SR 03-01-2016 3H
City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: March 1, 2016
Agenda Item: 3.H
To: Mayor and City Council
From: David Martin, Director, Planning and Community Development, Planning and
Community Development
Subject: Statement of Official Action denying without prejudice appeal 15ENT-0321 of
the Joint Design Review Body's denial of Building Design, Colors, Materials,
and Landscape Plans for 14ARB-173 for the construction of a new 271-room
hotel and 15,210 square feet of ground floor retail/restaurant space at 710
Wilshire Boulevard.
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the attached Statement of Official
Action denying Appeal 15ENT-
denial of Building Design, Colors, Materials, and Landscape Plans for 14ARB173 for the
construction of a new 271-room hotel and 15,210 square feet of ground floor
retail/restaurant space at 710 Wilshire Boulevard.
Executive Summary and Discussion
This staff report transmits for City Council certification the Statement of Official Action
for Appeal 15ENT-0321. After holding a public hearing on December 8, 2015 Council
contained in the attached Statement of Official Action.
In denying the appeal, Council also gave the following direction:
Remand the project back to the JDRB;
Set a 6-month time limit or the JDRB to make a decision regarding the ARB
application; and
That the JDRB provide as promptly as possible clear direction to the applicant
based on the findings in the Statement of Official Action.
1 of 2
Financial Impacts & Budget Actions
There is no immediate financial impact or budget action necessary as a result of the
recommended action.
Prepared By:
Lynn Wolken-Gonzales, Principal PCD Analyst
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. 15ENT-0321 710 Wilshire Appeal Council Denial STOA
B. Written Comments
C. Written comments
2 of 2
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
CITY PLANNING DIVISION
CITY COUNCIL
STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL ACTION
PROJECT
CASE NUMBER: 15ENT-0321
LOCATION: 710 Wilshire Boulevard
APPLICANT: Alexander Gorby
APPELLANT: Alexander Gorby
CASE PLANNER: Jing Yeo, Principal Planner
REQUEST:
building design, colors, materials, and landscape plans
for the construction of a new 271-room hotel that
includes the retention and adaptive reuse of a City
Landmark office building (Santa Monica Professional
Building), a bridge connection between the Landmark
building and the new hotel building, and 15,210 square
feet of ground-floor retail/restaurant space.
CEQA STATUS: The project is exempt from the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to
Section 21080 in that CEQA does not apply to projects
which a public agency disapproves.
City Council Statement of Official Action Page 1
December 8, 2015
CITY COUNCIL ACTION
___December 8, 2015_ Determination.
X Appeal 15ENT-0321 denied without prejudice and remanded
to Joint Design Review Body (JDRB) with direction to the
JDRB to render a final decision on this application within 6
months
2016) based on the following findings:
___________________Other.
EFFECTIVE DATE OF ACTION:
December 8, 2015
The City Council, having held a public hearing on December 8, 2015, hereby denies
Appeal 13ENT-
building design, colors, materials, and landscape plans for the construction of a new 271-
room hotel that includes the retention and adaptive reuse of a City Landmark office building
(Santa Monica Professional Building), a bridge connection between the Landmark building
and the new hotel building, and 15,210 square feet of ground-floor retail/restaurant space
based on the findings and determinations below:
Each and all of the findings and determinations are based on the competent and
substantial evidence, both oral and written, contained in the entire record relating to the
Project. All summaries of information contained herein or in the findings are based on the
substantial evidence in the record. The absence of any particular fact from any such
summary is not an indication that a particular finding is not based in part on that fact.
FINDINGS
:
A. The plan for the proposed building or structure is not expressive of good taste,
good design, and in general does not contribute to the image of Santa Monica as
a place of beauty, creativity and individuality. The contemporary design of the
new hotel building is not complementary to the character-defining features of the
Landmark building. The design of the new hotel building does not provide a
sensitive backdrop to the Landmark building with the u-shaped building footprint,
hotel towers, and unresolved curvilinear forms competing with the Landmark
building. The new hotel building lacks a clear architectural concept
demonstrated by the conflicting ideas present in the materiality, openings, and
building form. Specifically, the curvilinear forms appear foreign to the overall
design of the new hotel building. The elevations have an appearance of
uniformity expressed through the natural-finish Glass Fiber Reinforced Concrete
City Council Statement of Official Action Page 2
December 8, 2015
(GFRC) panels, generic fenestration and balcony pattern, and building shapes
that emphasize the size and expansiveness of the building on all elevations. The
fiber-reinforced polymer entry canopy does not appear as a solid or permanent
material and is incompatible with the size and prominence of the entry canopy.
The bridge connection between the new hotel building and Landmark is
unresolved. The design of the retail paseo also creates concerns regarding the
functionality of the commercial tenant spaces that appear to dead-end at one
corner with all of the landscape elements and water features on the opposite side
of the courtyard.
C. The proposed design of the building or structure is not compatible with
developments on land in the general area. The immediately adjacent
development is the Landmark building that will be adaptively re-used as a hotel.
The new hotel building will be separated from the Landmark building by a
pedestrian paseo and connected with a bridge. Otherwise, developments in the
area are generally contemporary commercial buildings. The new hotel building
lacks a clear architectural concept resulting in conflicting architectural ideas in
the design and elevations that have an appearance of uniformity expressed
through the natural-finish GFRC panels, generic fenestration and balcony
pattern, and building shapes that emphasize the size and expansiveness of the
building on all elevations. Breaks in the building mass and differentiation in
colour on the East alley elevation are not sufficient to reduce the perceived mass
of the new hotel building and its compatibility with development in the
surrounding area. The curvilinear forms are not supportive of the overall building
design of the new hotel building and compete with the Landmark.
D. The proposed development does not conform with the effective guidelines and
standards adopted pursuant to Chapter 9.55 Architectural Review Board, and
all other applicable ordinances insofar as the location and appearance of the
buildings and structures are involved. Specifically, the location and appearance
of the buildings and structures do not comply with required findings set forth in
Chapter 9.32, as documented by the Joint Design Review Body.
VOTE
Ayes: Himmelrich, McKeown, Mayor Vasquez, Mayor Pro Tempore Winterer
Nays:
Abstain: None
Absent: None
NOTICE
If this is a final decision not subject to further appeal under the City of Santa Monica
Comprehensive Land Use and Zoning Ordinance, the time within which judicial review
City Council Statement of Official Action Page 3
December 8, 2015
of this decision must be sought is governed by Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6,
which provision has been adopted by the City pursuant to Municipal Code Section
1.16.010.
I hereby certify that this Statement of Official Action accurately reflects the final
determination of the City Council of the City of Santa Monica.
_____________________________ _____________________________
Sarah Gorman, City Clerk Date
City Council Statement of Official Action Page 4
December 8, 2015
Add to 3-H
03/01/2016
councilmtgitems
From:Chris Harding <harding@hlkklaw.com>
Sent:Monday, February 29, 2016 2:40 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Pam OConnor; Terry OÔDay; Gleam Davis; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony
Vazquez; Ted Winterer; Sue Himmelrich
Cc:Rick Cole; Elaine Polachek; David Martin; Jing Yeo; Steve Traeger; Scott Albright;
Marsha Moutrie; Denise Anderson-Warren
Subject:710 Wilshire Statement of Official Action (Agenda Item No. 3.H)
Attachments:CityCouncil.1008.CMH (STOA) 2016.02.29.pdf
DearCouncilmembers,
PleaseseetheattachedletterwithrespecttothedraftSTOAforthe710Wilshireproject.
Sincerely,
ChrisHarding
/ŷƩźƭƷƚƦŷĻƩa͵IğƩķźƓŭ|AttorneyatLaw
1250SixthStreet,Suite200|SantaMonica,CA90401
hʹ(310)4512968|Cʹ(310)3923537|harding@hlkklaw.com
1
Add to 3-H
03/01/2016
(310)451-2968
harding@hlkklaw.com
February 29, 2016
VIA E-MAIL
Santa Monica City Council
1685 Main Street, Room 102
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Re: 710 Wilshire Hotel (DA #07-006)
Proposed Statement of Official Action
Hearing Date: March 1, 2016
Agenda Item: 3.H
Applicant/Appellant: Alex Gorby
Our File No. 20954.001
Dear Councilmembers:
I am writing on behalf of Alex Gorby with respect to the proposed Statement of
Official Action (“STOA”) that is agendized for your approval tomorrow night as Agenda
Item No. 3.H. The STOA accurately reflects your decision on December 8th. Thus, Mr.
Gorby has no objections to the City Council approving it.
Sincerely,
Christopher M. Harding
CMH:akp
cc: Rick Cole
Elaine Polachek
David Martin
Jing Yeo
Steve Traeger
Scott Albright
Marsha Jones Moutrie
City Clerk
Alex Gorby
Add to 3-H
03/01/2016
councilmtgitems
From:Ellen Hannan <elhasm@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, March 01, 2016 11:40 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:March 1, 2015 meeting
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Completed
I hope to attend but will watch on TV if possible.
Please pull Consent items D and H for more information. The expense of these items are not consistent with the
outcome promised. Why are they necessary? Which department is recieving the benefits? How do they benefit
me the average resident?
As to 710 Wilshire. Putting lipstick on the pig will not change the size, lack of community benefits or
disruption to the community. Start the building so the community will see the outcome of an Opportunity Site.
Study Session- Please vote no. Again why is it needed? You ignore input anyway so why do we need more
data? Staff should be allowed to do their jobs intelligently without more wasteful meetings.
As an individual I have a right to speak my mind for or against a City issue. Of course as a property owner I
have skin in the game. It is not my career but my quality of life for myself and my family. I resent the fact that
the money factions of the City received so much more time and consideration from City Management. Why
does it take 100 citizens showing up to counter one Harding idea?
I attended the Coastal Planning session last night. My intelligence was insulted by presentation. The Apple
store is not a recreational site for Downtown as was presented by staff on board for community input.
Ellen Hannan
Lobbyist for Intelligent Thinking
1