic mitigation measure, inadequate
provision of open space, the lack of study of the intersection of
Arizona and Yale and Colorado and Yale, and several other issues.
A motion was made for project approval at an FAR of 2.0 with a
four-story height limit and three stories on the residential side
of the project, that the design be modified to reflect greater
pedestrian orientation on the ground level, that the building
,
,
incorporate an upper level setback as called for by the Land Use
Element and Zoning Ordinance, that the ground floor retail space
be limited to low-intensity retail, that vehicle access be from
wilshire instead of Yale, and that the traffic study for the
project be revised. There was general discussion and expressions
of support for this motion among the Commissioners present. The
- 12 -
Planning Commission Chairperson asked the developer if he would
be willing to grant a Permit Streamlining Act extension to allow
time for redesign. The developer indicated he would not be will-
ing to grant such an extension.
since the Permit streamlining Act deadline for action on the
project was April 12, 1989, and the developer was unwilling to
grant an extension allowing the Commission to review a revised
design, a motion for denial was made based on lack of compliance
with site review criteria including a lack of provisions which
would justify a site review bonus, lack of pedestrian orienta-
tion, inadequate open space, and significant environmental im-
pacts. This motion was approved unanimously by the six Commis-
sioners present.
APPEAL
f On April 19, 1989 Tamar C. Stein, on behalf of Zealund Corpora-
tion, appealed the Planning Commissionls action. The appeal 1et-
ter oi ted three grounds for appeal:
1) That the Commission I s
action was not supported by adequate findings or facts in the
record: 2) that the Commission denied the project based on the
developer1s refusal to comply with conditions for which the
developer maintains compliance was not required, thereby violat-
ing substantive and due process and constituting a taking: and 3)
that the project has met all requirements of the Municipal Code
and therefore approval is warranted.
Under the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan, the planning Commis-
sion has broad discretion to act on pro) ects, including the
- 13 -
ability to impose conditions to protect the public health, safety
and welfare. The Commission's concerns about the height of the
proj ect were originally identified in the Environmental Impact
Report for the project.
other concerns, such as pedestrian
orientation and a desire to change the commercial vehicular ac-
cess point from Yale to wilshire, are clearly within the Commis-
sionls authority.
The Commission I s role in reviewing Development Review app1ica-
tions and other discretionary proj ects clearly extends beyond
measuring simple compliance with maximum General Plan height and
~
,
FAR standards.
Under Ordinance Number 1321 (CCS), this review
extends to an examination of whether the size and placement of
structures is appropriate and relates harmoniously to surrounding
neighborhoods, review of the adequacy of circulation facilities
to serve the project, and inclusion of mitigation measures to
address impacts identified in the environmental review process.
The Commissionls actions on this project are within its authority
and consistent with its mission of assuring that development en-
hances the quality of life in the community.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT
The recommendations of this staff report have no budget/financial
impact.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council uphold the Planning Com-
mission's denial of Conditional Use Permit 512, Development Re-
view 446 and Variance 5345-Y subject to the following findings.
- 14 -
FINDINGS
1. The physical location, size, massing, and placement of the
proposed commercial structure on the site and the location
of proposed uses within the project are not compatible
with and do not relate harmoniously to surrounding sites
and neighborhoods, in that the proposed six-story commer-
cia1 building is of a larger scale than and will appear
,
,
incongruous with existing, surrounding residential and
commercial uses.
2. The granting of a site Review bonus to permit additional
height and density bonuses above the zone's base develop-
ment standards is not warranted in that the project fails
to provide associated amenities such as neighborhood-
serving commercial useSi usable open space which is acces-
sible to the publiCi public art; substantial tiering,
stepping back and lowering of the structure to blend with
surrounding lower-scale development;
adequate articu1a-
tion of the building design and an interactive design pro-
moting pedestrian orientation to the street.
3. That the Planning Commission's actions were appropriate to
protect the health, safety and welfare of the community,
and within its powers under the laws of the city and the
state of California in that the Commission's desire for a
revised traffic study was appropriate under the require-
ments of the California Environmental Quality Act, which
requires that decisionmakers be provided with adequate
- 15 -
,
,
r
information on potential environmental impacts of proj-
ects, and that the commission felt that several intersec-
tions should be studied in relation to traffic impacts of
the proj ect; that Ordinance 1321, to which this proj ect
was subj ect, clearly contemplates a discretionary review
process for Development Review projects, including condi-
tional approvals; that Ordinance 1321 also requires com-
pliance with the General Plan and the developer was un-
willing to grant a processing extension to allow redesign
so as to comply with reasonable design changes desired by
the Planning Commission to ensure compliance with the
General Plan, which changes included revised height, step-
backs, FAR, ground floor orientation and vehicle access to
the project. That under the Zoning ordinance and
General Plan, the Planning commission has broad discretion
to act on projects, including the ability to impose condi-
tions to protect the public health, safety and welfare.
The commission I s concerns about the height, relation to
surrounding properties, and pedestrian orientation of the
proj ect were originally identified in the Environmental
Impact Report for the proj eet as potential adverse im-
pacts. other concerns, such as pedestrian orientation and
a desire to change the commercial access point from Yale
to Wilshire, are clearly within the Commissionls purview
in its exercise of good planning principles and inter-
pretation of General Plan policy and Municipal Code re-
quirements and form the basis for the Planning Commis-
sion's denial of the project.
- 16 -
4. Under Ordinance 1321 and site review criteria of the Land
/
,
Use and Circulation Elements, the Planning commission
properly found that the size and placement of structures
in the proposed project is not appropriate and would not
relate harmoniously to surrounding neighborhoods, and that
circulation facilities to serve the project would be in-
adequate.
The Commission I s actions on this proj ect are
within its authority and consistent with its mission of
assuring that development enhances the quality of life in
the community.
Prepared by: Shari Laham, Associate Planner
D. Kenyon Webster, Principal Planner
Attachments: A. Municipal Code and General Plan Conformance
B. Radius and Location Map
C. Project Description, Submitted by Applicant
D. Summary of Project
E. Letter from Applicant, dated 2/16/89
F. Protest Letter, dated 3/9/89
G. Final EIR
H. Plot Plan, Floor Plans, Elevations and Section
I. Planning Commission staff Report
I. Planning commission Statement of Official
Action
J. Letter of Appeal
SL
PC/CCUP512
09/13/89
- 17 -
ATTACHIvIENT A
MUNICIPAL CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE
Category
Land Use
Municipal Code Element
Permitted Use C4: General
Commercial
commercial
Height
Residential
Height
Commercial
Setbacks
Front yard
Sideyard
Rearyard
Residential
Setbacks
Front yard
Sideyard
Rearyard
commercial
F.A.R.
Parking
R2 & R2A:
Low-Density
Residential
6 stories/90'
2 stories/3D'
01
01
231
201
91
151
3.3
General
Commercial
Low-Density
Residential
4 stories/56;
with Site Review:
6 stories/841
Same as
Municipal Code
Same as Code
Same as Code
Same as Code
Same as Code
Same as Code
Same as Code
2.5;
With site
Revie\v: 3.0
255 commercial
spaces; Same as Code
22 residential
spaces
- 18 -
Project
General
Office
Low-Density
Residential
site Review:
6 stories/83,
2 stories/211
6' - 28'
201- 22' (east)
6' - 8' (west)
351-611
201
91 - 50'
15'
With site
Review: 3.0
295 commercial
spaces;
27 residential
spaces
ATTACHMENT A
MUNICIPAL CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE
Land Use
Category Municipal Code Element
Permitted Use C4: General General
Commercial Commercial
Commercial
Height
Residential
Height
Commercial
Setbacks
Front yard
Sideyard
Rearyard
Residential
Setbacks
Front yard
Sideyard
Rearyard
COmJ'llercial
F.A.R.
Parking
R2 & R2A:
Low-Density
Residential
Low-Density
Residential
6 stories/gO I
4 stories/56;
with site Review:
6 stories/84,
2 storiesj301
Same as
Municipal Code
0'
Same as Code
0'
Same as Code
23'
Same as Code
201 Same as Code
9 ' Same as Code
151 Same as Code
3.3 2.5;
With Site
Review: 3.0
255 commercial
spaces; Same as Code
22 residential
spaces
- 19 -
project
General
Office
Low-Density
Residential
site Review:
6 stories/83,
2 storiesj2l1
61 - 28'
20' - 22 t (east)
61 - 81 (west)
35'-6"
20'
9' - 50'
15'
with site
Review: 3.0
295 coltlll'lercial
spaces;
27 residential
spaces
.
'..
A-t~eJr "B.I
r-::
II J. I)" ~'Ml J 101 ~ "2 J. ,.J J "~=5 ~~., .: I.T '.A~
Ji;) .n' ; ! 1 Q l "" . ~/"
:~U:-I-I- ;-I~:h:y
: 1: ~: 1.: ~: i ': J~1!i~;: 'i.~.
B~~ STREET "i
. '" - ~ - j - I - . ~ I - II - ~- '-..
., jjl !oI 5 52 53 ~ SI f i: 1 ~~ 5T ; ;l~
0)11 ~ .. _...,.~; I~_
~~r;\~~~-I ;
. . . GI ~~~cn~@ ~ "" 1 -~o
S-rAA.l~Ol2:CI / \ 92-94 STRm i.,
. J 1~r~\~~~ I i
[~) ru lr~ ~~hl_ ~~l ~
U f U I to : r.:t~~ Ci1iI ~j (lJ] 1
" ! 'i Q Q ~ROOh 81 82:'
K j ,I I I .r: f~ ~q . K 190. U.
E
= yALe
" I" C l' 111 t ~ ~ !" f : r' 83~ -
18 ~ ".j lO~1 21 .: n _11 -' ~15 I~li ') .
., 1 . .. QI ~!:2!S. ,J.
... I ~ I ~ ! ... :7... :-: =-! i~ a "'II
=-""-, I!
. j" r ." J j I ; - J~ ~
n: 19 l <II' 11 I 12 ~ * 1 ~~ : .t I?
: I I i=I=,=, C
'; '~A~t)" . ,'.', ~
~e ". ,.~. ~~~lJ ·
, 19 20 21 II 13. ,eS 2 'l ~ 53 .
... ~I I ~. - ~. I ~~
". .':. .' .. ., ~ !c~.1 .. .~~- ~, - -
~... 'i" ..~-.... 1:41 _
..~ -. - - ,
.~:9 I ~ p' 1 ,,0. " ~5'0 ~~; r ~~ - : %7~ 2~2
.. ..
i i
'~'~.I'Tll-;'''A..,.,~''-C'I'-'~ ;'~;"" 1~ ~ l' 1
.
... .-It,.
"
. ""'"
. \ ~ . y-\ '.
. . (' I
(tl~~i'
JL..i~' I'''\'.!''"I--.
):'~t:j '))I)~
S I I I I fr'
,'I I I I
. ! . I. \"1" I ~" \ ~.. ! ~~ '
1
(""[;I:~ ~
l;~.,,-~ .,
IY ~ I[
!IOl. . ~ 'C....
... ....! 01:
~' 6E~K EL~V
~
I
15 ! !! 111 ; ~
J J ...t_~
;. STANFORD
.5
~~
'....
'01 i
~o 50""'"
j . ~
. 'M ~.
~ . .
. . - 8
~~ - 'M.l \ c
! · , 1. 1 H."L i '~': ~. ~ I
~ >. i. '31 · - _-l:' If.
r 1-...... I' 2:!!"'l
i ~ \l: }... ~I 8 1,4' - t.. I . Z ~
..
II
I
H
. .\
-
c' r"! r -'--S€R1r
zA 5345- r ~
CASE NO DK L.itJ fr, . LC P 5 i g....
ZON~ ~~ . Q 2.11. Q:r
1-0 r " & i-I<. 7 A R r&:,S_,4 rA.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION ~rs I-~ H M 3'l>tINSl!M/S S(,I/!JD.
,r ' I $1..QOO ""'~s of,l(E" .....v&1'.
I STREET ADORESS /';:',20 Y.4~..s-r.
I, '. . . "Z j I
APPLICANT eO '1I'""\rt
. .-
C~X- t'i '
OATE 'd -,)~- ~) ~
RADIUS MAP FOR
PUBLIC'
He....RING
OME
,
q,l ",:i~q
, I
~
I?ILb-\INHM 0 ~@ [Q)~[Pt!.\~lftI ~~ij.. .
. CDn @f1
.SA.4--'~- Jho.--.~
~U~Ii'tM9&
I..,...""e,
....U.,M..p
Shut ....
-:::;]
e~-04-:J- A
(j
---
AttfQftt1E?Nf lit (, -
\
,
ProJect Description
for
CUP512, DR446, ZA5345-Y
2900 Wilshire Blvd.
ReYlSed as of April 15, 1988
Project Site
The project site for the proposed mixed use commercial and residential
complex is located at the southeast corner of Wilshire Boulevard and
Yale Street. The property is zoned C4 on lot 1 of Block 7 Artesian
Tract and R2A and R2 respectively on lots 2 and 3 of H.M. Johnson
subdivision. The parcel is currently in commercial use as the Madame
Wong West dance club and parking lots.
Project Description
The proposed project consists of the removal of the existing building
and the construction of a six story quality office building totalling
76,483 square feet on the C4 lot and a two story, 11 unit apartment
complex on the R2 and RZA lots.
Office Building Component
Design
The proposed 76,483 square foot office building is designed in a
traditional manner with a distinct base, middle and top. The
base of the building, consisting of the first and second floors,
is articulated with bay windows and a colonaded entry at the
Wilshire Boulevard frontage. Floors 3 - 5 comprise the middle
levels of the building and are articulated with "punched" windows
that emphasize the structural framework of the building. The
sixth floor is designed with arched windows to effectively unify
and terminate the architectural composition. Stepbacks to reduce
the apparent mass of the builing are provided along the Wilshire
Blvd. frontage and along the south side of the building.
Additionally, the building is designed to reinforce the street
frontage along Wilshire Boulevard.
Proposed materials for the office building include warm-colored
granite and tinted glass above the ground floor level. The
interior lobby will be finished with a combination of polished
and flame finished granite to complement the building exterior.
Uses
The office building is designed to accomodate a variety of small
and medium sized professional firms and will serve both the local
and regional community. No medical office uses are proposed.
.
Parking
Under Municipal Code requirements a total of 255 parking spaces
are required for the office building. A total of 299 parking
spaces with 257 separately accessible spaces will be provided for
the office building with,n 3 subterranean parking levels.
'-
A Conditional Use Permit has been requested to pernllt the
subterranean parking for the commercial use to be extended under
the R2 zoned lot. This request will not affect the character of
resldential property above-grade since access to the commercial
parking will be provided from a ramp on Yale Street that is
located wlthin the portion of the property zoned C4. Vehicular
circulation in the area will be improved by the elimination of
the existing curb cut on Wilshire Blvd. AdditionallYt the
proposed parking ramp is designed to accomodate vehicular queuing
within the project sitet minlmizlng the potential intrusion of
vehicles onto Yale Street.
Residential Component
Design
The proposed two story 11 unit apartment building is designed in
a mediterranean style and is sited in a u-shape around a common
landscaped patio area. The building features a stucco exteriort
rusticated ground floor treatmentt arched windows and a clay tile
roof. Each unit will contain two bedrooms and will range from
It050 square feet to 2,150 square feet.
Parking
A total of 22 parking spaces are required for the 11 unit
apartment complex per Municipal Code requirements. A total of 21
parking spaces are provided with access from Yale Street which is
separate from the access to the commercial parking. These spaces
wlll be for exclusive use of the apartment complex and no
lnternal circulation will be provided between the commercial and
residential parking.
Setbacks
Under Munici pal Code requirements the apartment buildi ng ; c;
required to provide a 20' front yard setback, 9' sideyard setbacks
and a 15' rearyard setback. As proposed, the project includes a
20' front yard setback, sideyard setbacks ranging from 9' - 24'
and a 15' rearyard setback. The front and side yards will
feature considerable landscaping which will complement the
mediterranean styled building.
'.
.
.
..
",
A variance has been requested to elimlnate the required 4' unexcavated
sideyards and permit subterranean parking to extend to the property
lines beneath the residential building. The intent of the code
requirement for a 4' unexcavated area is met because ample landscaping
wlll be provided within the setbacks even though the area below will
be excavated in order to provide adequate clrculation for the
development.
Project's Compliance with Municipal Code Requirements
and Land Use Element Policies
The proposed mixed use development is consistent with both the
Municipal Code requirements for the C4, R2, and R2A zones and Land Use
Element policies for the Wilshire Blvd. commercial corridor and
abutting residential property to the south.
The commercial component complies with the Land Use Element site
review thresholds of 6 stories, 3.0 FAR for the Wilshire Blvd.
commercial corridor. The residential component complies with the R2
density standards of one unit per 1500 square feet of lot area. No
density bonus units are included, and it is intended that in lieu fees
will be paid to satisfy both Program 12 of the Housing Element and the
Housing and Parks Mitigation Program outlined in the Land Use
Element.
As proposed, the residential project will replace an R2 lot that is
currently used for commercial parking. This is consistent with Policy
1.2.2 of the Land Use Element which requires that surface parking lots.
zoned residential, and adjacent to highway coomercial corridors be
reserved for residential use or public open space when redeveloped.
The proposed project is consistent with Policy 1.6 of the Land Use
Element in that the office building will accomodate commercial office
uses serving local and regional community needs while respecting the
adjacent residential neighborhood to the south by providing a
landscaped area on the south side of the coomercial building, adjacent
to the pa rk i ng ramp to act as a buffer between the corrmercf a 1
building, the proposed residential project and other existing
residential development on Yale Street. The provision of this
landscaped area is also consistent with urban design policies 3.2.1
and 3.2.2 of the Land Use El ernen t whi ch requ ire an appropri ate
transition to be provided between the commercial and abutting
residential zones. In addition to the landscaped area, the stepbacks
a long the Wil shi re Blvd. frontage and adjacent to the proposed
residential bUilding also comply with Policies 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 in that
they help to provide a transition between the cOlTl11ercial and
resldential development and also mitigate the project's visual bulk
and mass.
The proposed offi ce bu 11 di ng is also cons i stent wi th urban des i gn
policy 3.1.2 of the Land Use Element in that proposed building
materials will be non-reflective and light colored. .
.
\
'-
The circulation plan is consistent with Policy 3.3.2 of the Land Use
Element which encourages vehicular access from side streets in that
the project will eliminate an existing curb cut on Wilshire Blvd. and
will provlde vehicular access to the subterranean parking from Yale
Street.
Consistent with land Use Element policies 3.3 and 3.3.1, the project
will feature pedestrian oriented design amenities including a public
plaza area on Wilshire Boulevard and a colonaded entry and recessed
walls along the ground floor street frontage.
Conclusion
The proposed proJect is consistent with the existing Municipal Code
requirements and land Use Element policies for the district. The
project meets the criteria needed for site review approval in that the
physical location of the buildings and the location of the uses are
compatlble with the surrounding area. Additionally, findings can be
made to support the variance, in that the excavated sideyards will not
be detrimental to the neighborhood or surrounding area and they enable
the project to provide adequate vehicular circulation.
The project will replace a residentially zoned lot in use as a
commercial parklng lot with a residential building. By developing a
six story office building, the developer is able to incorporate
considerable landscaped open space into the project while still
achieving an economically feasible project. The landscaped open space
wi 11 provi de an appropri ate buffer and trans i t i on between the
comrnerclal building and adjacent residential property.
Parking and circulation is adequate for this project in that on-site
parking in excess of code requirements is provided and queuing of
vehicle deliveries will be accomodated on site with no intrusion into
the residential neighborhood to the south.
The project will meet the Housing and Parks Mitigation Program through
the payment of in lieu fees and therefore an additional source of
revenue will be provided to the city as a result of this project.
'.
kr2j2900wil
~
A~.1Y
GIN WONG ASSOCIATES
P...Af\i"'.....G .::.......: .:..c~.... ..~_:..~ c,;;:
PROJECT St."MMA.RY
1217 YALE STREET
SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA .
February 10, 1988
GROUND LEVEL:
All parking :II 26 cars provided
req'..lired == 11 x 2.0 = 22 cars
Guest parking = 4 cars
FIRST LEVEL
Unit lA 2 bedrooIIls/2 baths 2,150 s.f.
Unit lB 2 bedrooms/2 baths 1,:300 s.f.
Unit lC 2 bedrooIIls/2 baths 1,050 s.f.
Unit ID 2 bedrooms/2 baths 1,050 s.f.
Unit 1E 2 bedrooms/2 baths 1,050 s.f.
Unit 1F 2 bedrooms/2 baths 1,300 5.f.
71900 s.f.
SECOND LEVEL
Unit 2A 2 bedrooms/2 baths 1,300 s.f.
Unit 2B 2 bedrooms/2 baths 1,050 s.f.
Unit 2C 2 bedrooms/2 baths 1,050 s.f.
Unit 2D 2 bedrooms/2 baths 1,050 s.f.
Unit 2E 2 bedrooms/2 baths 1,300 s.f.
5,750 s.f.
Corridors, Laundry Room 1,200 s.f.
TOTAL 14,850 s.f.
(8744PS2)
.~
;346 :;'V'C C.E,.,.TE::::j CI:j-V'E B:=:-.../ECL. Y ,...iLLS CAU;::C-Flt....A ;021C J6C4
2~3::5C.8:J:J
GIN WONG ASSOCIATES
~~A""''''''.'''''G ;;..r-.:) ..1.:i11::::....-r-e::;....UCl~
PROJECT SUMMARY
2900 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD
SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA
February 16, 1988
revised March 30, 1988
revised March 24, 1989
FLOOR
ADJUSTED
GROSS AREA
Plaza
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
6th
10,120
13,895
13,549
13,549
13,065
12.305
TOTAL
76,483
76,500 S.F.
255 CARS
ALLOWABLE FAR -
PARKING REQUIRED =
PARKING SUMMARY
Level Standard Compact Tandem H.C. Total
P-1 24 19 4 5 52
P-2 77 34 21 0 132
P-3 ~. :'6 14 Q 111
162 89 39 5 295
54.9% 30.1' 13.2% 1.7% 100.0%
Gross Area - Glass to glass building area minus floor
openings such as elevators, stairs, and mechanical shafts.
Net Usable - Gross area minus corridors, restrooms,
telephone, electrical, and mechanical spaces.
(8744PS)
'.
93445 CIVIC ce"'Tr;A :lAI"e 3EvERI-V HII-LS C....,~OANI.. go~,o-:)I$O"
2':) 550 , 8;)0
(
...
~ktOdlmarr+ \.~/'
February 16, 1989
'TY f":F"'" t - , """"""
::..: _, ': .', - '; :'>ii)r/.I"'M
. I. .'--'r~_
Ms. Shari Laham
Associate Planner
Planning Division
City of Santa Monica
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90401
[,S rEg 17 A 9 :1 0
Re: Comments to DEIR 872 for the 2900 Wilshire Blvd. Project
Dear Ms. Laham:
We are the developers of the 2900 Wilsh~re Boulevard project.
We have specific comments with respect to the DEIR itself,
however, before making those comments, we feel that attention
must be directed to certain elements of the process itself as it
appears that they may have unintentionally resulted in gross
inaccuracies that are prejudicial both to the process itself and
specifically to our project.
The project description in our case is incorrect. It allocates
over 10,000 square feet to a bank usage which, in turn, leads to
the erroneous conclusion that the project will generate 2,995
new trips, while in fact the proposed use will decrease trip
generation by 855 trips. That specific comment will be
discussed in detail later in this letter and also in our traffic
engineer's analysis; however, I must dwell on it at this point
to make it clear that the project misdescription has already
resulted in extreme prejudice. We, as the developer of the
project, should have been given an opportunity to correct the
error before the DEIR was printed. The failure to afford us
this opportunity has unnecessarily prejudiced the project.
To say that the comment period gives us an opportunity to
correct errors of this type is equivalent to throwing a drowning
swimmer a How To Swim book.
We must also note that there are two other similar projects on
Wilshire Boulevard that are in the approval process and all of
the projects have been awarded to the same contractor to write
the EIR. Reading each of the three side by side shows marked
similarities to the point of approaching what we call a "shelf
study. II It seems to us that different contractors should be
used to prepare EIRs in order that the City be exposed to
different perspectives. The mindset that appears to prevail in
. 1726 Sa" V,ce"'::e 81va Sw'te 360 '-os A"'geles CA 900<<:9 USA 'e' 820-5533 "rele" 69' 158[ZA.RNEGN E!VI-<L)
<
Ms. Shari Laham
February 16, 1989
Page Two
all three of the EIRs is one that assumes the IIworst case
scenario. II Facts, logic, sense and reason are abandoned in
favor of what could appear to be a predilection to beat all
projects to death with the EIR. The report not only needs to be
complete and accurate, it needs to be even-handed.
Lastly, it doesn't seem correct for the City to "shoot down" all
projects on account of their traffic generation because the City
has failed in its responsibility to provide proper traffic
planning. The City seems to be horrified at the thought of
adopting simple traffic mitigation measures such as banning
on-street parking on wilshire Boulevard and other heavily
traveled streets during peak hour traffic which is a mitigation
measure that almost every municipality has adopted.
The balance of the comments in this letter will specifically
address the DEIR as opposed to the process itself. These
comments are focused in the areas of traffic, aesthetics,
shadows, neighborhood effects, and alternative analysis.
The comments were prepared by the technical consultants to our.
project team. Linscott, Law and Greenspan, Inc., Engineers
prepared the traffic impact analysis (Attachment A). Gin Wong
Associates, Architects prepared the shadow analysis and comments
on the analysis of aesthetics, compatibility with the
neighborhood and loss of privacy issues raised (Attachment B).
A list of typographical corrections necessary is also included
(Attachment C). An overview of the comments is provided below.
1. It is critically important to recognize that the project
description which allocates uses to square footage is
incorrect in the DEIR. This error is carried throughout
the traffic impact analysis, dramatically skewing the
impacts upward. The project description on page 3.1
incorrectly implies that the entire plaza level is
intended for banking use. Pages 4-8 under 4.1.2.
Project-Related Traffic Impacts states that "A 66,363
square foot general office, a 10,102 square foot/bank
savings and loan and an ll-unit apartment complex are
proposed for the project site." This definitiGn is
incorrect.
'..
" 1726 Sa" Vlcent:e 80vd S..,,:;e 360 Los Angeles CA 90049 USA Te' 8:20-5533 Tele>< 691 158(ZAl"lNEG'N SV:-;L)
Ms. Shari Laham
February 16, 1989
Page Three
The correct project description is: A 76,483 square foot
general office buildinq and an II-unit apartment complex are
proposed for the site. If any financial services at all are
included in the tenant mix, they would be in the form of
services for the building tenants as defined in Code 710.
This inaccurate project description allocating 10,120 square
feet to a banking use, led to the use of an inappropriate trip
generation factor based on ITE land use definitions. The
General Office Building definition, Code 710 on page 4-8 is the
applicable definition, not the Code 911 definition used on page
10.
The attached traffic analysis, prepared by Linscott, Law and
Greenspan addresses several aspects of the EIR traffic analysis
with which we strongly disagree. First, the trip generation
definition is corrected to use the Code 710. Second, the
intersection impact analysis methodology is refined. Third, the
cumulative base impacts are extended for 5 years instead of the
20 years used in the DEIR analysis (Section 4.1.2). Finally,
correction is made to the trip generation of the existing site'
use, Madame Wong's Restaurant/Night Club (pages 4-10). The net
change in trips generated (difference in trip generation between
the existing use and the proposed use) has been revised. THE
RESULTS OF THESE APPROPRIATE REVISIONS TO THE METHODOLOGY USED
IN THE DEIR TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ARE THE FINDINGS THAT (i) 855 FEWER
TRIPS WILL BE GENERATED BY THE PROPOSED OFFICE BUILDING; AND
(ii) THE IMPACT ON ALL INTERSECTIONS INVOLVED WILL BE BELOW THE
THRESHOLD OF SIGNIFICANCE IDENTIFIED BY THE CITY TRAFFIC
ENGINEER.
In addition to the erroneous allocation to a bank use, 1t also
is apparent that the DEIR has overlooked the fact that if a new
office building is not built, the probabilities are that the
site would be returned to its former use, such as the Fox &
Hound Restaurant, which generated over 2,000 trips per day and
when most of the guests parked their cars on local residential
streets. Certainly, an office building is a better neighbor
than such a restaurant use. The office building is closed when
the neighbors are at home at night and on the weekends. It 1S
open only during daytime and not during the evening and
weekends. For the EIR to be complete and accurate th~se facts
must be recognized.
. 1726 San Y'ee~~e SlvC S.....l:e 360 Los Angeles CA 90049 USA ~e' 820-5533 ~eleJ( 69.. 5SfZAQNEGIN !3Y....!..]
Ms. Shari Laham
February 16, 1989
Page Four
2. Gin Wong Architects has prepared shadow studies which go
beyond the analysis provided in the DEIR. On pages 4-27,
the text states, "It should be noted that the shadow
illustrations do not show the shadows cast by exist1ng
buildings and do not indicate how the long shadows would
be blocked by surrouding buildings. Many shadows would
not extend their full length across the ground since they
would be interrupted by intervening buildings." Shadow
studies which are provided herein and do take into account
the surrounding buildings indicate that the proposed
structure will not add to the existing shadow impacts
already present in the area.
3. Studies have also been included which refute the assertion
made on pages 4-49: liThe size of the proposed office
building may also result in some loss of privacy for the
nearest neighbors. The height of the building may enable
those on the uppermost floors to look down into nearby
residential properties. The nearest residential sites
which may be affected by this condition are the
residential properties immediately south of the project
site on the easterly and westerly sides of Yale and
Stanford streets, respectively. 'I This statement is
included without any documentation to demonstrate its
accuracy. We have provided in Attachment B exhibits which
demonstrate that there will be no additional impact on
residential privacy as a result of this project which
doesn't already exist in the area.
4. Section 5.0 which discusses Alternatives and Table 8 which
compares them will need to be revised to reflect the
corrections to the project description. Alternative 2
should exclude the "bank and savings and loan occupying
the ground floor" which makes it identical to Alternative
3.
Please review Attachments A, B, and C which provide the specific
technical analysis of the items summarized above.
-.
. ^ 726 Sa" V'cence 8'vd Su.ce 360 Los A"ge;es CA 90049....JSA ie' 82::J-5533 Telex 691 ~ 58(ZA~NEGI"" 3VHL'
'-
Ms. Shari Laham
February 16, 1989
Page Five
The Final EIR should, in order to be complete and accurate,
adopt the above comments.
Sincerely,
ZEALUND CORPORATION
By ;Z~I/
LWK/ndr/89203
Enclosures
-.
1 1726 San V'cent;e 81"0 S"",.e 360 LoS Angeles CA 90049 USA Te' 820-5533 Telex 89' 158[ZARNEGIN aV'-lL)