Loading...
sr-052510-8b~® ~;tYof City Council Report.. Santa Monica City Council Meeting: May 25, 2010 Agenda Item: ~~ To: Mayor and City Council From: Eileen Fogarty, Director of Planning and Community Development Subject: Development Agreement float-up for a designated Landmark at 710 Wilshire Boulevard. Recommended Action Staff recommends that the City Council: 1. Discuss the Development Agreement concept plans for a 284-room hotel/commercial project; 2. Direct staff to initiate the Development Agreement negotiation and review process; and 3. Provide direction for negotiation of potential public benefits and appropriateness of the project for redevelopment of the site. Executive Summary The applicant proposes that the City consider a Development Agreement proposal for a 284-room hotel/commercial project that includes the retention and adaptive re-use of a City Landmark office building (Santa Monica Professional Building). As a community benefit, the project would also include amixed-use housing project on a separate parcel at 1218 Lincoln Boulevard consisting of ground floor retail and deed-restricted housing (e,g, affordable, workforce, or seniors) with type and affordability to be determined. All parking for the project would be provided in a 4-level subterranean parking garage underneath the hotel building. The concept plans were reviewed at a community meeting on April 16, 2009 where the project was generally well received, although one written concern regarding the project's mass and scale was submitted after the meeting. The concept plans were further presented to the Landmarks Commission on May 11, 2009 and the Planning Commission on June 10, 2009. Staff, the community, and the Landmarks and Planning Commissions have given the applicant clear input to reduce the mass and scale of the proposed project. Specifically, comments have focused on the following issues: e The need for more meaningful public benefits to justify the scale of the project and to allow averaging the floor area. ratio (FAR) across the hotel site. Such benefits may include .contributions to improvements to Reed Park, on-site bike and car rental to reduce short-distance single occupancy vehicle trips, and local recruiting and hiring preference. 1 The Lincoln Boulevard parcel should be treated as a separate site and its allowable FAR should not be permitted to be used in the hotel building's maximum allowable floor area calculation. ® The potential for parking reductions, if supported by empirical studies, given the opportunity for shared parking among the proposed complementary uses. • The Planning Commission commented that the proposal to include a grocery store use on the ground floor could not be supported due to questions on how the use would function within the project concept and its viability at this location. • Reducing the perceived mass of the building from 7th Street, although consensus was not reached this issue. Staff believes that the modifications to the concept plans in response to these identified issues are generally positive as they lower the overall height and square feet of the project, reduce the perceived mass of the project and also include the proposal for a meaningful community benefit in the form of new housing opportunities that may be directed towards community priorities. At this time, staff seeks direction from the City Council as to whether it is appropriate to proceed with the Development Agreement and comments to guide negotiation points and future plan revisions. Discussion Development Agreements are negotiated contracts between the City and an applicant that specify the design details and requirements of a project. To avoid negotiating a project the City finds unacceptable, Development Agreement "Float-ups" are scheduled to enable a pro-active discussion with .the City Council. The Council's recommendations will provide initial direction to staff and inform the property owner. The information gathered during this discussion will be used to evaluate the potential health, safety and welfare benefits and impacts of the proposal and potential alternatives. Attachment D contains the applicant's summary. Site Background The project site is comprised of eight lots with one lot at the southeast corner of 7th Street and Wilshire Boulevard occupied by the Landmark structure, one lot with frontage on Wilshire Boulevard occupied by a rental car agency, five lots to the south of the Landmark structure fronting on 7th Street and occupied by surface parking, and one lot with frontage on Lincoln Boulevard occupied by surface parking. 2 Generally, Development Agreements are considered for projects on large parcels, when the project has some unusual quality. that existing zoning standards may not address, and most importantly, when the City has the opportunity to derive substantial public benefit from the project. A Development Agreement for this project is requested because the project site spans three zoning districts -- C3C Zonina and Land Use Designations (Downtown Overlay), C3 (Downtown Commercial), and C4 (Highway Commercial) -- and three General Plan land use designations -- General Commercial with Downtown Core, General Commercial, and General Commercial with Service/Specialty. The application of .multiple zoning development standards and the desire for feasible adaptive re-use of the Landmarks structure represent unusual circumstances that warrant consideration of a Development Agreement. A Development Agreement for the proposed hotel would give the applicant and the City more flexibility to achieve a'higher quality new building and allow for re-use of the Landmark structure from private offices into a hotel by providing on-site parking to service the new use. Due to the size of the subject property, the proposed project also represents one of the few opportunities remaining in the Downtown area for a viable hotel development with adequate site area to obtain sufficient light and air between buildings and ground floor open space. Project Description The applicant is proposing that the City consider a Development Agreement to permit a mixed-use hotel/residentiaUcommercial project consisting of: • Adaptive re-use of an existing, 7-story (82 feet) designated City Landmark office building (Santa Monica Professional Building) into a 55-room hotel use with approximately 6,900 square feet of ground floor retail uses including an approximately 4,000 square foot restaurant; • Construction of a new 7-story (81 feet) hotel building with 229 guest rooms, approximately 11,000 square feet of ground floor retail space including an approximately 3,500 square foot restaurant, approximately 5,700 square feet of 3 Map showing Project Site with existing meeting rooms and hotel amenities such as a spa and gym, and aroof-top swimming pool with approximately 3,000 square feet of food service, pool, and fitness amenities on the partial 7t".floor; ® Aground-floor open-air retail paseo of approximately 5,200 square feet, and a landscaped second-floor podium-level open space of approximately 5,300 square feet; and A mixed-use project on the 1218 Lincoln Boulevard parcel consisting of ground floor retail and community benefit housing (e.g. affordable, workforce, or seniors) with type and affordability to be determined. The height of the new hotel building is proposed between 56 - 81 feet and a maximum of 7-stories, of which the 7t" floor is a partial floor for use as a roof-top pool and associated amenities. With the exception of the partial 7th floor, the maximum proposed height is 70 feet. The new and Landmark buildings would be connected by a second- floor pedestrian bridge. The new building would range in height from 56 feet at Wilshire Boulevard, 60-65 feet on 7th Street, to a maximum of 81 feet at the southern portion of the building for pool amenities. The applicant has applied fora Development Agreement and therefore project compliance is limited to the General Plan Land Use Element, while other zoning standards such as height, FAR, and setbacks will be established by the Development Agreement. Furthermore, because the City is engaged in the Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) update, this project also needs to contemplate future LUCE goals and policies. While the Draft LUCE did not provide building height and FAR limits for the downtown area, policies in the Draft LUCE state that building heights and development intensity at the perimeter of the downtown area would be less intensive in deference to the surrounding lower scale development. The development proposed may exceed the height and FAR contemplated in the LUCE Update, based upon policies articulated in the Draft LUCE for the Downtown Core area. The total proposed floor area for the hotel project, including the 34,793 square foot Landmark structure, is 165,000 square feet. Multi-family housing on the 1218 Lincoln Boulevard lot would result in additional floor area, however, the total proposed floor area 4 does not exceed the maximum floor area permitted across the entire project site, pursuant to the calculation methodology proposed as part of the Development Agreement, due to the multiple General Plan Land Use Designations. Overall Size, Scale, and Design In meetings with the applicant, staff emphasized the importance of a massing strategy that respects the surrounding development conditions -where the scale of the surrounding neighborhood is generally one to three-storey buildings punctuated by a few high-rise buildings, including the Landmark building -and provides appropriate transitions along 7ih Street, the south property line, and along the alley. In this sense, the proposed project could continue an established context of generally low-scale development mixed with high-rise buildings on selected sites. Given the size of the project site, the proposed project also represents one of the few opportunities remaining in the Downtown area for a viable hotel development with adequate site area to allow for substantial building stepbacks, roofline variation across the site, sufficient light and air between buildings, and ground floor open space. In response to input received thus far from the community, Planning Commission, and staff, the applicant has made significant changes to the project concept including redistributing the massirig by increasing building returns and placing the majority of the new building mass towards the southern end of the hotel site to provide a more sensitive context for the Landmark structure while also stepping down to surrounding. development and removing an entire floor from the new hotel building, thereby lowering the majority of the building height from 84' to 70' (i.e. 6-story hotel structure on commercial podium). The applicant also replaced the grocery store use with meeting rooms allowing the Landmark building to be used solely for hotel rooms and ground floor retail space. The proposal to "borrow" FAR. from the Lincoln Boulevard parcel is also no longer being pursued by the applicant as the parcel is instead being reserued for adeed-restricted housing project. While staff believes that these are positive changes to the project concept and that the project massing has improved considerably since the original submittal, including the replacement of the top two floors with a partial 5 7th floor, staff seeks direction from the City Council as to whether the proposed building height of 81 feet, with the majority of the building at 70 feet, is appropriate in the surrounding neighborhood context. Prior Submittals -Site Plan Community Benefits The proposed- project is inconsistent with the development standards for the zoning districts that cover the property. The applicant believes that additional height and FAR is necessary in order to achieve a viable project and continue the useful life of the 6 Prior Submittals -Elevations Landmark building. For this reason, the applicant seeks a Development Agreement and has proposed the following community benefits: 1) Retention and adaptive re-use of an existing Landmark building from private offices into amid-range hotel 2) Multi-family housing on the 1218 Lincoln Boulevard parcel with type and affordability to be determined 3) Creation of apedestrian-oriented retail paseo and a widened sidewalk on 7th Street located on private property 4) Potential for shared parking opportunities 5) Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program 6) Achieve at least LEED Silver rating for the project 7) Publicly available community rooms 8) Development of local preference recruitment and hiring for Santa Monica residents At this early stage of the process, the applicant and staff have yet to engage in detailed discussions regarding the project's public benefits. However, it is expected that the project would at minimum provide TDM measures that would mitigate the project's future traffic impacts and encourage alternative forms of transportation to and from the project. In addition, the applicant has indicated the need to explore whether it would be viable to restrict the multi-family rental units for workforce housing. Consultation with the Community and Cultural Services Department is also necessary to determine any potential public benefits that could be provided for Reed Park, located across Wilshire Boulevard. Comprehensive plans and alternatives will be developed as part of the Development Agreement process based on direction from the Planning Commission and City Council pertaining to the project's size, scale, and public benefits. General Plan Consistency Consistency with Existing General Plan The subject property has three existing General Plan Land- Use Designations -General Commercial with Downtown Core, General Commercial, and General Commercial with Service/Specialty. The subject property is located within the boundaries of the 7 Downtown Frame area and the proposed land uses of hotel, commercial, and multi- family residential are consistent with the General Plan, which states that the Downtown should be the primary location for comparison retail with uses such as hotels and housing to complement the prime function. The proposed height of the new hotel building ranges from 56-81 feet and is therefore, consistent with the maximum allowable height of 84 feet,: per the General Plan. However, the Development Agreement proposal to average the FAR across the hotel site may require a General Plan Map amendment for a portion of the new hotel building that exceeds the maximum allowable floor area for a portion of the project site. Typically, the maximum allowable floor area would apply only to the specific parcels within a Land Use Designation. Given the unique nature of the project which includes the retention of a Landmark, the averaging of the FAR across the hotel site may be appropriate as long as the proposed project- does not exceed the total allowable floor area for the entire hotel site. Consistency with Draft LUCE The City. is actively engaged in the LUCE Update and it is very likely that the Development Agreement will not be completed before the anticipated adoption of the Final LUCE. Accordingly, the Development Agreement for this project needs to contemplate the LUCE goals and polices so that the project that ultimately returns to the Planning Commission and City Council will account for community priorities, appropriate design and scale, and transportation demand management programs established through the LUCE process. The subject property is located within the Downtown District, as identified in the Draft LUCE. While building height and FAR limits continue to be developed through the LUCE Update process, the Downtown policies identify Wilshire and Lincoln Boulevards as the new perimeters of the Downtown and that the properties adjacent to the boulevards should serve as a transition zone between the higher intensities of the Downtown core and the lower intensity residential areas to the east and the north. Staff s has expressed concern to the applicant that the project may potentially exceed the development intensity for the Downtown perimeter areas as contemplated in the LUCE Update. The Downtown urban design and land use policies emphasize quality streetscape and pedestrian experience, encourage incentives for the retention of historic resources, and encourage hew housing, particularly between 6tn Street and Lincoln Court alley. Staff has reviewed the concept plans in light of the Downtown policies. Requiring the applicant to re-locate the subterranean parking entrance to the southern end of the project site creates the opportunity for the 7th Street frontage to provide pedestrian- oriented amenities such as a wider sidewalk at the entrance to the retail paseo, which is in line with Downtown policies. The applicant's proposal has incorporated the stated Downtown policies regarding the retention of historic resources and the location of new housing. Current Submittal -Site Plan _ _ , t.._ _ __ __ Separatibri5betwde~en building elements on alley ~r~ ~ 3 e_ k ry~~1 ~ Tai ,i ~~ y _ f ~ ~ -_ ~~ ~ ,~ `~ ` ~. ~~_,~ Substantial [=x ~ ~f {.a ~.,~ '~ ~ ~ ~ building ~~ ~ returns ~ s s - ._ ~ - ~- Refererces between - - - - Stepdownsto Landmark and new OPened up southern entrance to,. „~~, buildings retail court buildings Community Meeting and Public Input A community meeting to review the concept plans was held by staff on April 16, 2009. In general, the project design shown in the concept plans was well-received by meeting attendees. Attendees commended the developer and architect for being receptive to City staffls concerns by making appropriate adjustments to the building mass and 9 pedestrian orientation of the project. Although no specific concerns were verbally expressed regarding the scale, massing, or height of the project, one written comment was received that expressed concern that the project does not provide significant community benefit and that a tall and massive building would block light and change the character of the city. The only comment related to project design was to incorporate more landscaping within and around the site and consider options for "greening" the alley. Some suggestions were also provided regarding potential public benefits that the project could provide including contributions towards improvements in Reed Park, contributions to the Boys and Girls Club, and making the pool and health club accessible to the public. The major point of community discussion was the project's impact on existing 7th Street congestion and the project's circulation plan including truck loading access on the alley and the potential loss of metered and off-street parking on 7th Street during construction and in the long-term. Staff clarified that as the project was still conceptual, none of the circulation shown on the plans has yet been fully reviewed or accepted by Planning and Transportation Management Division staff. The Transportation Management Division has preliminarily reviewed the concept plans and expressed concern with the project circulation, particularly the loading functions and how residents of the deed-restricted housing will cross the alley and access the subterranean parking. Other general comments received included one comment that the property owner should make efforts to allow the existing small businesses displaced by the project the opportunity to move into the new building. If the development agreement proceeds, future community meetings will be scheduled to allow surrounding residents and businesses the opportunity to comment on the project design. Landmarks Commission Preliminary Discussion The concept plans and massing model were presented to the Landmarks Commission on May 11, 2009. The Commission's preliminary discussion of the schematic project design acknowledged the efforts to breakdown and control the massing of the new 10 structure in relation to the neighbourhood and the Landmark structure, however, several of the Commissioners commented that the height and mass of the new building, while mostly situated towards the far southeastern end of the structure, seemed excessive compared with the Landmark building. The Landmarks Commission had the following additional comments: • The new building should have its own architectural identity and reference but not overtly replicate the forms and proportions of the Landmark building. The verticality and angled forms of the new building seem cluttered and forced in comparison to the delicate forms and relief in the Landmark building. An effort to simplify the design would improve the visual relationship between the Landmark and new construction. • There was concern that the mass and volume of the new building hinders its ability to appropriately relate to the historic context of the Landmark building. A copy of the Landmarks Commission minutes from May 11, 2009 is included as Attachment A. Planning Commission Action The concept plans were presented to the Planning Commission on June 10, 2009. Based on input from the applicant. and public, the Planning Commission made the following recommendations: ® The Lincoln Boulevard parcel should be treated as a separate site from the project and not be permitted to be used in the project's maximum allowable floor area calculation. Explore the potential for parking reductions given the opportunity for shared parking and studies that have shown that parking demand in hotels is less due to use of airport shuttles, taxis, and other forms of transportation. • The hotel should retain an on-site car rental and bike rental agency for the convenience of hotel guests to reduce short-distance single occupant vehicle trips. The proposal to include a food market use on the ground floor could not be supported due to concerns about the viability of such a use in concert with the operation of the hotel. • If a local recruitment and hiring preference is proposed, the program should be adjusted to make sure that it will in fact achieve those goals. 11 • The hotel should be required to pay all employees the minimum required by the City's living wage ordinance and ensure that the multi-family units be at a workforce housing affordability level. • Potential community benefits that the project could provide: o Developer contribution to improvements to Reed Park. Planning staff has held preliminary discussions with Community and Cultural Services staff regarding this issue but additional consultation will be required in order to determine the timing, type, and amount of a potential contribution. o Improvements required at the Lincoln/Wilshire and 7ihM/ilshire intersections as part of mitigation measures resulting from the project's potential significant traffic impacts, as identified in the project's environmental analysis. In addition to these comments, the Planning Commission discussed in detail but did not come to full consensus on the following issues: • Averaging the FAR across the entire project site (excluding the Lincoln Boulevard parcel) should only be considered if the project provides meaningful public benefits, beyond what was presented to the Planning Commission on June 10, 2009. • Reducing the perceived mass of the building from 7~h Street by deleting portions of the building "wings". There was an alternative view that removing upper level portions of the wings could affect the overall harmony of the project design and that the architect. should be permitted to continue working with staff on other ways to reduce the perceived mass to the greatest extent possible. A copy of the Planning Commission minutes from June 10, 2009 is included as Attachment B. Alternative Actions In addition to the recommended action, the City Council could consider the following with respect to the project: • Continue discussion for analysis of different options with agreement from the applicant. Environmental Analysis CEQA review is not required for the purpose of a preliminary discussion of the feasibility of a potential project and the appropriateness and potential public benefits of a Developmerit Agreement for the site (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15262). 12 Environmental analysis will be completed prior to considering approval of the Development Agreement. Financial Impact and Budget Actions Staff costs for the Development Agreement process are paid from a deposit by the applicant upon submittal of an application. Staff time spent working on the Development Agreement is tracked and if exceeded, an additional deposit will be required by the applicant. There is a wide range of public benefits that the developer could be required to provide pursuant to the Development Agreement negotiations. At this juncture in the process, the project remains a concept that may be significantly changed with input from the City Council and therefore, it would be premature for staff to engage the services of an economic consultant to analyze-the fiscal impact and community benefit contributions of the proposed Development Agreement. While the applicant has provided a hotel feasibility report, this. report has not yet been peer reviewed. If negotiations proceed, the associated fiscal impact will be determined prior to the Development Agreement returning for City Council consideration. Prepared by: Jing Yeo, AICP, Special Projects Manager Approved: Forwarded to Council: ~~ l C. Ei(ee Fogarty Director, Plannin & Co munit Development Rod Gould City Manager Attachments A. Landmarks Commission Minutes, May 11, 2009 B. Planning Commission Minutes, June 10, 2009 C. Public Notification D. Applicant's Project Summary and Concept Plans 13 ATTACHMENT A LANDMARKS COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 11, 2009 14 MINUTES REGULAR MEETING OF THE LANDMARKS COMMISSION Founded 1875 "Populus felix in urbe felicP' Monday, May 11, 2009 7:00 PM City Council Chambers, Room 213 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica CALL TO ORDER OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE LANDMARKS COMMISSION: The meeting was called to order at 7:10 pm. 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Margaret Bach John Berley, Chair Pro Tempore Nina Fresco (Arrived at 7:26 pm) Barbara Kaplan, Chair RogerGenser Ruthann Lehrer Ruth Shari Also Present: Kevin McKeown, City Council Liaison Barry Rosenbaum, Senior Land Use Attorney Roxanne Tanemori, Commission Secretary Scott Albright, Senior Planner Lily Yegazu, Associate Planner Susan Umeda, Staff Assistant III 2. REPORT FROM STAFF Ms. Tanemori presented an update on upcoming City Council appeals. 3. COMMISSIONER ANNOUNCEMENTS: Chair Kaplan attended the CPF Conference in Palm Springs on April 18, 2009 and described the events that were held at the conference. 15 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: 4-A. April 13, 2009 The Commission made several corrections to the minutes. Commissioner Genser made a motion to approve the minutes with corrections. Commissioner Lerhrer seconded the motion. The motion was approved by voice vote. 5. APPROVAL OF STATEMENTS OF OFFICIAL ACTION: 5-A. Certificate of Appropriateness Application 09CA-004, 829 Broadway, approving a rehabilitation plan for the Landmark Quonset Hut. Commissioner Lehrer asked staff if a historic plaque was to be included as a condition of approval for the Certificate of Appropriateness. Chair Pro Tempore Berley responded that the discussion regarding the plaque was only a friendly suggestion and not part of the motion. Commissioner Bach made a motion to approve the Statement of Official Action for Certificate of Appropriateness Application 09CA-004, 829 Broadway. Commissioner Lehrer seconded the motion. The motion was approved by voice vote. 5-B. Certificate of Appropriateness Application 09CA-007, 380 Santa Monica Pier, approving the design of a new retractable shade structure over the bumper car area at Pacific Park. Commissioner Lehrer made a motion to approve the Statement of Official Action for Certificate of Appropriateness 09CA-007, 380 Santa Monica Pier. Commissioner Shari seconded the motion. The motion was approved by voice vote. 6. PUBLIC INPUT: (On items not on agenda and within the jurisdiction of the Commission) The following members of the public addressed the Commission: Titus Wapato, who asked the Commission to agendize a discussioh regarding the appeal of the landmark designation of 301 Ocean Avenue on the June 8, 2009 Landmarks Commission meeting agenda, and John Ellis, who asked the Commission to agendize a discussion regarding the possible landmark designation of the Greyhound sign at 1433 Fifth Street. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR: None. 16 8. OLD BUSINESS: 8-A. Certificate of Appropriateness Application 09CA-009 and Sian Adiustment Application 09ARB-161, 200 Santa Monica Pier, for design approval of signage and exterior modifications at the northeast corner of the Looff Hippodrome Carousel Building in conjunction with a new. ice cream/soda fountain vendor. (Continued from the April 73, 2009 Meeting) The Commission made ex parte communication disclosures. Ms. Yegazu presented the staff report. Staff recommended that the Commission approve Certificate of Appropriateness Application 09CA-009 and Sign Adjustment 09ARB-161 based upon the draft findings in the staff report. The following members of the public addressed the Commission: Ross Andrews, who represented the applicant. Mr. Andrews presented the revised project to the Commission. Chair Pro Tempore Berley commended the applicants for their responsiveness to the suggestions previously made by the Commission. Commissioner Lehrer made a motion to approve Certificate of Appropriateness Application 09CA-009 and. Sign Adjustment Application 09ARB-161, 200 Santa Monica Pier. Commissioner Fresco seconded the motion. A roll call was held for the motion and was approved by the following vote: AYES: Bach, Berley, Fresco, Genser, Lehrer, Shari, Chair Kaplan NEW BUSINESS/PUBLIC HEARINGS: 9-A. Review of Demolition Permits and Consideration Whether to File an Application for Designation of a Structure as a City Landmark or Structure of Merit. The Commission made ex pane communication disclosures. 2520 Twenty-sixth Street (09PC0271) R1 -Single Familv Residential Single Familv Residence with Garage Structure Not Identified in Historic Resources Inventory (Continued from the April 73, 2009 Meeting) Ms. Tanemori stated that the owner intends to remove the tree. She stated that the Community Forester confirmed that the tree is an olive tree and it is over fifty years old; however, the overall integrity and aesthetic 17 value of the tree has been compromised, in part, because of the way it has been pruned over the years. Commissioner Bach stated that there should be consideration by the owner to voluntarily retain the tree. Chair Pro Tempore Berley stated that there may be an opportunity for the tree to be relocated. Commissioner Lehrer stated -that the tree has high aesthetic qualities. However, she stated that the tree would be an impediment to construction equipment on site. Commissioner Lehrer stated that it would be difficult to pursue landmark designation unless the Commission had more positive feedback from the Community Forester. Commissioner Fresco stated that the tree is probably not a heritage tree and would not fall within the Landmarks Commission's purview. No action taken. 2. 1045 Harvard Street (09PC0416) R1 -Single Family Residential Single Family Residence with Garage Structure Not Identified in Historic Resources Inventory No action taken. 9-B. Landmark Designation Application 09LM-001. 2125 Arizona Avenue, to determine whether the commercial building should be designated as a City Landmark. Ms. Tanemori stated. that a request was submitted from the property owner's representative to continue the public hearing on this item until the July 13, 2009 meeting. Commissioner Genser made a motion to continue item 9-B until the July 13, 2009 Landmarks Commission meeting. Commissioner Fresco seconded the motion. The motion was approved by voice vote. 9-C. Certificate of Appropriateness Application 09CA-006, 236 Adelaide Drive for design approval of a proposed project to rehabilitate the Landmark residence and two contributing accessory structures on the property. The Commission made ex pane communication disclosures. 18 Ms. Tanemori presented the staff report. Staff recommended that the Commission approve Certificate of Appropriateness Application 09CA-006, 236 Adelaide Drive based upon the draft findings in the staff report. Commissioner Lehrer inquired about staff's position that elements not identified in the original Landmark designation are excluded from the Commission's review. She stated that the Commission's intent is to be reviewing everything that is proposed for the site. Commissioner Lehrer asked staff to explain this further. Ms. Tanemori responded that the finding for a Landmark Parcel was not made by the Commission at the time of designation; therefore, certain work on the parcel is not subject to Landmarks Commission review. Commissioner Lehrer stated that staff should review the record to determine whether the Commission specifically asked to exclude the designation of the landmark parcel. Commissioner Censer asked staff to explain why the entrance of the house is not part of the Commission's review. Ms. Tanemori responded that the walkways are hardscape improvements and are not connected to the existing Landmark residence. Chair Pro Tempore Berley asked staff if the guard and carriage houses are going to be rehabilitated. Ms. Tanemori responded that the structures will be rehabilitated and the project also includes restoration work. Chair Pro Tempore Berley asked if design review will be conducted for the proposed three-car garage. Ms. Tanemori responded that the applicant will provide the elevations of the structure as a courtesy although it is not part of the application under consideration by the Commission. Chair Pro Tempore Berley stated that the garage could be designed to look as historic as everything else on the site without differentiation since it is not sited on a landmark parcel. He added that structures could be erected on the property which would not be subject to review by the Commission because the parcel was not designated. The following members of the public addressed the Commission: Kelly Sutherlin McLeod, AIA (applicant's representative), Christine. London (applicant's representative), Kyle Ham, and Linda Liles. Ms. McLeod and Ms. London presented. an overview of the project. Mr. Ham expressed his concerns regarding the project. Ms. Liles stated that the project will violate all six of the criteria identified to designate the property as a Landmark and asked the Commission to continue the hearing and deny the application. Commissioner Fresco asked Ms. McLeod to clarify the reason why the topography would be adjusted to create a recessed circular driveway. Ms. McLeod explained that the original topography was lower than the grade in between the circle and around the edges. Ms. McLeod stated that the lower area must be retained in order to keep the drainage away from the house. Ms. London presented and explained a diagram which shows the topography. 19 Commissioner Genser asked staff to describe the difference between a landmark designated with a landmark parcel and one that is not designated with a landmark parcel. Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum responded that a Landmark Parcel is the designation of any real property and the location of the boundaries are determined by the Landmarks Commission. Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum stated that the designation of a Landmark Parcel would enable the Commission to preserve, maintain, protect, or safeguard the Landmark. Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum stated that a Landmark Parcel was not set forth in the designation of 236 Adelaide Drive. Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum stated that there is a procedure to make corrections to a designation but this would not be able to be accomplished at this meeting. That matter would need to be scheduled at a future meeting if the Commission chose to initiate that action. Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum further described the options available to the Commission to rectify this matter. Commissioner Fresco stated that the project as a whole is very exciting. She stated that the loss of the circular driveway is difficult because the spatial relationships that characterize the property are given meaning by the driveway. She suggested that the path is a connection between the pergola, the carriage house. and the main residence. Commissioner Lehrer stated that the project is commendable because very modest changes will be made to the building. She stated that the driveway is a lovely formality from the past but it is not functional today. She stated that the landscape architect indicated that there will be a way to incorporate the original configuration into the design for the space. Commissioner Lehrer commended the owners for their stewardship of the property. She stated that the addition of the expanded terrace is consistent with the Craftsman philosophy/lifestyle of bringing indoor and outdoor spaces together. Commissioner Shari commended the owner for diligence used in designing the project. Commissioner Shari stated that the expansion of the kitchen and the modification to the driveway is acceptable. Commissioner Shari also stated that the modifications are appropriate and warranted, in part, because of the deferred maintenance of the property. Chair Pro Tempore Berley stated that applicant might be able to memorialize the circular driveway in a fashion that is clearer in terms of the original driveway. He stated that he agreed with Commissioner Lehrer's assessment. Chair Kaplan stated that the design of the project is skillfully executed. She stated that all of the changes are acceptable because the intention of the landscape plan is designed, in part, to recreate the sense of open space that was such an important part of the original building. 20 Commissioner Censer complimented the owner and architect for their diligence and it was impressive to see the. details of the project. Commissioner Censer had concerns about the garage and the entrance way from a procedural standpoint. Commissioner Censer stated that the project is wonderful and the applicant gave a great deal of thought to all of the proposed details. Chair Kaplan stated that the original family who constructed the home had more privacy; she stated that the proposed changes are acceptable because the overall intent of the original owners for the site will be preserved. Commissioner Lehrer suggested that the applicant incorporate subtle references in the design of the new garage that would. make it evident that- it is a contemporary structure. Commissioner Lehrer made a motion to approve Certificate of Appropriateness Application 09CA-006, 236 Adelaide Drive based upon the draft findings in the staff report and added as a condition to the approval the following: [1] the circular driveway in the yard must be referenced in the landscape plan in a clear way which commemorates its historic presence and [2] the applicant shall work with staff on the resolution of that issue. Commissioner Shari seconded the motion. A roll call was held for the motion and was approved by the following vote: AYES: Bach, Berley, Fresco, Censer, Lehrer, Shari, Chair Kaplan 9-D. Structure of Merit Application 09SM-001, 3018 Third Street, to determine whether the single-family residence should be designated as a Structure of Merit. The Commission made ex pane communication disclosures Mr. Albright presented the staff report. Staff recommended that the Commission approve Structure of Merit Application 09SM-001, 3018 Third Street based on the draft findings in the staff report. Commissioner Fresco asked staff to describe the similarities of the reconstructed chimneys to the original. Mr. Albright responded that the top portion of the original chimney was damaged and added that the property owner will need to inform--the Commission if the chimney was completely reconstructed and describe the materials used in the reconstruction. Chair Pro Tempore Berley asked staff if the applicant is seeking any of the benefits associated with a Structure of Merit designation. Ms. Tanemori responded that Structures of Merit are eligible to apply for a Mills Act contract. Chair Pro Tempore Berley asked staff if the application is clear enough that it delineates the character-defining features from modifications that were made to the structure. Mr. Albright responded that the character-defining features will be 21 included in the designation since the rear of the structure has a number of modifications and alterations. Chair Pro Tempore Berley asked staff to define the length of the Structure of Merit designation. Mr. Albright responded that the Structure of Merit designation will be effective for the life of the structure because it is not a contributor to a historic district. Commissioner Lehrer stated that 3018 Third Street meets Criteria 2 and 3. Commissioner Fresco stated that 3018 Third Street is not an exemplary example of the Craftsman style. She stated that the structure should be described as a beach cottage with Craftsman influences. The following members of the public addressed the Commission: Andrew Lauer (owner). Mr. Lauer described the changes that were made to the property. Commissioner Lehrer asked Mr. Lauer to explain the reason he applied for a Structure of Merit. Mr. Lauer responded that he wanted to honor the hard work that he has already put into the structure and to generate more interest and visibility for preservation in his immediate neighborhood. Commissioner Lehrer stated that Mr. Lauer's intentions are honorable. Chair Pro Tempore Berley stated that the Commission should thank the applicant for the effort in preserving the house and filing the application. Chair Pro Tempore Berley made a motion to approve Structure of Merit Application 09SM-001, 3018 Third Street based Criteria 2 and 3. Commissioner Lehrer seconded the motion. A roll call was held for the motion and was approved by the following vote: AYES: Bach, Berley, Fresco, Censer, Lehrer, Shari, Chair Kaplan 10. DISCUSSION ITEMS: 10-A. Discussion and update from staff .regarding the status of Recreation and Parks Commission's courtesy review of a draft Regulatory Review Program for Palisades Park and potential identification of a timeline for Landmarks Commission action on the draft Regulatory Review Program and potential identification of a date for a joint meeting with the Recreation and Parks Commission to discuss the draft document. Ms. Tanemori reported that the Chair and a fellow Commissioner of the Recreation and Parks Commission met with the City Attorney's office to discuss their concerns about jurisdictional issues that staff had previously outlined for the Commission. She stated that the Recreation and Parks Commission has not met 22 as a full Commission to further discuss the draft regulatory review program since this meeting with the City Attorney's office. Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum stated that he attended the meeting with the Recreation and Parks Chair and Commissioner. He reported that the following items were discussed: [1 ]concerns about the legality of the Landmarks Commission decision to landmark the park and [2j concerns about the proposed Regulatory Plan, and particularly how it might impact their ability to operate the park on a day-to-day basis. He stated that there seems to be some direction to Community and Cultural Services' staff to prepare an alternative document but this has probably not- been done yet. Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum stated he encouraged the Recreation and Parks Commissioners to attend tonight's meeting, indicating that this was a procedural meeting to help determine the next steps so that the Regulatory Program, which was mandated by the designation, would be put into place. Chair Kaplan asked staff if the Commission should wait or set a timeline for the Regulatory Program. Ms. Tanemori stated that CSS staff has been quite busy this spring; she also acknowledged that it took Planning staff additional time to prepare the draft document before circulating it in January. Commissioner Lehrer asked staff if any new development or construction in the .park would come before the Commission under the existing regulations. Ms: Tanemori responded that there are interim standards in place; work that does not clearly fall into one of the exemption categories will need to be reviewed by the Commission. City Council Liaison McKeown asked staff to describe the consequences if the Commissions do not agree on a Regulatory Review Program. Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum stated that the designation required that the draft must be submitted to the Commission before a certain period of time. This time period has since past. Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum stated that, as the regulatory program is currently drafted by staff, far more items must come before the Commission per the interim standards than if the regulatory program were to be in place. City Council Liaison McKeown asked staff if the input of the Recreation and Parks Commission is a courtesy review only. Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum responded that the Recreation and Parks Commission's input is not required; however, it was anticipated that comments from Recreation and Parks Commission would be considered through the joinf meeting process. Chair Kaplan asked staff if the regulatory program with modifications would be appealed to the City Council if it did not have input of the Recreation and Parks Commission. Senior .Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum suggested that the Commission could contemplate a revised procedure for adoption of a regulatory 23 review program. However, he again stated that the Commission's intent was to seek Recreation and Parks Commission comments on a draft document prior to formal Landmarks Commission adoption. Commissioner Censer suggested that this discussion be agendized for the June 8, 2009 meeting since the Recreation and Parks Commission has not met since their meeting with the City Attorney's office. Chair Kaplan suggested that the Landmarks Commission should continue this discussion item and wait until the Recreation and Parks Commission has discussed the previously-distributed draft document, 10-B. Update from staff regarding the status of the construction at 507 Wilshire Boulevard, a designated City Landmark. Ms. Tanemori reported that the property owner is in the final stages of construction. She stated that the owner will be seeking a Certificate of Occupancy within the next two weeks. She stated that. staff has conducted several site visits and inspections in conjunction with the forthcoming request for the final Certificate of Occupancy and, consistent with other properties, staff is inspecting the site to ensure compliance with approved plans. The following members of the public addressed the Commission: Craig Jones, who answered questions from the Commission. Chair Pro Tempore Berley asked Mr. Jones if the property will have a name. Mr. Jones responded Arezzo. Chair Pro Tempore Berley asked Mr. Jones if there was consideration in calling the building "Llo-Da-Mar". Mr. Jones responded in the positive. Chair Pro Tempore Berley suggested that the historic name be used. Mr. Jones responded that that the names are generally used to create corporations for ownership and licensing purposes. Mr. Jones stated that he will strongly urge his partners to change the name to "Llo-Da-Mar." Chair Kaplan asked Mr. Jones asked if the windows on the second floor fagade are being retained. Mr. Jones responded in the positive. Commissioner Censer asked staff if there has been a problem with deviation from the approved Certificate of Appropriateness design or if there has been concern about workmanship. Ms. Tanemori responded that there was a problem with the workmanship of certain storefront elements but that the owner has cooperated with staff's instruction. Commissioner Censer asked Mr. Jones if the first floor storefront windows were retained. Mr. Jones responded that the first floor storefront windows were previously replaced and that new storefronts have been installed per the Commission's approval. He stated that he agreed with staff's identification of 2a workmanship issues related to the storefronts and all of the work is being corrected per staff's requirement. 10-C. The Commission made ex pane communication disclosures. Chair Pro Tempore Berley made a motion to allow Ken Kutcher to address the Commission for seven minutes. Commissioner Genser seconded the motion. The motion was approved by voice vote. The following members of the public addressed the Commission: Ken Kutcher (owner's representative), Mary Jo Winder (architectural historian), and Bruce Cameron. Messrs. Kutcher and Cameron asked the Commission to deny the request to file an application to designate the industrial building located at 1681 Twenty-Sixth Street as a City Landmark. Ms. Winder summarized the report that she submitted to the Commission in which she stated that the building does not meet any of the six Landmark criteria. Commissioner Fresco asked Ms. Winder to describe the relationship between Paper Mate and Gillette. Ms. Winder responded that Paper Mate was sold to Gillette in 1955. Chair Pro Tempore Berley asked Ms. Winder the reason the bracing was added to the structure. Ms. Winder responded that the Northridge earthquake caused a tremendous amount of damage to the building and the braces were added at that time. Chair Pro Tempore Berley stated that the photographs suggest that the structure is a vernacular example of a Modern industrial building. Chair Pro Tempore Berley asked Ms. Winder if she felt that the expression of the volume, the cantilever, and the ribbon windows, while all a reference to Modern elements, were not exceptional. Ms. Winder responded that the materials of construction and design were standard. Chair Pro Tempore Berley asked Ms. Winder if it is important to find comparables within the City that are better examples. Ms. Winder responded in the negative and compared the building to standards which are internationally known. Commissioner Fresco asked Ms. Winder if the Birch Investment Company built the structure for Paper Mate. Ms. Winder responded that she did not find that in her research. Chair Pro Tempore Berley asked staff when the area was last surveyed. Ms. Tanemori responded the area was surveyed in the mid-1990's. 25 Chair Pro Tempore Berley made a motion to continue the meeting past 11:00 pm. Commissioner Bach seconded the motion. The motion was approved by voice vote. Commissioner Bach asked staff if the building was captured in the current Historical Resources Inventory update. Ms. Tanemori responded the Citywide update is currently being reviewed by staff and is still in draft form. However, it is anticipated that the Inventory data will be consistent with PCR's preliminary assessment. Commissioner Fresco stated that the Commission should understand the local context of the company, building, industry, etc. Commissioner Fresco stated that additional information is needed to make her decision. Commissioner Bach stated that more information would be appropriate so that the Commission could understand the industrial history of Santa Monica. She inquired whether this additional research needed to be done through the filing of a Landmark application. Ms. Tanemori responded that since there is no demolition permit pending, and therefore no required timeframe for action, the Commission could choose to continue the discussion and request that additional research be prepared. Commissioner Bach made a motion to continue this item and asked staff to provide additional information on comparables within the City and the business, economic and cultural background of the structure. Commissioner Fresco seconded the motion. The motion was approved by voice vote. Commissioners Genser and Shari did not approve the motion. 10-D. Presentation of the schematic desian and oreliminarv discussion of a Development Agreement proposal that includes the adaptive re-use of a designated City Landmark office building into a hotel use located at 710 Wilshire Boulevard and construction of a new hotel building with ground floor commercial/retail space, a public plaza, and subterranean garage. The following members of the public addressed the Commission: Howard Laks, architect of the project. Mr. Laks presented an update to the project at 710 Wilshire Boulevard. Mr. Laks asked the Commission to grant him ten minutes to make his presentation. Commissioner Lehrer made a motion to grant Mr. Laks seven minutes to address the Commission. The motion was approved by voice vote. Chair Kaplan asked Mr. Laks if the presentation was about massing of the structure. Mr. Laks responded that he has presented revised building heights, relationship to the landmark structure, and general massing. Chair Kaplan asked Mr. Laks what is driving the forms, shapes and orientation of some of these 26 structures and if there is a possibility of cutting back program. Mr. Laks responded that a number of rooms and size of the building has already been cut .back. Chair Kaplan stated that references were made to the historical building in terms of the base and some of the angle forms. Chair Kaplan asked Mr. Laks if he has created a conversation between the historical building and the new structure so that one is not apared-down, variation reference to the historical building.. Mr. Laks stated that the connection will be more apparent once building materials are selected. He also described how the features on the new building connect with the Landmark structure such as two angled wings, which will be articulated in a more contemporary fashion. Chair Pro Tempore Berley stated that the project is achieving some success in breaking down the massing so that the new structure will not overwhelm the Landmark structure. However, Chair Pro Tempore Berley stated that other areas, such as the angled wings and curves of the building, will need additional work to make them compatible with the Landmark. Commissioner Bach stated she sees some of the positive changes compared to the original design, such as the activation of the Seventh Street side instead of having a vehicle entrance. However, she stated that the previous version of the Seventh Street side was more organic and appropriate since the horizontal lines were in balance with the Landmark structure. Commissioner Fresco stated that the interpretive quality of the wings should be more articulated. She stated that there is a verticality and delicacy to the Landmark building. She stated that the horizontality of the new structure will overwhelm the Landmark in the front. She stated that the structure proposed with eight stories should not be higher than the historic structure. Commissioner Censer asked if there is a height limit. Mr. Laks responded that the height limits on the project vary from 45 feet to 56 feet based on the development standards for the different zones that cover the project site; Mr. Laks stated that the maximum proposed project height will be 84 feet. Commissioner Censer stated that it was difficult to locate the Landmark building in the model that was presented to the Commission; this would indicate that the project is so big that Landmark building is basically lost. Commissioner Lehrer stated that creative efforts have been made to try to relate the new construction to the historic building. She stated that the project should be simplified, which would help bring out the qualities of the Landmark building in contrast to the new construction. She also suggested that the project be downscaled in relation to the Landmark in order to keep the new construction more subordinate. 27 10-E. Discussion and formulation of potential comments to City staff regarding the Notice of Preparation for the Environmental Impact Report for the Santa Monica Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) Update of the City's General Plan. Chair Pro Tempore Berley stated that the Commission should provide guidance for the preparation of the draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR). He stated that the Commission should attend the scoping meeting and suggested that a subcommittee be formed to attend this meeting and provide input to the consultant who will be preparing the draft EIR. Commissioner Shari stated that she is unable to attend the meetings but has areas of concern regarding the draft EIR. Commissioner Shari stated the following concerns: [1] mitigation measures, such as a fountain or trees; for the transit stations should be clarified; [2] displacement of people who are currently renting; and [3] architectural design of affordable housing units. Chair Pro Tempore Berley stated that the Architectural Review Board will probably be the body which. will decide on some of these measures. Chair Pro Tempore. Berley stated that the development of transit areas and the effect on historic resources is something that the Commission should watch closely. Chair Pro Tempore Berley stated that the Commission is not able rely on the new Inventory Update because the data has not been finalized. His concern is that the revised Inventory will not be incorporated or referenced in the decisions that are going into the LUCE. He further stated that the Commission must ensure that new resources in the new inventory are given proper consideration as the LUCE moves forward. Commissioner Fresco stated that neighborhood character is a concern of the Commission. She stated that neighborhood character is not necessarily preserved in the commercial/transit/corridor section of the City because the LUCE does not incorporate measures to block the development of the corridors. Commissioner Fresco stated that it would be a mistake to not consider neighborhood character in the commercial/transit/corridor sections of the City. She stated that the EIR must include. alternatives regarding maintaining neighborhood character in these areas other than retaining or not retaining a historic resource. Chair Kaplan stated that the EIR was focused on potential transportation elements and corridors but that it ignored large areas of the City such as the airport or the beach. Commissioner Bach stated that the following could be incorporated into the comments brought to the meeting: [1] consideration of cultural and architectural resources in open space and access to greenery at ground level and [2] consideration of mixed-use structures to incorporate flexibility for non-conforming uses where those uses enhance neighborhood character such as neighborhood markets. She suggested that adaptive reuse should be stressed in the EIR. 28 Commissioner Lehrer stated that the EIR should stress sustainability and the connection between preserving existing buildings and sustainability. Chair Pro Tempore Berley and Commissioner Fresco stated that they will attend the scoping meeting. Chair Pro Tempore Berley stated that he will act on behalf of the Commission to relay its comments to staff. 10-F. Report from City Council Liaison to the Landmarks Commission on recent City Council actions related to appeals, development projects planning policy studies and ordinances related to the Citv's historic resources, and information concerning future City Council agendas. City Council Liaison McKeown reported that the Phipps Group was retained by the City Council for development of measures to be incorporated into a Neighborhood Conservation Program. He also stated the City Council is looking toward members of Boards and Commissions to come forward on specific issues to engage the Board or Commission more intimately with the City Council. City Council Liaison McKeown reported that there are no protections for meritorious signs unless they have a landmark designation and the Commission may want to review this policy in the future. 10-G. Report from Landmarks Commission Liaison to the Architectural Review Board (ARB) on recent ARB consideration and action taken on proposed projects involving additions to or modifications of potential historic resources. Chair Kaplan reported that the Commission should ask the Architectural Review Board to do archival photography of the Greyhound building because the Commission does not have purview over the sign. Chair Pro Tempore Berley stated that the Quonset but project came before the Architectural Review Board. The Board, in its discussion of the larger development project, also discussed whether the original patina of the Quonsef but structure could be retained. 10-H. Planning Commission Case List (Information Onlv). 11. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: 11-A. Consideration of correspondence from Ken Kutcher, on behalf of Juli Doar of 2001 Main Street LLC, requesting that the Commission authorize one or more of its members to attend the Mav 20, 2009 Planning Commission public hearing for the 2001 Main Street adaptive-reuse protect and its Environmental Impact Report 29 to convey the importance of this proiect and the confidence that it can be managed through the Certificate of Appropriateness process. The following members of the public-addressed the Commission: Ken Kutcher, who represented the owner. He encouraged the one or more Commissioner to attend the May 20, 2009 Planning Commission meeting to reiterate its support for the project based on its review of the schematic design and to reiterate the purview of the Landmarks Commission in terms of its role in approving the final project design. Commissioner Genser and Chair Pro Tempore Berley stated that they will attend the meeting. 12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS: (Requests from Commissioners to add items to upcoming agendas} Chair Kaplan asked to agendize a discussion about the Greyhound bus station sign. Commissioner Bach asked staff to provide a list of meritorious signs. Commissioner Genser asked staff if the Greyhound bus station sign is in jeopardy. Chair Pro Tempore Berley stated that the owners brought a design before the Architectural Review Board but was continued. Commissioner Lehrer asked to agendize a discussion about Landmark Parcels. Commissioner Fresco asked staff to provide a list of Landmarks and Landmark Parcels. Chair Kaplan asked to agendize a discussion about sending a representative to upcoming City Council meetings in which Landmark Commission decisions are being appealed. 13. NEXT MEETING DATE AND COMMISSION AGENDA: Regular Meeting of the Landmarks Commission: 7:00 PM Monday, June 8, 2009; -City Council Chambers, Room 213, City Hall. 14. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Lehrer made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 12:09 am on Tuesday, May 12, 2009. Commissioner Bach seconded the motion. The motion was approved by voice vote. 30 ATTACHMENT B PLANING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 10, 2009 31 MINUTES City of Santa Monica'" SPECIAL MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA WEDNESDAY, June 10, 2009 KEN EDWARDS CENTER 7:00 P.M. 1527 FOURTH STREET, ROOM 104 1. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:23 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Ries led the Pledge of Allegiance. 3. ROLL CALL: Present: Jay P. Johnson Gerda Newbold Terry O'Day, Chairperson Gwynne Pugh, AIA, ASCE Jim Ries Ted Winterer Absent: Hank Koning, FAIA Also Present: Kyle Ferstead, Commission Secretary Eileen Fogarty, Director of Planning / PCD Barry Rosenbaum, Senior Land Use Attorney -Ding Yeo, Special Projects Manager 4. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT: Ms. Fogarty reported on the Neighborhood Conservation Workshop held on Tuesday, June 2, 2009, which was a great success. She announced a forthcoming workshop on Wednesday, July 8, 2009, in the East Wing of the Civic Auditorium. 5. DISCUSSION: 5-A. Development Agreement 07-006. 710 Wilshire Boulevard. Discussion of Concept Plans for the development of a mixed-use hotel/retail/commercial proiect consisting of a 284-room hotel including 3,877 square feet of conference space 16 multi-family rental units and approximately 26,000 square feet of ground floor commercial space on a 60,000 square foot proiect site. Proiect specifics include: 32 quest rooms, a 3,877 square foot conference center, and approximately 7 000 square feet of ground floor retail uses; and • Construction of a new 8-story (84 feet) hotel building with 240 quest rooms approximately 4,100 square feet of ground floor retail space, approximately 14.700 sauare feet of food market space. and 16 multi-family rental units on • A Around-floor open-air retail paseo of approximately 5,200 square feet and a landscaped second-floor podium-level open space of approximately 5 300 square feet; and • 15 surface parking spaces plus 445 parking spaces in a 4-level subterranean parking garage. The total proposed floor area for the proiecf, including the 34,793 square foot Landmark structure, is 186,746 square feet. (Planner: Jing Yeol APPLICANT: Michael Klein. PROPERTY OWNER: Maxser and Company. Ms. Fogarty made opening comments on the Development Agreement proposal for 710 Wilshire Boulevard. Ms. Yeo gave the staff report. Commissioner Ries asked staff for the number of Code required parking spaces for the proposed project and the amount being provided. Ms. Yeo stated that the proposal. includes four levels of subterranean parking and 445 parking spaces are proposed, which is five more than required by Code for the hotel, residential and retaii uses. Commissioner Winterer commented on the 240 parking spaces for the hotel use and asked why so many spaces are being required. Ms. Yeo explained that given the preliminary stages of the project, the project providing parking as required for a hotel use in the Code. Commissioner Reis noted that Code requirements can be used as a negotiation point in the Development Agreement process. Commissioner Pugh expressed concern regarding the Landmark building in relation to the proposed new development. Ms. Yeo explained that the massing details reflect the shape of the Landmark building and the floor area ratio (FAR) is averaged across the project. Commissioner Newbold asked if a landmarked building can be demolished or if the designation protects it. Ms. Yeo explained that demolition is possible through a Certificate of Appropriateness which is reviewed by the Landmarks Commission. Commissioner Johnson asked if the averaging of the FAR for the project, which covers several parcels, sets a precedent. Ms. Yeo stated that it is unusual to see a project of this size (60,OOOsf) and multiple land use definitions. She also stated 33 that Development Agreements are discretionary and specific, so this would not be setting a precedent. Chair O'Day noted that the Commission has reviewed condominium projects on multiple lots in the past. Ms. Yeo noted that -this situation is different in that the project not only is on several parcels, but the land use designations are different because these projects typically have only one zoning designation.. Commissioner Johnson asked for the existing zoning and height limits on the different parcels and Ms. Yeo explained which parcels bore which designation. Commissioner Johnson expressed concern about the non- contiguous parcel across the alley. Ms. Yeo explained that per the Code, the developer is required to develop all building parcels as a single building site when a building use crosses property lines. Commissioner Johnson asked how this project may agree or conflict with the Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) Strategic Framework. Ms. Yeo stated that the updated LUCE standards for Downtown are still being developed and staff relied on the principles of the LUCE Strategic Framework and performed a more qualitative review when evaluating the project proposal. Based on this qualitative goal, review, staff has concerns that the project may not be consistent with the principles that state a lowering of development intensity at the downtown perimeter. Commissioner Johnson expressed concern about the height of the new building at the south end, how visible it will be from Seventh Street and the eighth floor rental apartment units. Commissioner Pugh asked if the adjacent lots will be legally tied as part of the Development Agreement. Ms. Yeo answered in the affirmative. Commissioner Newbold expressed concern that in years to come there will be pressure to develop the surface parking lot and its connection to the main portion of the development may not be understood. The applicant team consisted of project architect; Howard Laks; and consultant Howard Robinson. Also present to answer questions. were the LEED environmental consultant, Ryan MacAvoy; the historic preservation consultant, Robert Chattle, and the property owner, Alex Gorby (sp?). Mr. Laks and Mr. Robinson gave a lengthy presentation on the merits of the proposed project. The following members of the public addressed the Commission regarding the proposed Development Agreement: Jeff Segal, Ellen Hannan, Jerry Rubin, and Mary Marlow. Mr. Robinson spoke in response to the public comment. Chair O'Day stated the purpose of this hearing is to make a recommendation to the City Council on whether to open negotiations for a Development Agreement. Commissioner Newbold asked if the project will return to the Commission for review if such a recommendation is made. Ms. Yeo answered in the affirmative. 34 Commissioner Johnson asked Mr. Laks about the eighth and ninth floors and if those units will be visible from the street level. Mr. Laks explained the setbacks and likelihood of their visibility. Chair O'Day asked if, should negotiations proceed, the project will return with an environmental impact report (EIR): Ms. Yeo answered in the affirmative, noting that issues raised by the Commission will be addressed in that document. Chair O'Day asked the applicant team if a reduction in the number of parking spaces would increase the project's LEED points. Mr. MacAvoy answered in the affirmative, then added that the proposed design with extra parking spaces was meant to provide flexibility for the project. Commissioner Winterer asked the applicant team how sixteen units of market- rate housing is a public benefit. Mr. Robinson stated that additional units adds to the City's housing stock. Commissioner Winterer asked why additional .building height is being requested. Mr. Robinson stated that extra height is not being requested and that the project is within the 84-foot height limit as cited in the General Plan. Commissioner Winterer commented on the proposed public benefit for hiring locally, requiring living wage and traffic impacts of the proposed project. Mr. Robinson responded that his client is not ready to offer wage promises and as to the traffic issues, hotels are well suited to implement transportation demand management (TDM) programs. Chair O'Day closed the public hearing. The Commission opened their discussion on the merits and issues related to the proposed Development Agreement and project. Commissioner Pugh commented that contracts with the City require employees be paid a living wage .and a Development Agreement should reflect this, so it is not unreasonable to ask for it. He listed his concerns as follows: proposal for a market and traffic implications; aesthetics and .reproduction of the Landmark building features in the new buildings; preference for a simpler design in the new building; the proposed height and the trade-off of more open space; conflicted about the massing; and workforce housing should be included. Commissioner Johnson had the following issues: averaging of FAR is inappropriate; remove units #12 and #16 on the seventh and eighth floors which can be seen from the street; reduce the overall height from 84-feet to 60-feet maximum; massing is too great but okay with square footage; benefits to consider are adding left turn pockets at the intersection of Wilshire and Lincoln Boulevards (all directions), adding pick-up/drop-off areas for the Boys and Girls Club on Lincoln Boulevard, and adding bollards on Seventh Street and Lincoln Boulevard to prevent left turns from the- property. He was also concerned with potential traffic conflicts of allowing a driveway access on Lincoln Boulevard in relation to driveways on the adjacent office building. 35 Commissioner Newbold stated she shared the concerns raised by the other Commissioner, including increased traffic. She expressed concern about the surface parking lot on the Lincoln Boulevard side. She appreciated the adaptive re-use of the landmarked structure and was okay with the proposed height of the new buildings if they are of good design and the openness is kept, although the design of the Seventh Street side is too busy. She felt that the Seventh Street design should showcase the Landmark building well. Commissioner Winterer applauded the re-use of the Landmark structure and the addition of more moderately priced hotel rooms for the City. He cited the increased transient-occupancy tax (TOT) that will be realized from the project. He expressed concern regarding the surface parking lot, streetscape and how the project can conform with the General Plan. He was not supportive of the proposed height and FAR and felt that the current zoning standards are more indicative of the community's intent. He also expressed the opinion that the public benefits presented are not enough and some are not really benefits but rather things that should be expected when creating new development. He commented on changing the office use in the Landmark building to a hotel and ways to reduce the required parking, such as unbundling, and retention of the Enterprise Rental Car use as part of the overall project. He concluded by saying that "more forward thinking" was needed on this project. Commissioner Ries expressed unease with Development Agreements unless there are good public benefits. He expressed concern that the project's proposed building heights are in conflict with the LUCE Strategy Framework. He had issue with the surface parking lot, which is only fifteen spaces because it is in conflict with the goal to make Lincoln Boulevard more pedestrian-friendly. He suggested it could become a pocket park as a public benefit. He stressed the need for workforce housing and hiring locally, noting that his neighborhood has many people who would like the opportunity to work locally. Commissioner Ries expressed concern with the northeast paseo entrance from Wilshire Boulevard, which seemed rather narrow. He concluded by saying the proposal needs more public benefits. Chair O'Day expressed agreement with Commissioner Ries that the Development Agreement needs more substantial public benefits. He agreed that the Enterprise Car Rental agency needs to remain and to add bicycle rentals for the hotel guests. He then outlined the list of issues raised by the Commission as follows: • Retention of on-site car rental agency. • Offer bicycle rentals service • The urban design characteristics on Lihcoln Boulevard needs to be improved. • The surface lots needs to be treated as a separate site as using it for the project's parking, driveway access, or to increase FAR is not appropriate. The site should be used separately for some meaningful public benefit. 36 • The amount of required parking could be reduced if substantial public benefits are provided. • No food market as it would generate too many vehicles trips. • Local preference recruitment and hiring needs to offer living wage in order to work. • The Development Agreement should include improvements or a contribution for improvements to Reed Park in order to improve the Wilshire Boulevard streetscape (e.g. tennis courts, Miles Playhouse). • Intersection improvements at LincolnNVilshire Boulevards and Seventh StreetM/ilshire Boulevard should be funded by developer as warranted in future impact analysis of the project. The Commission also discussed the following issues, but did not have consensus: (1) the averaging of FAR across the site without the Lincoln Boulevard parcel should only be allowed with meaningful public benefits; and (2) deleting Units #12 and #16 at the southern portion of the project may reduce the perceived mass of the project. However, some Commissioners felt that location of the units is heavily dependent on their design, whether they provide a public benefit such as workforce housing, and that their mass should be minimized to the greatest extent feasible. Commissioner Pugh made the motion to recommend .the City Council move forward with negotiations for a Development Agreement with the aforementioned list of negotiation points. Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion, which was approved by voice vote with Commissioner Winterer voting against the motion. Commissioner Koning was absent from this meeting. 6. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:19 p.m. APPROVED: SEPTEMBER 2, 2009 Help Us Shape the Future! Be part of the effort to update the City's ~,~ Land Use Element and Zoning Ordinance and help create a vision for "` -- Santa Monica in 2025. http://wwwshapethefuture2025.net/ ! ,t Motion by the Ocean: The City of Santa Monica is preparing an update ~y till P~~~tt f"°'---~"-°-~_, to the General Plan Circulation Element to learn more about the s€3?,u~ y~rm ia~~,x[ Circulation Element and to download a personal transportation G4ttingAroundin "'~~"~~~_ survey.. Go to SantaNlvnit~ ~.~.,~.,_..~„=a=~x,:~:~, http://pen.cisanta- monica.ca.us/planning/transportation/CirculationElement/index. html 37 ATTACHMENT C PUBLIC NOTIFICATION INFORMATION Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 9.04.20.20.080 and in accordance with the posting requirements set forth by the Zoning Administrator, prior to application filing the applicant posted a sign on the property regarding the subject application. At least 8 weeks prior to the public hearing date, the applicant submitted a photograph to verify the site posting and to demonstrate that the sign provides the following information: Project case number, brief project description, name and telephone number of applicant, site address, date, time and location of public hearing, and the City Planning Division phone number. It is the applicant's responsibility to update the hearing date if it is changed after posting. In addition, pursuant to Municipal Code Section 9.04.20.22.050, notice of the public nearing was mailed to all owners and residential and commercial tenants of property located within a 500 foot radius of the project and published in the Santa Monica Daily Press at least ten consecutive calendar days prior to the hearing. Adjacent Neighbors Community Meetings April 16, 2009 Other: 38 NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE SANTA MONICA CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Discuss a Development Agreement proposal for the adaptive re-use of a City Landmark office building into a hotel and construction of a new hotel building, open-air retail paseo, and mixed-use housing project. 710 Wilshire Boulevard APPLICANT: Kenneth L. Kutcher, Harding, Larmore, Mullen et al PROPERTY OWNER: Maxser and Co. A public hearing will be held by the City Council to consider the following request: Discuss the applicant's Development Agreement proposal for: • Adaptive re-use of an existing, designated City Landmark office building (Santa Monica Professional Building) into a hotel use with 55 guest roams and approximately 6,900 square feet of ground floor retail uses; • Construction of a new hotel building with 229 guest rooms, approximately 11,000 square feet of ground floor retail space, approximately 5,700 square feet of meeting rooms and hotel amenities, and approximately 3,000 square feet of roof top pool amenities; • Aground-floor open-air retail paseo of approximately 5,200 square feet; and • A mixed-use housing development at 1218 Lincoln Boulevard. DATE/TIME: Tuesday, May 25, 2010, AT 6:45 PM LOCATION: City Council Chambers, Second Floor Santa Monica City Hall 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, California HOW TO COMMENT The City of Santa Monica encourages public comment. You may comment at the City Council public hearing, or by writing a letter.. Written information will be given to the City Council at the meeting. Address your letters to: City Clerk Re: 710 Wilshire Development Agreement 1685Main Street, Room 102 Santa Monica, CA 90401 MORE INFORMATION If you want more information about this project or wish to review the project file, please contact Jing Yeo at (310) 458- 8341, or by e-mail at iing.veo@smgov.net. The Zoning Ordinance is available at the Planning Counter during business hours and on the City's web site at www.smaov.net. The meeting facility is wheelchair accessible. For disability-related accommodations, please contact (310) 458-8341 or (310) 458-8696 TTY at least 72 hours in advance. All written materials are available in alternate format upon request. Santa Monica Big Blue Bus Lines numbered 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, and TO serve City Hall. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65009(b), if this matter is subsequently challenged in Court, the challenge may be limited to only those issues raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Santa Monica at, or prior to, the public hearing. ESPANOL Esto es una noticia de una audiencia publics pars revisor applicaci6nes proponiendo desarrollo en Santa Monica. Si deseas mss informacion, favor de Ilamar a Carmen Gutierrez en la Division de Planificacibn al numero (310).458- 8341. 39 ATTACHMENT D APPLICANT'S SUMMARY OF PROJECT CHANGES AND CONCEPT PLANS 40 HARDING LARMORE MULLEN JAKLE KUTCHER ~ KOZAL, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL (310)451-3669 1250 SIXTH STREET. SUITE 300 SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA 90901-1607 TELEPHONE (310) 393-1007 FACSIMILE (310) 397-3537 WRITER'S E-MAIL ADDRESS kutcher@hlmlaw.com December 15, 2009 VIA EMAIL iina.veoa.smgov.net Jing Yeo Senior Planner City of Santa Monica 1685 Main Street, Room 212 Santa Monica, CA 90401. Re: Alex Gorby Hotel Project Address: 710 Wilshire Boulevard Our File No. 20954.001 Dear Ms. Yeo: This letter is written on behalf of our client, Mr. Alex Gorby, the owner of the property at 710 Wilshire Boulevard and adjacent addresses. This letter is written concerning Mr. Gorby's proposed mixed-use project, including afull-service, moderate- priced hotel, combined with ground floor retail, restaurants, and affordable housing. I am writing to summarize the significant modifications to this project that have been made since the Planning Commission float-up hearing was held on June 10, 2009. Specifically, in response to Planning Commission, City Staff and community input, the following changes have been made to the proposed project. These changes should be reflected in the Staff Report for the City Council float-up hearing on January 26, 2010. Reduction in Total Number of Floors. When presented at the Planning Commission, various portions of this project contained eight floors. Comments were made requesting that the number of proposed floors should be reduced. Mr. Gorby has agreed to make this change. HARDING LARMORE MULLEN JAKLE KUTCHER & KOZAL, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW Jing Yeo December 15, 2009 Page 2 As a result, the new construction will contain six floors, with a small amount (comprising approximately 3,000 square feet of floor area) on a partial seventh floor. The location of the seventh floor is limited to the southernmost wing of the new construction, farthest away from the landmark building so as not to compete with the scale of the Landmark. Furthermore, the seventh floor has been pulled back from the sixth floor roof at the southern property line to reduce any visual impact. Approximately 34% of the parcel coverage of the new construction will be two stories in height, 5% will be five stories, 53% will be six stories, and 8% will be seven stories. 2. Reduced Height. Together with the reduction in floors, the new construction's height has also been reduced. The maximum allowable height under the 1984 Land Use Element is 84 feet. The maximum height of the project reviewed by the Planning Commission was 84 feet for the new construction. As revised, the maximum height of the new construction will be 81 feet at the top of the 7-story elements, with a maximum height of the sixth story being 70 feet z In comparison, the maximum height of the landmark building is 88'-6" to the top of the penthouse and 82 feet excluding the penthouses on the Landmark building. 3. Reduced Floor Area. The floor area of the lots along Seventh Street and Wilshire Boulevard (i.e., excluding the Lincoln lot) has also been reduced. At the time of the Planning Commission hearing, the project contained 186,746 square feet of floor area (all of which was located on the Seventh Street and Wilshire Boulevard lots) and contemplated a surface parking lot and driveway entrance on Lincoln. As revised, the floor area on Wilshire Boulevard and Seventh Street has been reduced from 186,746 square feet to 165,000 square feet, including the 34,178 square foot Landmark building. For comparison, the Landmark building contains six stories plus a partial seventh floor penthouse, and, as noted in the next section, the height of the Landmark building is higher than the new construction as revised. z Furthermore, the height of thetwo-story podium level is 19 feet, which consists of approximately 34% of parcel coverage for the new construction. HARDING LARMORE MULLEN JAKLE KUTCHER Sc KOZAL, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW Jing Yeo December 15, 2009 Page 3 4. Eliminate the Need to Borrow Allowable FAR from the Lincoln Lot. With the reduction in proposed floor area, the project no longer requires the "borrowing" of allowable floor area from the Lincoln lot located across the alley. This change results in allowing the Lincoln lot to be developed with a beneficial use such as deed-restricted affordable housing. Elimination of Residential Uses from the Top Two Floors. As presented to the Planning Commission, the proposed project contained 16 market-rate residential units on the seventh and eighth floors. Those units have been eliminated. No market rate residential units are proposed in this project. 6. Offer to Devote the Lincoln Lot to Deed-Restricted Affordable Housing. At the Planning Commission, the Lincoln lot was proposed for use as a surface parking lot and driveway (to the proposed grocery market), which was not perceived to be pedestrian-oriented nor beneficial. Instead, Mr. Gorby is willing to construct deed- restricted affordable housing on the Lincoln lot. The exact nature of this housing has not been determined, but it will be an additional public benefit of the project, in addition to the restoration and adaptive re-use of the Landmark building and the addition of a new moderate-priced, full-service hotel to benefit the Downtown. We are in discussions with City Staff concerning the best utilization of this housing. Alternatives include affordable housing that targets area workers (including employees of the hotel), affordable senior housing, affordable family housing, or other deed-restricted housing. If the affordable housing units .contain one bedroom, then approximately 24 units can be provided. Parking for this housing will be provided beneath the hotel project across the alley. The ground floor on Lincoln will consist of commercial usage at the street frontage with five parking spaces to support the commercial on the ground floor at the rear of the building off the alley. 7. Elimination of_Grocerv Market. Based on dommunity comments and concerns, it has been determined that this is not the appropriate project for providing an additional grocery market in the Downtown. There were concerns with respect to parking, traffic, loading and compatibility with locating a grocery store on this site. The previously proposed market has therefore been eliminated, and the ground floor has been converted to meeting and banquet room space, management and back-of-house space for the hotel management operations, and other hotel-related uses. This change has also improved the vehicle HARDING LARMORE MULLEN JAKLE KUTCHER:& KOZAL, LLP ATTORNEYS 9T LAW Jing Yeo December 15, 2009 Page 4 circulation pattern, frees up the Lincoln lot for deed-restricted housing, and results in a better mix of uses within the project. 8. Elimination of Unnecessary Parking. As an alternative to simply constructing Code parking, Linscott Law & Greenspan Engineers ("LLG;') are in the process of preparing an empirical parking demand analysis of this project. LLG's analysis will take into account the substantially reduced parking demand that will result from this project's Transportation Demand Management Program, convenient access to public transit, and location in pedestrian-friendly Downtown Santa Monica. The LLG study will be completed prior to the City Council float-up hearing. These changes are reflected. in the project plans and elevations dated December 15, 2009, prepared by project architect Howard Laks. Mr. Laks will deliver those plans to you under separate cover. If you would like to discuss any of these changes, please let us know. Very truly yours, Kenneth L. Kutcher KLK:snk cc: Eileen Fogarty Amanda Schachter Paul Foley Barry Rosenbaum Alex Gorby Howard Laks 20954/Cor/Yeo.1005.KLK Additional documents available for review in the City Clerk's Office.