sr-052279-7aSanta Monica, California, May 11, 1979
~~ Y 2 2 ]97~
TO: The Mayor and City Council
FROM: City Staff
SUBJECT: Appeal, Conditional Use Permit No. 275 U.P., Proposed
12 Story Office Building, First Federal Square, 401
Wilshire Boulevard, First Federal Savings and Loar.
Association of Santa Monica, Applicants.
Introduction
This constitutes the staff report and recommendation on an
appeal from the determination of the Planning Commission in
granting a Conditional Use Permit for the construction of a
12 story office building at the northeast corner of 4th Street
and Wilshire Boulevard, Santa Monica. An objection has also
been made to the Planning Commission's approval of the Environ-
mental Impact Report to the effect that it fails to comply with
certain provisions of the Public Resources Code.
Background
On March 2, 1979 an application for a Conditional Use Permit to
construct a 12 story office building and 4 levels of subterranean
garaging for 710 cars was filed by First Federal Savings and
Loan Association of Santa Monica on a 12 acre site at the north-
east corner of 4th and Wilshire. The property is presently de-
veloped with a 5 story office building and parking lot which
serves as the corporate headquarters for First Federal Savings
and Loan. An Environmental and Fiscal Impact report was simul-
taneously filed and circulated. On April 16, 1979 public hearings
were held for both the EIR and the Conditional Use Permit appli-
AAAY 2 ~ 7979
Mayor and .City Council - 2 - May 11, 1979
cation by the Santa Monica City Planning Commission acting in
its capacity at first as 'the Environmental Quality Review Board
for the EIR and Planning Commission on the Conditional Use
Permit following which the EIR was .approved as adequate and
the project approved with .several conditions. On April 20th
the matter was appealed by Council Member Ruth Yannatta Goldway
and on April 26th an objection to the EIR. was submitted by
J. Fromm. The matter is therefore before the City Council for
review and final determination.
Property 2nvolved. The property involved consists of a lZ
acre site situated at the northeast corner of 4th and Wilshire -
Boulevard extending north on 4th Street, a distance of 450
feet, The first 150' are in the C3 general commercial district,
the 25.0' are in the R4A District and the most northerly 50' are
in the R4 District, The property is presently developed asra 5
story office building with 50,000 sq. ft. of floor area and sur-
face parking for 160 cars. The office building occupies the
commercial zoning and the parking lot occupies the R4A and R4
portions of the property as a matter of right on the R4A and by
virtue of a Variance on the R4 portion. which was issued in 1962.
The surrounding area is characterized by one and two story
structures and 2, 3 and 4 story apartment buildings to the north.
Much of the property on either side of the parking lot fronting
the west side of 4th and 5th Streets is in use for grade level
parking, one being a-city-owned lot and the other for Zucky's
Mayor and City Council - 3 - May 11, 1979
Restaurant.. A 20' north-south alley comprises the eastern
boundary of the site.
The Proposed Project. The proposed project consists of a 12
story office building with 207,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area
and off-street parking for 710 cars, a vast majority of which are
contained in a 4 level subterranean garage. Overall height of
the structure is 160'. The building is slightly irregular in
shape with the main tower approximately 170 x 115' in dimension
and a 20' equipment penthouse covering 2/3 of the roof. The
first, second and third floors extend slightly forward of the
main tower. Total building area is 3.1 times the project site
and approximately 9'times the commercial land area. About 600
of the commercial frontage is an open landscaped plaza andzthe
remaining portion is covered by the one story extension.
Net Additional Development. Upon completion o£ the proposed
building, the existing 5 story 50,000 sq. ft. building will be
removed. The net additional development actually represents 7
stories and 157,000 sq. ft, of floor area over that presently
existing. The 710 automobiles represent an increase of 550 over
the current 160 parking spaces.
Permitted Uses
Under existing ordinances the property involved
may be developed to a limited extent without seeking special ap-
proval from either the Planning Commission or City Council. The
only review and discretionary action required under most circum-
stances lies with the Architectural Review Board. The C3 zoning
Mayor and City Council - 4 - PRay 11, 1979
may be developed with an office building up to 6 stories and
90' in height while the R4A area may be developed with a park-
ing structure of a comparable size and dimension permitted for
residential buildings in the R4 District. This would allow a
total of 135,000 sq. ft. of office space in 6 stories and 1000
lot .coverage. A parking structure of 6 stories and 65' in height
could project 250' into the R4A area, required only to maintain
a 20' front set back and a 35' side yard at the north end.
An estimated 600 automobile parking spaces could be housed in
such a structure and additional subterranean parking is possible
although generally more costly than above grade parking.
While a total of 135,000 sq. ft. of office structure could be
built in 6 stories and 1000 lot coverage, it is doubtful that
architectural review would allow total lot coverage on the com-
mercial frontage for a 6 story building. At least 100 or more
of open space would undoubtedly be required to provide some
landscaping or other aesthetic treatment. Actual floor area
above grade would therefore be limited to approximately 121,500
sq. ft. of floor space. Basement areas, however, are not limited
by the height restriction and inasmuch as the 600 parking spaces
would support a 180,000 commercial floor area, it appears likely
that one basement level would be considered just as exists in
the present building.
A reasonable estimate of the development potential of the existing
height without Conditional Use approval is a 6 story office structure
Mayor and City Council
- 5 - May 11, 1979
of approximately 144,000 sq. ft. of floor area and a 5 to 6
story_attached_parking structure with 5 to 600 automobile
parking spaces
Conditional Use Permit Procedure
Santa Monica Municipal Code
requires that any building constructed in the C3 District over
6 stories and 90' in height be only by the issuance of a Con-
ditional Use Permit on the basis of a Fiscal and Environmental
Impact Report demonstrating that no significant adverse environ-
mental or fiscal impacts will result from the. increased height.
The exact wording is contained in Section 9116B1 of Chapter 1
Article IX and reads as follows;
"Section 9117B1. BUILDING HEIGHT. The height of
any building or structure erected in this district shall
be limited to six (6) stories or ninety (90) feet except
that buildings or structures in excess of this limitation
may be permitted by the issuance. of a Conditional Use
Permit under the provisions of Section 9148 provided that:
(a) Approval of buildings or structures in excess
of six (6) stories and ninety (90) feet in height but
not more than twelve (12) stories and one hundred sixty
(160) feet in height shall be only on the basis of an
Environmental and Fiscal. Analysis satisfactorily demon-
strating that no significant adverse environmental or
fiscal impact will occur as a result of the increased
height."
In adopting. this height limitation. in 1977 the City Council clear-
ly indicated their intent that the Ordinance be interpreted that
where no significant adverse fiscal or environmental impact is
demonstrated, the additional height could not be unreasonably
withheld.
Mayor. and City Council - 6 - May 11, 1979
Under the Conditional Use Permit procedures contained in
Section 9148, the Planning Commission or City Council may per-
mit the establishment of commercial uses within a multiple
residential district under certain conditions including the
following:
1. The site is contiguous with and immediately
adjoins an established commercial district.
2. The uses permitted are limited to those per-
mitted in the adjoining established commercial
district.
3. In no case shall commercial uses be extended
more than 500' into any adjoining residential
district.
Under Section 9148, therefore, the City Council clearly has the
authority to permit the proposed project upon the showing that
the additional height would not have a significant adverse en-
vironmental or fiscal impact and that the proposed use and lo-
cation are in accordance with good zoning practice, in the public
interest and necessary in order that substantial justice be done;
subject to such conditions as may be necessary to insure that
the use is compatible with existing and potential uses within
the general area., that traffic or parking congestion will not
result, that the public health, safety and .general welfare are
protected and that no harm to adjacent property will result.
(9148B3).
Environmental and Fiscal Impact. On March 2, 1979 a Draft En-
vironmental and Fiscal Impact Report for the proposed First
Federal Square project was filed with the Santa Monica Planning
Department for circulation and evaluation. The report was prepared
Mayor and City Council - 7 - May 11, 1979
by Planning Consultants Research of Santa Monica under the
direction of Gregory J. Broughton. A Notice of Completion was
filed with the Secretary of the State Resources Agency on
March 5th and circulation of the report commenced. Copies of
the report were circulated to the members of the Planning Com-
mission on March 5th, placed in each of the City's libraries and
in the office of the City Clerk as well as the Planning Department.
Copies were also submitted to the Police Department, Fire De-
partment and General Services Department. A public notice of the
completion of the report and its availability for. review in the
libraries, City Clerk's office and Planning Department was run
in the Santa Monica Evening Outlook for six publishing days_
between March Z and 13, 19.79.
Directed EIR. On April 3, 1978, 11 months prior to filing, in
accordance with the provisions of the State Environmental Quality
Act the City Planning Commission approved a "focused" EIR which
allows the Environmental Quality Review Board to select those
aspects of environmental concern important to an individual pro-
ject and allow evaluation to be limited to those items. Under
this procedure, attention is focused on those aspects affecting
the immediate environment and the need for a detailed analysis
for the wide range of the universally potential possibilities
is not covered. The Commission may then direct its full attention
to those impacts in which its influence and discretion will have
a constructive effect.
Mayor and City Council - 8 - May 11, 1979
The .Environmental Impact approved for evaluation included
traffic, shadows, glare and view impairment. The fiscal im-
pacts to be covered include: tax reviews (both property and
sales); employment, the increase in public costs associated
with employment and incidental fiscal benefits or costs to
surrounding businesses. An additional item to be covered was
the rate at which service capacity is being approached in the
general area.
Evaluation of EIR. Reponse to the EIR were received from the
Fire Chief, the Police Chief, Mrs. B. Gangursky of 330 California
and the Traffic Engineer. The EIR was reviewed and evaluated by
the Planning staff and additional information in the form of a
revision of the shadow analysis was submitted by the consultants
and incorporated into the document.
On April 16th a public hearing was held by the City Planning Com-
mission in its capacity as the Environmental Quality Review Board
and six persons commented on the document. These included John
Hult, Bill Teachworth, Jim Hoyt, Betty Gangursky, J. Ray Gallagher
and Trene Stein. Comments included discussion of the shadow
effect on solar heating, why 12 stories would be better than 6
stories, negative benefits to the City, detrimental effects on
air, traffic and shadows, .lack of a crime analysis and traffic
effects in the alley and on adjacent properties.
Following the public hearing the Commission discussed traffic
flow, direction, secondary egress, pedestrian safety, Wilshire
Mayor and City Council - 9 - May 11, 1979
exit and discouraging southbound traffic.
Commissioner Hotch-
kiss stated he felt the EIR did not adequately discuss the change
of use effect on the R4 property and alternatives. Commissioner
Kennedy questioned possible negative fiscal effects of the build-
ing height.
At the conclusion of the discussion the Planning Commission
approved the Draft EIR as adequately assessing-the environmental
and fiscal impacts associated with the proposed project includ-
ing the addition of all addendums, staff .evaluations, written
comments and a summary of all oral public comments and Board
discussions as part of the final Environmental Impact Report.
The vote on this action was five in favor, one opposed and one
absent.
Objection to the Approved EIR. On April 26th J. Fromm submitted
a letter in objection to the EIR as failing to comply with the
legal requirements of Public Resource Code Sections 21000, 21001,
21002, 21002.1, 21003, 21006.1 and 21100. The exact objections
are not detailed and inasmuch as the Sections cited are in
general the broad requirements for an EIR, it is uncertain as to
what deficiencies are believed to exist.
Project Approval.. Following approval of the EIR the Planning
Commission conducted a public hearing upon the Conditional Use
Permit application. In the course. of the public hearing the
application was supported by 10 persons and opposed by 4 persons.
Following the hearing and Commission discussion .the application
was approved subject to all staff recommendations and to every
Mayor and City Council - 10 - May 11, 1979
effort being made by the applicant to discourage use of the
alley exit, the-alley exit to be closed during evening hours
and any restaurant facility in connection with the project to
be closed by 2 A.M. The vote on the approval was 4 in favor,
2 opposed and 1 absent.
Analysis and_Recommendation: Evaluation and analysis of the
proposed project indicates it will have some adverse effects on
the surrounding area by reason of shadows, view, visibility
traffic generation and wind effects but these impacts are not
significantly adverse in comparison with the potential alterna-
tives and can be mitigated to an acceptable level. Particular
attention should be directed to the immediately adjacent apartment.
building which will require shielding from traffic entering and
exiting the parking garage as well as lights from cars using the
open parking lot at night. Additional landscaping acting as a
windbreak should be installed along 4th Street and a 4' street
dedication for widening of 4th Street required as recommended
by the General Services Department. The staff recommendation
for approval included the following conditions:
1. That construction be in substantial accordance with
the plans set forth in the Environmental Impact Report in-
cluding-all requirements of the General Services Department
and other City agencies.
2. That the area immediately adjacent to the driveway entry
to 4th Street be treated with shielding in the form of walls,
hedges, landscaping and or both to protect the adjacent
residential use from fumes, noise and headlight glare, the
actual design and characteristics of which shall be approved
by the Architectural Review Board.
Mayor and City Council - 11 - May 11, 1979
3. That some shielding in the form of a wall or land-
scaping be installed along-the northwesterly edge of the
open parking lot to prevent head .lights from shining on
adjacent buildings, design and characteristics of which
are to be approved by the Architectural Review Board.
4. That the existing 5 story office structure be removed
in its entirety upon completion of the new. structure.
5. That the applicants actively seek the designation of
4th Court between Wilshire and California as a one way
north bound alley to prevent traffic from the project
from exiting to Wilshire Boulevard by way of the alley.
To these conditions the Planning Commission added the require-
ments that the applicant make every effort to discourage use of
the alley exit, that the alley exit is to be closed during even-
ing hours and that any restaurant facility in connection with
the project must be closed by 2 A.M.
Alternatives
Under the provisions of Section 9148 the City Council may affirm,
reverse or modify any action of the Planning Commission on a
Conditional Use Permit. As the Council is taking discretionary
action under .the City's EIR Guidelines, it is required to adopt
and approve the EIR and review and consider its contents in
making its determination..
In regard to the EIR the Council must determine whether the docu-
ment together with the addendums and subsequent submissions have
adequately assessed the environmental and fiscal impacts associated
with the project and if not, in what respects it is deficient.
Section 15040 of the State EIR Guidelines define a significant
Mayor and City Council
- 12 - May 11, 1979
effect as a substantial or potentially substantial adverse
change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected
by the activity including land, air, water, minerals, flora,
fauna,.ambient noise, and objections of historic or aesthetic
significance. In the event the Council should identify one or
more significant effects, it is required to make written find-
ings that changes in the .project have been required to mitigate
or avoid the adverse effects or that specific economic, social
or other considerations make such mitigation measures infeasible.
The Planning Commission identified several adverse impacts but
did not find them to be substantial or potentially substantial
and hence not significant.
As indicated above, following adoption and approval of the
EIR the City Council may affirm, reverse or modify the determination
of the Planning Commission and the decision of the Council shall
be final. The City Council therefore has the alternative of
sustaining the action of the Planning Commission thereby approv-
ing the project as proposed, overruling the Planning Commission's
action and disapproving the project or sustaining the action of
the Planning Commission with such modifications as the Council
may believe indicated.
Recommendation
In view of the Planning Commission's determination that no
significant environmental or fiscal impact would result and
that the project as proposed was in accordance with good zoning
practice, in the public interest and necessary in order that
Mayor and City Council
- 13 - May 11, 1979
substantial justice be done, it is respectfully recommended that
the City Council approve and adopt the EIR and affirm the action
of the Planning Commission in granting the Conditional Use Permit
for the project as proposed.
Prepared by
James Lunsford
JL:bt