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.