SR-402-010 (19)
Lf/?'Z /0/0
4uO
12-A
JUL i i 1989
)!
\/ :\' .
CjED:CPD:DKW':bz
Council Mtg: July 11, 1989
Santa Monic~~ 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
with 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. 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-
taurantjclub, which would be demolished to permit the proposed
development. surrounding uses consist of a four-story, medical
office building (C6) to the north; a one story, low-density
- 1 -
12-A..
...f ~ :c'" -...... ='"
J~Ji_ J_..&.- !~~
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:
R2A and R2:
Total Parcel Area:
170' X 150' = 25,500 square feet
170' X 100' = 17,000 square feet
170' X 250' = 42,500 square feet
PROPOSED PROJECT
The proposed project entails the construction of a six-story,
76,483 square-foot commercial office building on the C4 zoned
property and a two-story, 11-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 stories/84, and an F.A.R. of 3.0. The office build-
ing is proposed to be six stories with a height of 83' 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 established by previous Code, Section 9148A.
A Variance is proposed to permit encroachment of the subterranean
garage into the required four-foot unexcavated side yards of the
- 2 -
residentially zoned property, to permit 30% compact spaces and to
permit 39 surplus commercial spaces to be tandem.
MUNICIPAL CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE
The project is subject 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 39 surplus, commercial parking
spaces to be tandem spaces and 30% of the commercial parking
spaces to be compact spaces and to allow encroachment of the sub-
terranean parking garage into the required 4' unexcavated side
yard setbacks on both sides of the residentially zoned property.
CEQA STATUS
An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was been prepared for this
project. A 30-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 Project Mitigation Measures of the Land Use and Cir-
culation Elements of the General Plan. The project mitigation
measures may be satisfied by payment of an in-lieu fee to the
city as established by Ordinance 1367 (CCS).
- 3 -
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-
clude warm-tone granite and lightly tinted glazing with clear
glazing on the ground level.
The front setback of the proposed office building varies between
6' and 28' with a predominant setback of 151 on the third through
sixth floors. The setback on Yale Street varies between 6' and
8'. A 20' to 22' landscaped setback on the eastern side of the
development which is adjacent to an existing, two-story commer-
cial complex. The predominant setback between the proposed com-
mercial 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
- 4 -
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, IS' 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 130' south of
Wilshire Boulevard. A vehicle stacking distance of lIS' 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
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.
- 5 -
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
wi thin 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 would 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
The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) analyzed various areas of
potential project-related impacts, including: traffic, circula-
tion and parking1 aesthetics, shadows, light and glare1 water and
- 6 -
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/e
ratios below the projected cumulative base conditions by amounts
ranging between 2% and 18% (Please refer to Table 6 in Appendix B
of the EIR. [A correction should be noted that the similar Table
4, on page 4-14 of the EIR, contains typographical errors. Table
- 7 -
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
10. exclusive left-turn lane and a 15' 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 15' 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' 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
side of Wilshire Boulevard, east of 26th street, due to
the existing bus stop.
- 8 -
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-
posed to be prohibited only during the p.m. peak hours. In so
doing, the overall cumulative traffic conditions with the pro-
posed project would be improved over what is projected to be the
cumulative base traffic conditions without the proposed project.
This improvement goes beyond mitigating the project-related im-
pacts and would improve the actual operation of area traffic,
thus providing a beneficial tradeoff. Furthermore, the project
provides 40 surplus parking spaces above code requirement.
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.
Wastewater Generation
The ErR 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
- 9 -
approximately seven percent of the City'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 stories/84, and an F.A.R. of
3.0. The proposed project is at the maximum requested F.A.R. and
is one foot shorter than the maximum permitted height. The EIR
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 project 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
height and bulk of the proj ect, 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.
- 10 -
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 "allowable 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 provided on the upper levels, the reduction of the
building to five stories per the staff recommendation to the
Planning Commission would result in a total floor area of 64,178
(a reduction of 12,305 sq. ft.) and an F.A.R. of 2.52 (a reduc-
tion of 0.48).
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
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
- 11 -
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 amongst the commissioners present.
The 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
willing to grant such an extension.
since the permi t Streaml ining Act deadl ine for action on the
project was April 12, 1989, and the developer was unwilling to
- 12 -
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
On April 19, 1989 Tamar c. stein, on behalf of Zealund Corpora-
tion, appealed the Planning Commission's action. The appeal let-
ter cited three grounds for appeal: 1) That the Commission's
action was not supported by adequate findings or facts in the
record; 2) that the Commission denied the project based on the
developer's 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 proj ects, including the
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 access point
- 13 -
"
from Yale to Wilshire, are clearly within the Commission's pur-
view in its exercise of planning principles and interpretation of
General Plan policy and Municipal Code requirements.
The Commission I s role in reviewing Development Review applica-
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 Commission's 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.
FINDINGS
1. The physical location, size, massing, and placement of the
proposed commercial structure on the site and the location
- 14 -
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-
cial 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 uses: usable open space which is acces-
sible to the public: public art: substantial tiering,
stepping back and lowering of the structure to blend with
surrounding lower-scale development i adequate articula-
tion of the building design and an interactive design pro-
moting pedestrian orientation to the street.
3. That the staff recommendation to the Planning commission
was for approval of the project with a reduction in height
and FAR to address issues of compatibility with the sur-
rounding neighborhood and to mitigate traffic impacts and
that the applicant indicated a preference to proceed with
the original design.
4. That the Planning Commission was prepared to consider a
revised design of the project to address compatibility,
scale, and traffic issues, and that the Commission's
desired changes included a reduction in height to four
- 15 -
stories, a reduction in FAR to 2.0, relocation of the ac-
cess to the commercial portion of the project from Yale to
wilshire, improved pedestrian design at the ground floor,
a revised traffic study, and other design revisions. In
order to continue the project for further review, the ap-
plicant would have had to grant a Permit streamlining Act
extension permitted under law, but the applicant declined
to do so.
5. 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
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
- 16 -
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 publ ic health, safety and wel fare.
The commission's concerns about the height, relation to
surrounding properties, and pedestrian orientation of the
project were originally identified in the Environmental
Impact Report for the project 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 Commission's 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.
6. 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'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.
- 17 -
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
06/29/89
- 18 -
~
ATTACHMENT A
MUNICIPAL CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE
Category Municipal Code
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/30'
0'
0'
23'
Land Use
Element
General
Commercial
Low-Density
Residential
4 stories/56;
with Site Review:
6 stories/84,
Same as
Municipal Code
Same as Code
Same as Code
Same as Code
20' Same as Code
9 ' Same as Code
15' 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 stories/21,
6' - 281
20'- 221 (east)
6' - 8' (west)
35'-6"
201
9' - 50'
151
With site
Review: 3.0
295 commercial
spaces;
27 residential
spaces