Loading...
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