sr-121278-10aSanta Monica, California, November 21,'1978
TO: Mayor and City
FROM: City Staff
SUBJECT: Proposed Alley
tion to a Park
of an 11-story
Avenues.
~~
Council
NOV 2 8 1978
DEC 1 2 1978
Relocation and Possible Parking Addi-
ing Structure to Permit Construction
Office Building at Arizona and Ocean
Introduction
This report .transmits the Planning Commission's recommendations
for relocation of an alley and possible enlargement of a City
parking structure to accommodate construction of an 11-story
office building. City Council action is required for the alley
relocation and Parking Authority approval is required for the
proposed addition to Parking Structure No. 4.
Background
Tooley and Company in conjunction with Teleklew Productions, Inc.
propose to construct an 11-story, 195,000 sq. ft. office building
on Arizona Avenue between Ocean Avenue and Second Street by pro-
viding 330 parking spaces on site and adding an additional 304
spaces to Parking Structure No. 4. The site is in the C3 Com-
mercial District which requires a Conditional Use Permit for more
than six stories and is partially in and partially out of the
parking assessment district. In order to unify the site, it is
proposed to turn Ocean Court, the north-south alley which bisects
the site, into an L alley intersecting 2nd Street.
On October 16, 1978 the Planning Commission approved a Conditional
Use Permit to permit the proposed building to exceed six stories
~~
YOV 2 8 197E
n F r. ? ? 14 7 F
Mayor and City Council - 2 - November 21, 1978
and a motion. re commending that the City Council approve the
requested alley relocation on the following conditions:
1. That construction shall be in substantial accordance
with the plans submitted except for such modifications
as may be required by the Architectural Review Board.
2. That the applicant shall prepare and present to the
Architectural Review Board a unified landscaping plan
for the entire Ocean Avenue frontage including the
Champagne Towers and General Telephone building including
the planting of mature palm trees if required and complete
such landscaping changes as are required by the Archi-
tectural Review Board in all three areas by the time of
completion of the proposed building.
3. That the applicant shall provide on-site parking for
not less than 330 parking spaces utilizing a system of
parking attendants and controls to assure full utiliza-
tion of all spaces.
4. That the applicants either enter into an agreement
with the Santa Monica Parking Authority to construct a
total of at least 304 additional parking spaces on Park-
ing Structure No. 4 as outlined in their application or
alternatively provide a total of not less than 633 park-
ing spaces on site.
5. That the applicants bear full cost for the installation
of a traffic actuated signal at the intersection of Ocean
and Arizona in accordance with the specifications of the
Traffic Engineer.
6. That the construction in regard to the alley reloca-
tion shall conform to the requirements of the Traffic
Engineer.
7. That business license fees for all tenants in the
building shall be the equivalent of not less than that
due based on the amount of floor area within and with-
out the parking assessment district. The intent of this
is to assure that all business licenses are not located
in that portion of the building outside of the assess-
ment district but are distributed fairly throughout the.
structure.
8. That a solar hot-water system be used and a solar
heating system considered for the building and that some
type of openable window or mechanical ventilation system
be incorporated into the project having lockable controls.
Mayor and City Council - 3 - November 21, 1978
The intent of the Planning. Commission's recommendation is ap-
proval of the project essentially as submitted on condition that
the developer provide 633 parking spaces either all on site or
through an agreement whereby 304 of the spaces are added to the
nearby parking structure. The Commission did not endorse or
approve the specifics of any agreement which the Parking Author-
ity and the developer might enter into in regard to use of the
spaces added to the parking structure.
As the proposed site is within the permit area of the California
Coastal Commission approval of the project by that body is re-
quired in addition to those of the City.
Since the Planning Commission's approval of the project, the de-
veloper has agreed to provide an additional 43 spaces on site
bringing the level of on site parking to approximately 370. This
agreement makes the 100 public parking places significantly more
meaningful in that the total number of new parking spaces now
exceed the estimated number generated by the project.
Recommendation
In view of the public benefit to be derived from-the provision
of 100 additional public spaces at no City cost, it is respect-
fully recommended that the City Council approve the project in
concept including the Planning Commission's recommendations with
the exception that approximately 370 parking spaces be provided
Mayor and City Council - 4 - November 21, 1978
on site and authorize the staff to make the necessary appli-
cations for Coastal Commission. consideration.
Prepared by: James Lansford
JL:bt
CITY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
M E M O RAN D U M
DATE:" October.6, 1978
TO: The Honorable Planning Commission
FROM: The Director of Planning
SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit No. 266-U.P., Proposed 11-Story
Office Building, Arizona and Ocean Avenues,
Tooley & Company
This is an application for a Conditional Use Permit under the
provisions of Section 9148 of Chapter 1, .Article IX of the
Santa Monica Municipal Code requesting approval for a commercial
office building in excess of six-stories in the C3 District.
Section 9116B1a of the Municipal Code permits buildings or
structures in excess of six-stories and 90 ft. only under Con-
ditional Use Permit on the basis of Environmental and Fiscal
Analysis satisfactorily demonstrating that no significant
adverse environmental or fiscal impacts will occur as a result
of the increased height. A Conditional Use Permit is granted
by the Planning. Commission and is appealable to the City Council.
In the event that it is not appealed, the action of the Planning
Commission is final.-
ENVIRONMENTAL AND FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS. In accordance with the re-
quirements of Sectiom 9116A1a and the State Environmental Quality Act,
an Environmental and Fiscal impact Report has been prepared for the
Arizona.Plaza project, has been circulated. sin ce-August 22,.1978 and is
scheduled for a public hearing:on October 16, 1978 prior to the public
hearing on the Conditional Use Permit application_ Approval of the
EIR as adequate is necessary before the Planning Commission may
proceed in consideration of-the Use .Permit application. ',
PROPOSED PROJECT. The proposed project consists of a 10-story,
195.,000 sq. ft. office building with a bank, convenience retail
and a restaurant on the first floor. The first floor also-con-
tains a mezzanine including office uses so for purposes of the
EIR the building was advertized as 11 stories. Overall height
is 137 ft. The location is a 50,000 sq. ft. site on the north side
of Arizona between Oceam Avenue and Second Street immediately
adjacent to the 16-story Champagne Towers apartment house and the
First .Presbyterian Church grounds on Second Street. The property
is owned by Teleklew Productions, Inc, who are also owners of the
Champagne Towers and the General Telephone building on the remain-
der of the Ocean Avenue frontage in this block. The proposed build-
ers are Tooley and Co., an investment building firm of Los Angeles.
Meeting 10/16/78
The Honorable Planning Commission
- 2 - October 6, 1978
The project proposes to .provide 296 parking spaces on site. and
construct 304 more spaces by adding additional levels to_`-the
Parking Authority's structure No. 4 located on the east side of
Second Street between Arizona and Santa Monica Boulevard, making
a total of 600 spaces.
Analysis
HEIGHT LIMITATION. The height limitation in the C3 District is
6-stories and 90 ft. other than by Conditional Use Permit. The
proposed structure is 10-stories and 137 feet in height thereby
exceeding the permissible limit by 4 stories and 47 feet, however,
the lot coverage is only 39$, 61$~of the lot area being devoted
to open space, the large part of which is landscaped area.
FLOOR AREA. Proposed floor area is 195,000 sq. ft., only 65~ of
that which could be built under the maximum allowable computed
on the basis of 6 stories and 100 lot coverage. Actual -floor
area is the equivalent of 3.9 times the lot area.
PARKING. The project proposes to provide 600 off-street parking
spaces, 296 in 3 parking levels on site and 304 in an addition
to parking structure No. 4. The applicants propose to construct
the 304 spaces at their expense and lease 204 of them for the
exclusive use of the project tenants. The remaining 100 spaces
would be for use by the Parking Authority for public parking. The
Parking Authority thereby receives an additional 100 parking spaces
for either monthly parking or shopper parking. The Traffic Engi-
neer indicates that parking structure No. 4 currently contains
359 parking spaces and is only 38g occupied on an average.
Required parking for the building would be 6.88-spaces were the
project not partially in the parking district. The EIR indicates
that the maximum parking demand will be 633 spaces for an expected
building population of 830.. Technically the actual requirement for
the building is 337 spaces, the amount required for that portion of
the building not included in the parking assessment district.
The proposed parking to be provided is a total of 600 spaces,
296 more than technically required but 33 less than the anticipated
demand and 88 less than required by Code if the parking district
is to be disregarded.
TRAFFIC. The Traffic Engineer indicates no major problem is antici-
pated with pedestrian or vehicular. traffic circulation provided
the developer installs a traffic actuated signal at Ocean Avenue
and Arizona Avenue and left turn and right turn lanes are installed
at Second and Arizona necessitating the removal of 12 parking spaces.
If the loss of the 12 on-street parking spaces is attributed entirely
to this project then the additional parking to be provided is reduced
from 600 to 588. Realistically, however, the increasing traffic
Meeting 10/16/78 (Conditional Use Permit $266U.P.)
The Honorable Planning Commission - 3 - October 6,-1978
load.-.in the downtown area will probably require the
turning lanes at some point whether this project is constructed
or some alternative plan is built.
FISCAL EFFECT. Total estimated municipal revenue. from the
project is 37,500, Additionally, it is estimated that the 830
building occupants will spend $700,000 :annually which will_
return an additional $7,000 in sales tax to the City. The
$709,000 represents an important economic support for the down-
town business community.
ALLEY VACATION. The project also involves a request for reloca-
tion of First Court to permit unification of the separate parcels.
The City Engineer and Traffic Engineer both foresee no problem
with this proposed design.
Recommendation
REQUIRED FINDINGS. Section 9116B1a permits a building over six
stories only on the demonstration that no significant adverse en-
vironmental or fiscal impacts will occur as a result of the increased
height. In order for the Planning Commission to grant the requested
10 stories and recommend to the Council the relocation of the alley,
the Commission must determine that no significant adverse impacts
will occur.
ADVERSE IMPACTS. Evaluation of the project indicates three prin-
cipal areas in which adverse impacts as a result of the project
may. occur. These include some restriction in views from the
Champagne Towers, increased shading of the Church playground and
failure to meet the parking demand created by the building. While
the loss of views and shading of the Church play_gronnd are ob-
viously adverse, they are probably not significant in that the view
restriction is small in comparison to that remaining and the play-
ground is already significantly shadowed by the Champagne Towers
and the General Telephone building. The lack of adequate parking
however would appear to be significant within. the meaning of the
Ordinance. It is difficult to support approval of a discretionary
project providing Less parking than the EIR indicates will be gen-
erated.
Insofar as parking is concerned, the 633 spaces calculated by the
EIR to be the number the building will need is probably a better
estimate than the 688 required by the City's Parking Ordinance.
In view of being partially in the parking district, however, the ap-
plicant should certainly be given the benefit of meeting the cal-
- culated demand rather than the general code requirement. The appli-
cant rightfully argues that other projects have been given full
advantage of 'the parking district benefits in that they have pro-
vided no parking at all. It is clearly evident that many small
Meeting 10/16/78 (Conditional Use Permit #266 U.P.)
The Honorable Planning Commission - 4 - October 6, 1978
projects can be the same as one large one. Where it can``be rea-
sonably demonstrated that the applicant will be meeting the park-
ing demand created by the project, the adverse impacts should no
longer exist.
RECOMMENDED ACTION. It is respectfully recommended that the
Planning Commission approve the Conditional Use Permit and recom-
mend approval of the alley vacation to the City Council on the
basis that the increased height will not result in significant
adverse impacts by reason of the additional height on the follow-
ing conditions:
1. That construction shall be in substantial accordance
with the plans submitted except for such modifications as
may be required by the Architectural Review Board.
2. That the applicant shall prepare and present to the
Architectural Review Board at the. time of the project's
evaluation a unified landscaping plan for the entire Ocean
Avenue frontage including the Champagne Towers and General
Telephone building including the planting of mature palm
trees if required and complete such landscaping changes as
are required by the Architectural Review Board in all three
areas by the time of .completion of the proposed building.
3. That the. applicant shall provide on-site parking for
not less than 330 parking spaces utilizing a system of park-
ing attendants and controls to assure full utilization of
all spaces.
4. That the applicants either enter into an agreement with
the Santa Monica Parking Authority to construct a total of
at least 304 additional parking spaces on parking structure
No. 4 as outlined in their application or alternatively
provide a total of not less than 633 parking spaces on site.
5. That the applicants bear full cost for the installation
of'a traffic actuated signal at the intersection of Ocean
and Arizona in accordance with the specifications of the
Traffic Engineer.
6. That the construction in regard to the alley relocation
shall conform to the requirements of the Traffic Engineer.
7. .That business license fees for all tenants in the build-
ing shall be the equivalent of not less than that due based
on the amount of floor area within and without the parking
Meeting 10/16/78 (Conditional Use Permit X266 U.P.)
The Honorable Planning Commission
- 5 - October fi, 1978
,assessment district. The intent of this is to assure
-that all business licenses are not located in that portion
of the building outside of the assessment district but are
distributed fairly throughout the structure.
Respect
JL:bt
tted,
0
Meeting 10/16/78 (Conditional Use Permit #266 U.P.)
CITY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CITY. OF SANTA MONICA '
M E M O RAN D U M
DATE: October 6,` 1978
TO: The Honorable Planning Commission
FROM: The Director of Planning
SUBJECT:: Environmental Impact Report, _11-Story Office Building,
Ocean and;:Arizona Avenues, Arizona P1aza,,;Planning
Consultants Research
A Draft Environmental impact Report for the Arizona Plaza pro-
ject was filed with'the City Planning Department on August 22, ,;
1978 by'Plannng Consultants Research.' The-Notice of 'Completion
was filed with the Secretary,of`Resources of the: State"of Cali-'
forma on August 22 and a-special notice of'the completion was
published in the Legal section 'of the Santa.: Monica Evening 0ut-
look for five consecutive `days; beginning,August'24th and ending, ",.
August 29, 1978. Written comments on the report were requested-
to be submitted by September 30,`1478.' Copies of the document
'were circulated to members of the Planning Commission-, the Fire-
Chief,;The.Director>of General'Services which includes Public
;Works 'and Traffic-and Engineering divisions and. copies-were made
availabie in each of the 'City's libraries, the City Clerk`s office
and the Planning Department for public review and perusal.
As of October 6, 1978 written reports on the_EIR have been re-
ceived from the Gty Engineer,-Parking and Traffic Engineer, the
Planning Department's Senior Economic Planner: and Tooley and -
Company, the project applicants.:' No-other written reports have;
been ,received.
FOCUSED EIR. On June 19th the: Planning Commission is its capacity
as the=City's Environmental``Quality Review Board approved a
focused EIR-for the Arizona Piaza project to include the follow-
nq areas:
Residential Displacement Parking
Land Use=COmpatbilty~ :Noise
Shadow Effects.` 'Energy
Vew'Effects Market Absorption
`.Wind Effects Fiscal/Economic Impacts.
`Traffic Generation/Circulation
Meeting 10/16/78
__
The Honorable Pl~_.ning Commission -2 - September 6, 1978
'ALTERNATIVE PROJECTS. The Environmental Impact Report assesses
the impacts of the project'in comparison with that of a'S-story
.alternative. .Principal areas of 'environmental concern involved ~ '-
the effects of either project on shadowing,, views, wind, noise
and parking and traffic. Economic impacts explored are assc-
cated with residential.displacement,'energy;conservation., market
absorption and. fiscal impacts.
ADVERSE IMPACTS. Principal adverse environmental impacts asso-
elate .with. the development include the shading of an:adjacent '
nursery..school playgro~.uid'during all winter, "spring and fall hours
when they are;not already"shaded by the:. Champagne`Towers, some
increase in ambient noise euels;due to project created traffic
and some, impairment of views from. the 'Champagne Towers. Minimal"
adverse economic and fiscal %mgacts'associated with the proposed
project include some possible constraint in he long termgrawth
in the northwest downtown area due to parking demand over'that'to
be provided and probably economic impactor on the residents to be
displaced by reason: of higher rent at another location. :While:`
energy:'consumption will increase the building has specifically
.been designed to be as energy efficient. as possible so that energy
consumption will be at a minimum.: MostfiscaT impacts of the
project`are positive.'
ADEQIIACY'OF REPORT. IInder SEQA regulations, the Planning Commis-
sion must make a etermination that the Environmental Impact
Report:has adequately explored the environmental effects of a
proposed project together with mitigation measures to reduce or -
eliminate any adverse effects and"that alternatives`to a proposed.
project have been exploredz The:Environmental Impact. Report is
an informative document ratherthan a decisionsmaking document,.
the purpose of which is to-`assure tha _the Planning. Commission _
or other: agency has sufficient information as to the existence of
adverse impact: and the measures that may be taken to mitigate such
impacts,at the time`that it makes a. decision on the project.. Tfie
only question to be decided at this time is the adequacy of the
documents analysis of the`-potential impacts and not whether the
project should or should not be approved. -
RECOMMENDATION.... In view of the extensiveness of the Draft Environ-
mental.Impact-Report's analysis of the: major physical and economic
effects gf the project alternatives, it is respectfully recommended
that the Commission,apgrove the document including therein all
written communications plus a synopsis of comments of the public
or Planning Commission members delivered in the course of the
Public Hearing as adequate and complete ; as a final document.
Respectfull submitted „
es Luns d
Director o Planning
JL:bt
Meeting'10/16/78 {EIR -Arizona Plaza)
ao} 6ui~eads °6uLueay ayy qy •Leuo~~euaa~ul ~soH ~q pasodoad anuany e~au~~ue0
IOtrZ-L££Z ~e 6u~pL~nq ao~}}o ~ao~s-ani} pasodoad a ao} peaa seM }aodau }}ens ayl
•d'0 89Z 'oN q~waad asQ Leuoi~IpuoO '8
•~Lsnow~ueun pa~aaeo yoiyM UOL}OW ayy papuooas ssiyyoyoH aauoiss~wwo0
°sLouquoo aLge~ooL 6uiney goaCoad ayy o~ui pa~eaodaoou~ si wa~s~s uot~eLiquan Leos
-ueyoaw ao MopULM aLgeuado }o ad~~ awos qey~ (q) pue `6u~pL~nq ayq ~o} paaapisuoo
wa~s~s 6utgeay aeLos e puP pasn aq ~snw wa~s~s aageM-yoy ueLos e `auaygoq uaau~6ua
LeOIUPyOaW Fq -pauoiquaw SP `.geyq (E) :SUOL~LPU00 pappe OMB oq goaCgns pue `agep
aa~eL e ~e Mainau -gay ao},pa~uasaad aq gsnw qnq ~oaCoud ayq saap~suoo pueo8
~,Ma~naa Lean~oa~~yoay ayq awiq ayy ~e ~peau aq qou paau u6isap adeospueL ayq ~ey~
6u~queu6 ~q Z uo~~~puo0 6u~~}ipow `gaodaa }}ens ayy u~ papuawwooaa L y6noay~ I
~ suo~~~puo0 0~ ~oaCgns ggZ •oN •a-p•0_}o Lenoadde ao} panow z~e~ aauoissiwwo0
~ •~aaa~S PuooaS OZZI `yoan40 ue~ua~~gsaad ~suLd `ao~sed `4g6wS Ltl
•~aaa~S yqual L£QI `4gaoMyoeal L1~8
~ •aoaawwo0 }o aagwey0 `squeyoaaW L~eyab `LLeW eJLUOW PUPS LZEI `aegn8 qeN
•aoaawwo0 }o uagwey0 `aa~~~wwo0 Q80 '~aaa~S y~anoj 6££I `aays~j puo}}iL0
~ •anuany euequoW OZ 9i `u~agsu~aj esI
saLa6uy soq `an~a0 oaganb OL€9 `goaCoad ao} aaauE6ua Le9LUeyJ2W `aaaygoq ueLy
•saLe6uy sod `paenaLnog
aaiysL6M £0££ `~uedwo~ 8 ~aLool ao} aa6euew ~uawdoLanap `ao6aagoW we~ILFM
:goaCoad ayq }o cone} ui 6u~aeay ayy ye 6u~~eadS •ouI °suo~~onpoad MaL~aLal
aauMO ayq ao} ~uedwo0 pue ~aLool ~q padoLanap 6uiaq sanuany ueao0 pue euoz~uy
qe 6uipLlnq aoi}}o ~aogs-II pasodoad a 6u~uaaouoo peaa seM quodaa }}eqs ayl
•d'0 99Z 'oN }~waad asQ Leuo~}~puo0 •y
:sgiwuad asn Leuo~q~puoQ `S9NIatl3H OIl88d
~pauua~ `z~eH ~AtlN
wLooLew `uenLLLnS `a6eneS `ssL~yo~oH ~3Atl
:SMOLLo} Se
pacaaeo uoiyow ayy puooas s,a6eneS uauo~ssiwwo0 6u~MOLLoj •6uigaaw ayy 6uianp
s~uawwoo ,saauoiss~wwo0 ayq }o s~sdou~s E pUP pan~aoaa squawaLddns ua~~iaM ayq
}o uo~gippe ayq yq~M a}enbape se g13 ayy anoadde o~ panow ueniLLnS aauoissiwmo0
wLooLeW `ueniLLnS `a6eneS `s5~~4o~oH :AtlN
Fpauua~ `z~e~ :3Ay
:SMOL.Lo} SE naaEO o~
paLie} yo~yM uo~~ow ayq papuooas ~pauua~ aauoissiwwo~ .•quawnaop a~aLdwoou~ ue seM
y~ ~La} ay asneoaq wa~~ ayq anuiquoo ao anouddesip oy panow zye~ aauo~ss~wwo0
•qoa}~yoae goaCoad `s~nN ue~ `anuany adnoLe~ueO gtrCS `uosu~MpLeB uoa
:aaaM 6u~ueay ayy ~e 6ui~eadS •saauo~ss~wwo0 a43 oq
pa~nq~a~sip pue 6u~gaaw a43 qe paniaoaa uaaq pey squawwoo Leuoiq~ppe ~ey~ pa~ou
pao}sung •aW •anuany eLau~~ua0 IOtrZ-L££Z ~e 6u~pL~nq aoi}}o pasodoad s,Leuoi~eu
-aa~ul }soH ao} pa~eLnoaio uaaq pey b13 ~}eap ayy qey~ pages~pu~ ~aodaa }}e;s ayl
u~pL~ng ao~}}0 uogS-5 Paso oad `~I3 '85
9
8L6L `9i uago~o0 -Z- sa~nu~W uoLss~wwoQ 6u~uueLd