SR 04-24-2018 6A
City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: April 24, 2018
Agenda Item: 6.A
1 of 29
To: Mayor and City Council
From: David Martin, Director, City Planning
Subject: Appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to approve Development
Review Permit (16ENT-0034) to allow a new four-story (36 feet) 59,319
square-foot mixed-use project consisting of 47 residential units, 16,755
square feet of ground floor commercial space, and 151 automobile parking
spaces within a two-level subterranean parking garage.
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal and uphold the Planning
Commission’s approval by taking the following actions:
1. Approve Development Review Permit 16ENT-0034; and
2. Adopt the Statement of Official Action, pursuant to the draft findings
and conditions.
Executive Summary
On January 10, 2018, the Planning Commission approved Development Review Permit
(DRP) 16ENT-0034 to allow a new four-story (36 feet) 59,319 square-foot mixed-use
housing project consisting of 47 residential units, 16,755 square feet of ground floor
commercial space, and 151 automobile parking spaces within a two-level subterranean
parking garage. The Planning Commission staff report, Statement of Official Action
(STOA), and additional attachments to this report are hereby incorporated herein. On
January 24, 2018, the appellant, Rache l Kelley, filed an appeal (18ENT-0012) of the
Planning Commission’s decision to approve the DRP. The appeal statement raises
concerns regarding (1) the public comment and hearing process, (2) consistency with
the LUCE, (3) compliance with the Zoning Ordinance, (4) application of the Housing
Accountability Act (HAA), (5) compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act,
(6) traffic impacts, (7) construction impacts, and (8) concerns about CIM Group.
2 of 29
Pursuant to SMMC Section 9.37.130, Council’s re view of the DRP approval is de novo.
Council may review and take action on all determinations, interpretations, decisions,
judgments, or similar actions that were in the purview of the Planning Commission.
This report describes the proposed project scope , provides relevant background
information, and analyzes the issues of appeal raised by the appellant. The staff report
concludes by recommending that Council approve the DRP based upon the findings set
forth in the Draft Statement of Official Action (Draft STOA).
Background
Existing Conditions and Setting
The following table provides a brief summary of the project location, existing conditions
and setting.
Site Location Map
Zoning District: General Commercial (GC)
Land Use Element Designation: General Commercial
Parcel Area: 32,277 square feet
Parcel Dimensions: Irregular shaped lot
Existing On-Site Improvements (Year
Built):
Auto Repair and Sales one-story
buildings (1932-1971)
Rent Control Status: Commercial (Exempt)
Adjacent Zoning Districts and Land Uses: North:GC&R2 (Multi-Family
3 of 29
Residential) East: R2 & R1 (Multi-
Family and Single Family) South: GC
(Restaurant) West: GC (Retail and
Restaurant)
Historic Resource Inventory Not listed on HRI.
Affordable Housing Per SMMC Section 9.23.030(A)(1)(a)
of the Zoning Ordinance: 5% of total
units as affordable 50% more
affordable housing units than would be
required pursuant to Section 9.64.050
Providing 8.5% residential units (4)
as affordable at 30% income level
(extremely low)
The subject site is approximately 32,277 square feet in size and is located on the east
side of Lincoln Boulevard between Ashland Avenue and Wilson Place. The site has an
upward slope from the Lincoln Boulevard street frontage to the rear of the site of
approximately 12.5% average. The existing building improvements consist of multiple
one-story vacant auto repair commercial buildings. A majority of the existing
neighborhood context is modest in height. Adjacent uses along Lincoln Boulevard
include retail, service, and restaurant uses with structures that are primarily one -story in
height. Ashland Avenue contains R2 Multi-Unit properties while Wilson Place consists of
R1 Single-Unit properties.
Project Description
The project is a four-story building with a maximum height of 36 feet that includes
16,755 square feet of ground floor commercial space, 47 residential units totaling
42,564 square-feet of residential area, and a floor area ratio of 1.81. Additionally, the
project includes 11,548 square feet of open space consisting of 7,219 square feet of
common open space and 4,329 square feet of private open space. The project includes
151 vehicle parking spaces and 28 motorcycle parking spaces in a two -level
subterranean parking garage for the commercial users, residentia l tenant, and guests of
the building. Bicycle parking spaces are proposed at grade and within the subterranean
garage totaling 98 spaces (13 short-term spaces, 85 long-term spaces).
4 of 29
Figure 1: Project Rendering (Lincoln Boulevard elevation)
As shown in Figure 2 below, the ground floor is comprised of a commercial tenant
space at the building frontage totaling approximately 16,755 square feet in size with a
1,494 square-foot plaza area adjacent to Lincoln Boulevard. A residential lobby is also
directly accessed from the building frontage along Lincoln Boulevard next to the
driveway and site access that leads to an elevator and stairwell to the units above. The
upper floors consist entirely of residential units. The placement and orientation of the
commercial and residential land uses in the project is consistent with the surrounding
commercial area along Lincoln Boulevard and other recently approved mixed -use
projects.
5 of 29
Figure 2: Site Plan
Architectural Review Board Concept Review
Pursuant to SMMC Section 9.40.040 (Development Review Permit - Procedures), a
DRP requires Architectural Review Board (ARB) review and recommendation on the
design of the proposal. The project was presented to the ARB at its November 21,
2016 meeting. The project design wa s generally well-received with the ARB expressing
support of the project massing and acknowledging that the location of the new mixed -
use project is challenging due to the site configuration and topography. While the ARB
was positive regarding the overall direction of the project, there were some concerns
expressed regarding certain aspects of the design. Staff expressed similar concerns
with the overall project design and met with the applicant to convey these concerns.
While the applicant responded to some of the ARB and staff comments, there were
several other substantive design comments provided by the Architectural Review Board
that were not addressed. In particular, the design strategy along the Lincoln Boulevard
frontage is one of a repetition of fo rms and the pedestrian orientation of the Wilson and
Ashland elevations should be improved. The project site combines six parcels and the
design strategy results in a dramatic difference with the context and existing
development pattern. Some variation a long the length of Lincoln Boulevard is essential
for the project’s compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood.
In approving the project, the Planning Commission included the ARB’s
recommendations with respect to modulation, pedestrian orientation, and materiality as
conditions of approval. These are areas that will be of particular focus in the ARB’s
formal design review should Council approve the DRP.
Planning Commission Action
On January 10, 2018, a public hearing was held by the Planning Commi ssion to
consider the DRP. Public testimony was generally in opposition to the project, citing
traffic related impacts, size and scale of the project and overall compatibility with
surrounding neighborhood. In approving the project, the Commission noted the
following:
6 of 29
The project is consistent with the vision set forth in the LUCE and Zoning
Ordinance for housing projects that are located on Commercial Boulevard
corridors but that also protect neighborhood character.
The project adds critical uses to the site and the proposed housing is of
appropriate size and scale.
The project fails to address the context and compatibility of massing along
Lincoln and that the façade needs to provide more visual breaks and separating
the facades into different volumes; and
The irregular shape and size of the project site pose challenges for site design.
The Commission took formal action on the DRP on January 10, 2018. A majority of the
Planning Commission initially considered recommending that the project be continued
to allow further work by the developer on design -related issues prior to approval.
However, due to Permit Streamlining Act timelines and the applicant’s unwillingness to
grant an extension of time for the Planning Commission to act, the Planning
Commission voted 5-2 to approve the project, with amendments to Condition #1 in the
Planning Commission’s Statement of Official Action (Attachment B).
Condition #1(a-f) required the ARB to pay particular attention to the following design
elements:
Building façade along Lincoln appears monotonous. The design should be
revised to provide additional variation and visual breaks in the building volume,
especially on the upper levels throughout the project, with particular attention to
variation along the Lincoln Boulevard frontage without lowering the housing
density and unit mix to extent possible;
Street elevations along Ashland and Wilson should be revised for improved
pedestrian-orientation by bringing the unit floor lines closer to the street
elevation, more modulation and openness to the street;
7 of 29
Introduction of more materials and color in reference ranges which could lead to
better granularity;
Provide a pedestrian-oriented design along Lincoln by, for example, providing a
canopy above the door that can provide a place for retail signage and help
differentiate the ground floor commercial from the residential units above and the
ground floor residential entrance;
Revise the planting areas to provide more usable space and space for gathering;
and
Minimize upper level circulation to increase light and air into courtyard
The City Council Draft Statement of Official Action (STOA) (Attachment A) includes this
recommendation as Condition #1(a-f).
Discussion
The proposed project is 4-story (36 feet) in height and has a 1.81 floor area ratio (FAR).
The project exceeds the maximum Tier 1 limits (3 stories (36 feet) / 1.5 FAR) for the GC
zoning district for projects consisting of 100% residential uses above the ground floor
that include on-site affordable housing in compliance with the minimum requirements of
the Affordable Housing Production Program (AHPP). The project complies with all
development standards applicable to the site and is within the established maximums to
qualify as a Tier 2 project (36 feet / 2.0 FAR) with on-site affordable housing provided.
Development Review Permit
According to Santa Monica Municipal Code (SMMC) Section 9.40.020, a DRP is
required for any project that exceeds the Tier 1 standards. A DRP is intended to allow
the construction of certain projects for which the design, siting, and use could result in
an adverse impact on the surrounding area. As such, the DRP allows for the
discretionary review of the location, size, massing, and placement of proposed
structures and the location of proposed uses on a site.
8 of 29
Pursuant to SMMC 9.40.050, in order to approve a DRP, Council on appeal must make
the following findings in an affirmative manner:
A. The physical location, size, massing, setbacks, pedestrian orientation, a nd
placement of proposed structures on the site and the location of proposed uses
within the project are consistent with applicable standards and are both compatible
and relate harmoniously to surrounding sites and neighborhoods;
B. The rights-of-way can accommodate autos, bicycles, pedestrians, and multi-
modal transportation methods, including adequate parking and access;
C. The health and safety services (police, fire etc.) and public infrastructure (e.g.,
utilities) are sufficient to accommodate the new development;
D. The project is generally consistent with the Municipal Code, General Plan, and
any applicable Specific Plan;
E. Based on environmental review, the proposed project has no potentially
significant environmental impacts or any potentially significant environmental
impacts have been reduced to less than significant levels because of mitigation
measures incorporated in the project or a Statement of Overriding Considerations
has been adopted;
F. The project promotes the general welfare of the community;
G. The project has no unacceptable adverse effects on public health or safety;
and
H. The project provides Community Benefits consistent with Chapter 9.23.
Tier 2 Community Benefits
According to Chapter 9.23 of the Zoning Ordinance, projects that exceed the maximum
height or FAR allowed for Tier 1 projects are required to provide the community benefits
outlined in subsection 9.23.030 of the Chapter. The purpose of the community benefits
is to ensure that projects are allowed to exceed the base height and FAR of a
respective zoning district, and in return provide community benefits that enhance the
City’s community character.
9 of 29
The project provides the required community benefits identified in Chapter 9.23
(Community Benefits) of the Zoning Ordinance for Tier 2 projects. This includes at least
50% more affordable housing units than would be required by Section 9.64.050
(Affordable Housing Production Program) of the Zoning Ordinance, and a unit mix of at
least 15% 3-BR units, at least 20% 2-BR units, and no more than 15% Studio units.
Also, the average number of bedrooms for all of the affordable housing units in a Tier 2
project shall be equal to or greater than the average number of bedrooms for all of the
market rate units in the project. Further, the project provides the augmented fees and
TDM requirements established in Chapter 9.23 of the Zoning Ordinance.
General Plan Consistency
The project is located in the General Commercial land use designation in the LUCE.
The development parameters in the LUCE are implemented in the Zoning Ordinance for
Tier 2 projects. The proposed project complies with all of the development standards
outlined in the Zoning Ordinance.
The proposed development is also consistent with the goals, obje ctives and policies in
the LUCE. Specifically, Goal B25 (Lincoln Boulevard Goals and Policies) seeks
redevelopment of Lincoln Boulevard as a district and visually -cohesive mixed-use
commercial boulevard. Specifically, Policy B25.5 encourages a lively stre etscape with
places for people to socialize, where gathering spaces and plazas are encouraged and
Policy B25.9 encourages that new mixed -use buildings adjacent to residential districts
are contained within a prescribed building envelope that steps down toward the
residential district to maintain access to light and air. Additionally, the project is
consistent with Policy B25.10, which seeks to limit ground floor uses to mostly active
retail with generally continuous, transparent (non -tinted) display windows facing the
sidewalks and Policy B25.11 which encourages mixed-use projects to have active
ground floor uses that face the boulevard with residential uses located on the upper
floors.
The proposed project complies with these goals and policies in that it is a mixed-use
building with ground floor commercial that is inviting for pedestrians and activated by the
10 of 29
transparent storefront glazing system and plaza along Lincoln Boulevard, wh ile also
providing and maintaining access to light and air to the neighboring residential
properties by having the building step down from the rear (east) to the street facing side
(west). Additionally, the project consists of active retail on the ground floor and
residential uses on the upper floors that feature significan t common and private outdoor
areas.
Housing Accountability Act (HAA)
Under the Housing Accountability Act (Government Code section 65589.5(j)), when a
proposed housing development project complies with applicable, objective general plan,
zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards, in
effect at the time that the housing development project's application is determined to be
complete, but a local agency proposes to disapprove the project or to impose a
condition that the project be developed at a lower density, the local agency must base
its decision upon written findings supported by evidence on the record that both of the
following conditions exist:
“(A) The housing development project would have a specific, adverse i mpact
upon the public health or safety unless the project is disapproved or
approved upon the condition that the project be developed at a lower
density. As used in this paragraph, a “specific, adverse impact” means a
significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on
objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or
conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed
complete.
(B) There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse
impact identified, other than the disapproval of the housing development
project or the approval of the project upon the condition that it be
developed at a lower density.”
Therefore, if after consideration of all written and oral evidence presen ted to the City
Council at the public hearing for the Project, the Council desires to either disapprove or
11 of 29
impose a condition that the Project be developed at a lower density, Council must make
the above referenced findings and direct staff to incorporate such findings and/or
conditions into the STOA. The term “lower density” includes any conditions that have
the same effect or impact on the ability of the project to provide housing.
The Housing Accountability Act does not prevent Council from imposing co nditions of
approval that do not result in lower density; however, if Council imposes conditions of
approval that it believes does not result in lower density, it should clarify on the record
(i) the factual basis for imposing the conditions and (ii) why C ouncil believes these
conditions will not result in lower density.
As explained in the body of the Planning Commission staff report for 16ENT -0034
(Attachment D), staff has recommended approval of the Project based upon its
determination that the Project is consistent with objective zoning and General Plan
standards, subject to the applicant's compliance with all conditions in the City Council
Statement of Official Action ("STOA"), which is attached to the staff report (Attachment
A). The Planning Commission approved the project because no oral or written evidence
was presented at the public hearing, identifying “specific, adverse impacts” as defined in
the Housing Accountability Act.
Appeal Summary
The appellant filed a timely appeal on January 24, 201 8. The appellant’s appeal
statement (Attachment G) raises many specific points as to why the appeal should be
approved and DRP 16ENT-0034 denied by Council. In summary, the appeal statement
raises concerns regarding: (1) the public comment and hearing pr ocess, (2) consistency
with the LUCE, (3) compliance with the Zoning Ordinance, (4) application of the
Housing Accountability Act (HAA), (5) compliance with the California Environmental
Quality Act, (6) traffic impacts, (7) construction impacts, and (8) co ncerns about CIM
Group.
Appeal Analysis
12 of 29
Staff has reviewed the issues raised by the appellant’s Statement of Appeal and
provides the following analysis and responses:
1. Public Hearing Process
A. The appellant states that the Brown Act was violated because the
supplemental staff report was posted the day of the public hearing.
The agenda for the January 10, 2018 Planning Commission meeting was posted
at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting. The Brown Act does not require
posting of staff reports (or supplemental staff reports); however, the City provides
staff reports for the public’s benefit along with the posting of the agenda and did
so for this meeting. The supplemental Planning Commission staff report was
provided in direct response to a request received from a Planning Commissioner
prior to the hearing. The Commissioners requested that staff explain the
applicability of the Housing Accountability Act (HAA) to the review of the project.
As a result, the supplemental staff report was issued providing background on
the HAA.
B. The appellant states that the staff report contained errors and that the
project should have been denied based on oral and written testimony.
The Planning Commission approved the DRP based on the findings set forth
in the Planning Commission STOA as well as the oral and written testimony
presented prior to or during the public hearing. Council reviews the project de
novo. Staff recommends approval of the DRP based on the findings set forth
in the draft STOA.
C. The appellant states that the public was not sufficiently apprised of the
project or offered sufficient opportunity for public comment. Specifically:
the “Santa Monica system of neighbors meeting with developers is deeply
13 of 29
flawed” and “Planning staff did not subsequently advise neighbors about
the ramifications of possible design changes.”
Although not required as part of the application review process, staff strongly
encourages project applicants to conduct neighborhood meetings with affected
neighborhood groups and to keep them up to date on project revisions and
status. The applicant stated that they presented the project to the Friends of
Sunset Park Association on September 15, 2016 and July 10, 2017 and to the
Ocean Park Association on November 11, 2016 and June 12, 2017. The
applicant further stated that they conducted a full design presentation (including
updates) at both meetings. The circulation change to move primary access to
Lincoln Boulevard instead of Ashland Avenue was informed predominantly by
staff’s review of existing conditions in addition to concerns expressed by
residents early in the process. Staff worked extensively with the applicant to re -
design the project’s circulation and access in order to minimize impacts on
Ashland Avenue.
D. The Planning Commission staff report erroneously stated that "staff had
not received any comments or concerns from the public at the time the
staff report was being drafted."
At the time the Planning Commission staff report was drafted, staff had not
received any comments from the public regarding the project. Staff did not
receive any written correspondence from either Friends of Sunset Park
Association or Ocean Park Association until after the required public notices
were delivered. Once received, all written correspondence was presented to the
Planning Commission prior to the public hearing. The Planning Commission also
received public testimony during the hearing. Staff accepts public input at any
time during the project review process and if requested will provide updates to
nearby neighborhood groups and residents.
2. Consistency with the LUCE
14 of 29
A. Appellant states that the project is inconsistent with LUCE guidelines
related to General Commercial, Quality of Life, Design Compatibility,
Building Articulation, and Building Facades and Step Backs, as well as
LUCE goals and policies.
The project complies with all of the LUCE goals and policies listed by the
appellant:
LUCE, pg. 2.1-42-(General Commercial): This appears to be a typo and
should read 2.1-39. The building complies with the maximum allowable
height of 36 feet adjacent to the property line along the boulevard or the
intersecting side street as measured from the midpoint of Segmented
Average Natural Grade (SANG).
LU 1.3 Quality of Life; Goal LU 1: This goal and land use policy states to
preserve neighborhood quality of life and protect neighborhoods against
potential impacts related to development, traffic, noise, air quality, and
encroachment of commercial activities and establish sta ndards that transition
down the building envelope of commercial buildings adjacent to residential
properties. The proposed building and project site complies with all Tier 2
development standards as outlines in SMMC Section 9.11.030. Additionally,
it will also have to comply with all conditions of approval, which address
traffic, noise and air quality. Lastly, the building envelope complies with the
Daylight Plane Adjacent to Residential Districts (SMMC Section 9.11.030(D)).
LU 1.5 Design Compatibility; Goal LU1: This goal requires that all new infill
development be compatible with existing scale, mass and character of the
residential neighborhood. New buildings should transition in size, height, and
scale toward adjacent residential structures. As st ated previously, the project
has imposed conditions of approval for the ARB to review (Condition #1) in
15 of 29
that it requires the applicant to revise the size, massing and placement of the
proposed structure as well as determining whether the proposed siting an d
design is compatible to the surrounding area.
LU 15.8 Building Articulation and LU 15.11 Building Façades and Step Backs:
The buildings articulation and façades provide additional setbacks and
stepbacks on the upper floors and provides a 5 foot average on the street
facing façade on Lincoln consistent with SMMC 9.11.030. Further, any other
articulation required will be reviewed by the ARB as well as ensuring that
highly reflective materials will be avoided and that the building massing and
design as viewed form the public sidewalks and roadways will allow enough
light, air and sense of openness along all facades.
Further, staff has identified additional LUCE goals and policies, specifically, Goal
B25 (Lincoln Boulevard Goals and Policies) seeks redevelopment of Lincoln
Boulevard as a district and visually-cohesive mixed-use commercial boulevard.
In addition, Policy B25.5 encourages a lively streetscape with places for people
to socialize, where gathering spaces and plazas are encouraged and Policy
B25.9 encourages that new mixed-use buildings adjacent to residential districts
are contained within a prescribed building envelope that steps down toward the
residential district to maintain access to light and air. The project is consistent
with Policy B25.10, which seeks to limit ground floor uses to mostly active retail
with generally continuous, transparent (non-tinted) display windows facing the
sidewalks and Policy B25.11 which encourages mixed -use projects to have
active ground floor uses that face the boulevard with residential uses located on
the upper floors.
3. Compliance with the Zoning Ordinance
A. The appellant states, “Setbacks are inaccurately defined in the staff report:
Page 24 states “No (required) interior side yard setback.” The appe llant
16 of 29
references Section 9.11.030 Development Standards, Height limit 32’ (36’
if on-site affordable housing provided); Minimum Interior Side and Rear-
Adjacent to Residential District, 10’.”
The Planning Commission staff report erroneously stated that no interior setback
is required. Notwithstanding this typographical error, the project was fully
reviewed and found to be compliant with all applicable Zoning Ordinance
development standards. The project provides a 10’ setback at both the interior
side and rear yards. Further, the building height does not exceed 36’ as
measured from SANG.
B. The appellant states, “The maximum height for Tier 2 projects in the GC
zone is clear: 36 feet. There is not a special condition allowing building on
sloped lots to exceed that height through creative grade calculations. The
staff report refers to the project as a 36-foot four story building (pg.1) a five
story building (pgs.28 and 30) and a 3 story building (pg.1 CEQA
Exemption checklist). Front to rear yard is shown in the staff report using
the segmented average natural grade calculation. The side yard grade is
steep, yet there is no indication of the side yard slope formulation to prove
its inapplicability. Additionally, the sites steep east/west grade is possibly
compromised due to the adjacent 10 unit CIM Group project under
construction which is virtually unmentioned in the staff report. Lastly, the
actual height of the building at the corner of Ashland and Lincoln is 45’-8”
(as stated by the applicant upon questioned by the Planning Commission)
which is not mentioned in the text body of the staff report. However, pages
1, 8, 12, 16, 20, 23, 24 and 28 refer to (either/both) a 4 -story building with
a maximum height of 36 feet. There is one instance where the buildi ng is
referred to as approximately 36 feet.” The appellant references Section
17 of 29
9.04.050(B)(2) Measuring Building Height on Sloped Parcels, Sloped
Parcels, Side to Side.
The reference to a five-story building in the Planning Commission STOA was a
typographical error. Staff has revised the STOA accordingly to reflect the project
as a 36-feet, four story building. Further, staff determined the building height to
be in compliance utilizing the SANG height methodology (SMMC 9.04.050
(A)(2)). SANG is measured from the elevation levels of three equal segments
between the front setback line and rear setback line. As shown in Figure 3, the
three equal segments shall be created by drawing imaginary lines connecting
opposite side setback lines (or parcel lines if no setbacks are required) at 1/3
increments of the depth of the parcel from the front setback line to the rear
setback line (or parcel lines if no setbacks are required). The elevation for the
front 1/3 segment shall be equal to the elevation of the midpoint of the front
setback line (or parcel line if no setback is required). The elevation for the rear
1/3 segment shall be equal to the elevation of the midpoint of the rear setback
line (or parcel line if no setback is required). The elevation of the middle 1 /3
segment shall equal the halfway elevation between the front and rear 1/3
segments.
18 of 29
Figure 3: Segmented Average Natural Grade Height Methodology
On sheet A1 of the project plans (Attachment C), the SANG diagrams are
provided to show compliance with the determined building height methodology.
All elevation points used are derived from the survey prepared on February 14,
2016, prior to the adjacent 10-unit project commencing construction in
September of 2016. The height of the building (45’-8”) stated by the appellant is
measured from finished ground floor elevation. However, pursuant to the SANG
height measurement methodology in the Zoning Ordinance, building height is
measured from the mid-point front yard elevation, which is fully compliant at a
height of 36 feet.
C. The appellant references Section 9.11.010(D) Purpose. Establish design
standards that improve the visual quality of development and create a
unified, distinctive, and attractive character along commercial and mixed -
use corridors. The appellant states, “This is subjective and therefore a
legally vulnerable directive under HAA. The city will lose control of "look"
without more specificity in the code if they continue to set HAA ahead of
our General Plan and Zoning Ordinance in the review process. Based on
19 of 29
the majority of responses of the public and the Planning Commissioners at
the hearing on January 10th, 2018, and also members of the ARB at the
"float-up", this project doesn't meet the bar due to mass, density, and
design relevance to the surrounding neighborhoods (even bordering R1),
as well as increasing traffic through the neighborhood.”
The appellant is referencing one of the purposes of the Mixed -Use and
Commercial Districts in the zoning ordinance. The City is required by state law to
comply with the provisions of the HAA. In accordance with recently adopted
state legislation, which became effective on January 1, 2018, a local agency’s
failure to comply with the HAA may result in civil penalties in the minimum
amount of $10,000 per housing unit in the development project (multiplied by a
factor with potentially higher penalties for “bad faith” determinations). The recent
changes to state law also modified the judicial standard of review to be less
deferential to local agency determinations as well as expedited judicial review.
Notwithstanding these recent changes to the HAA, the HAA does not define or
set the standards for development and therefore, does not impose any
independent development standards that would supersede the General Plan and
Zoning Ordinance and the LUCE. Any new housing development project must
still comply with all City standards and criteria as established by the City’s
Municipal Code and the LUCE. The project complies with all applicable
development standards in the zoning ordinance and meets the required
Development Review Permit findings. Particular design concerns have been
included as conditions for the ARB to review as part of its formal design review of
the project.
D. The appellant references Section 9.11.030(E) Purpose. Provide
appropriate buffers and transition standards between commercial and
residential uses to preserve both commercial and mixed-use feasibility
and residential quality and provide a sensitive transition between the
commercial uses and neighboring residences. The appellant states,
“Despite the minimal setbacks imposed on the project, the applicant and
20 of 29
planning staff feel comfortable placing a large transformer (a rear yard
use) on Wilson Place in what should be the buffering setback to an R1
district where all other uses on that street are beautiful street frontage of
single family residences. While this has been constructed by planning staff
to be the "rear yard" of the site, its effect is as a side yard. This placement
conflicts with the intention of…Item #24 in Conditions of Approval (pg. 38
of the Staff Report) under Final Design: No gas or electric meters shall be
located within the required front or street side yard setback areas. This
project fails lot size (lot depth) conformity standards if the front yard were
Lincoln. However, the Staff report refers to the Lincoln "side yard" as
frontage. Can this project have a front yard on Ashland, but a Lincoln
address and driveway access? Making Wilson Place the "rear yard" isn't
consistent with how the rest of that street is developed. Planning staff
"cherry picks" the code to advantage the developer, and to the detriment
of the surrounding R1 and R2 neighborhoods and streets.”
Pursuant to SMMC Section 9.04.110, the project site is defined as a corner lot.
As a result, the narrowest dimension of the parcel with street front is considered
the front, which is Ashland Avenue. The rear is opposite the front (Wilson Place)
and the remainder of the parcel lines are considered sides (Lincoln B oulevard
and interior side). Due to the site’s configuration and placement along Lincoln
Boulevard, the defined front yard is Ashland, street side yard is Lincoln and rear
yard is Wilson Place. This is consistent with the prevailing streetscape along
Ashland and Wilson where either front yards or rear yards of neighboring
properties are located. The address of the property is not relevant in determining
the front of a parcel.
The placement of the proposed transformer is within the required rear yard
setback which is permitted by Code. The transformer pad will be screened by a
masonry wall and also be landscaped to provide additional buffering subject to
the review and approval of the ARB. Further, per Condition #24, there are no
utility meters proposed in either the front or street side yard setback areas.
21 of 29
E. The appellant references Section 9.40.010 (A and D) Purpose : A
Development Review Permit is intended to allow the construction of certain
projects for which the design and siting could result in an adverse impact
on the surrounding area. The permit allows for: A) Review of the location,
size, massing, and placement of the proposed structure on the site; D) A
determination of whether the proposed siting and design should be
permitted by weighing the public need for the benefit to be derived from
the proposed site plan use against the impact which it may cause. The
appellant states, “Again, the original Staff Report suggested topics and
design strategies for discussion; the Supplemental Staff Report effectively
annihilated that option.”
The Supplemental Staff Report was provided for clarification/informational
purposes and to explain the applicability of the Housing Accountability Act. It did
not change any of the analysis of the Development Review Permit in the original
staff report, background on design comments, and the staff recommendation.
Before voting to approve the project, the Commission held a public hearing
including opportunity for public testimony and deliberations on the project. All of
the information presented in the original and supplemental staff report was
considered. In its approval of the project, the Planning Commission included
project specific conditions (Condition #1) for the ARB to pay particular attention in
its review of the project. These conditions addressed both SMMC Sections
9.40.010(A) and (D) in that it requires the applicant to revise the design of the
proposed structure for additional variation, pedestrian orientation, and materiality.
The ARB has purview to review the design of the project, including the areas
highlighted by the Commission’s design conditions.
3. Application of the Housing Accountability Act (HAA)
22 of 29
A. Appellant states that the HAA should not have been applied to this project
and that application of the HAA dissuaded consideration of public
comment.
The HAA is a state law, applicable to charter cities, that precludes the Planning
Commission or Council from denying, reducing the density of, or making
infeasible any housing development project that comp lies with objective general
plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria (collectively, “Objective
Standards”) in effect at the time that the project application is deemed complete
unless specific findings of adverse impact are made. Amendments to the HAA,
effective January 1, 2018, significantly increased the burden of proof for local
agencies to disapprove housing projects or approve projects at lower densities
and added civil penalties and other punitive measures to ensure compliance with
the HAA.
As explained in the body of the Planning Commission staff report for 16ENT -
0034 (Attachment D), staff has recommended approval of the Project based
upon its determination that the Project is consistent with objective zoning and
General Plan standards, subject to the applicant's compliance with all conditions
in the City Council Statement of Official Action ("STOA"), which is attached to the
staff report (Attachment A). The Planning Commission approved the project
because no oral or written evidence was presented at the public hearing
identifying “specific, adverse impacts” as defined in the HAA.
Appellant states that the Planning Commission should have determined whether
the project met the criteria for a Development Review Permit before applying th e
provisions of the HAA. In accordance with the most recent HAA amendments,
however, “a housing development project . . . shall be deemed consistent,
compliant, and in conformity with an applicable plan, policy, ordinance, standard,
requirement, or other similar provision if there is substantial evidence that would
allow a reasonable person to conclude that the housing development project is
consistent, compliant, or in conformity.” [Government Code Section
23 of 29
65589.5(f)(4)] Staff’s determination is that this Tier 2 Project is consistent with
“Objective Standards” as defined by the HAA.
As discussed above, Council may approve this project pursuant to the staff
recommendation by making the affirmative findings set forth in the STOA without
consideration of the HAA. Should Council choose to deny or reduce density of
this project, findings of “specific, adverse impacts” as set forth in the HAA would
be required.
5. Compliance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
A. Appellant states that streamlining CEQA conditions for housing amplifies
the detrimental effects of traffic; that the CEQA exemption criteria set forth
in Section 21155.1 were not met; that the Planning Commission did not
conduct a public hearing regarding the CEQA exemption as require d by
Section 21155.1; and that the draft EIR for the LUCE should have been
consulted before an exemption was claimed.
CEQA and its streamlining provisions established in Public Resources Code
(PRC) 21155.1 were enacted by the State Legislature (specifically SB 375
effective January 1, 2009). As a lead agency, the City must review discretionary
projects in compliance with the regulatory provisions of CEQA. The full text of
PRC 21155.1 is attached (Attachment F).
On January 10, 2018, the Planning Commissio n held a public hearing to consider
approval of the project and determined that the Project met the applicable
requirements of PRC 21155.1 and is considered a project to be statutorily
exempt from CEQA. Public input given at the public hearing was consider ed by
the Planning Commission in their decision-making.
The Project meets the applicable requirements of a Transit Priority Project under
PRC 21155.1 and is considered a project to be statutorily exempt from CEQA.
24 of 29
No EIR, either project-level or program level, is required. CEQA Guidelines
Section 15168 establishes the guidelines for when a Program EIR is being
prepared for a project and for when a subsequent project may rely on the use of
a Program EIR for CEQA compliance. CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 does not
apply to the 2903 Lincoln Boulevard Project since a Program EIR is not required
for the project - nor is a Program EIR being relied on for CEQA compliance.
6. Traffic Impacts
A. Appellant states that traffic impacts of the project should have bee n further
studied pursuant to CEQA and in conjunction with the Lincoln
Neighborhood Corridor Plan (LiNC).
As detailed in the CEQA Exemption Checklist prepared for the project, the
Project meets the applicable requirements of Public Resources Code Section
21155.1 and is considered a Transit Priority Project to be statutorily exempt from
CEQA. Unlike categorical exemptions the statutory exemption for a transit
priority project is absolute. A statutory exemption applies to any given project
that falls under its definition. Therefore, since the 2903 Lincoln Blvd Project
qualifies for a statutory exemption, a traffic study is not required. Further, the
appellant raises concerns regarding existing traffic conditions, which have not
been created by the proposed project. Based on staff’s review of existing
conditions that were raised early in the project review process, the project’s
circulation design was substantially revised to minimize potential impacts to
Ashland Avenue.
Regarding existing conditions, the City is currently undertaking efforts to address
existing traffic conditions through the Sunset Park Neighborhood Traffic
Management Program. Several options are being studied as part of this program
but generally, any Sunset Park street that is not s ignalized and intersects with
Lincoln will be evaluated to possible changes to restrict either commute period
flows or permanent directional (one-way) closures.
25 of 29
Staff was aware of the potential traffic impacts on Lincoln and ensured the
project plans were fully reviewed for compliance with the Lincoln Neighborhood
Corridor Plan (LiNC). At the Planning Commission public hearing, staff further
discussed and clarified to the Planning Commission how the proposed LiNC
plans will coordinate with the project and discussed potential ramifications for
circulation and ingress/egress to the site. The applicant is fully aware of the
existing conditions, including the peak hour bus lanes, and will have to
accommodate for these conditions as well as planned future improvements
adjacent to the project site. It was presented at the meeting that the planned
medians in the LiNC plan will limit (or restrict) the ability for southbound drivers to
turn east across Lincoln into the project site. Instead, southbound drivers wi ll be
able to U-turn at Marine in order to access the project. Northbound drivers
exiting the project wanting to go southbound will be able to U -turn at Ashland or
further north, if necessary. Staff is also aware of the existing conditions on both
Ashland Avenue and Wilson Place. Ashland has parking on both sides of the
street with the streetscape interrupted by multiple driveways. Wilson has
restricted access from Lincoln with only northbound right turns permitted from
Wilson Place. Due to the number of curb cuts already existing on Ashland
Avenue and concerns regarding existing traffic conditions voiced by residents, it
was determined that the proposed site access from Lincoln Boulevard would help
off-load traffic and minimize the project’s impacts on Ashland Avenue.
7. Construction Impacts
A. Appellant states that construction impacts of the project should have been
studied further.
The project will be required to submit a construction mitigation plan in
accordance with Condition #88 of the City Council STOA (Attachment A). As
part of this plan the applicant will be required to indicate the location of staging of
equipment, anticipated truck routes, number of trucks, and a construction period
26 of 29
parking plan, which shall not be permitted to use publ ic streets. The approved
mitigation plan shall be posted on the site for the duration of the project
construction and shall be produced upon request. This plan has not yet been
submitted since it is required prior the issuance of a building permit.
As stated prior, the 2903 Lincoln Boulevard Project meets the applicable
requirements of PRC 21155.1 and is considered a project to be statutorily
exempt from CEQA. Statutory exemptions are projects specifically excluded from
CEQA consideration as defined by the State Legislature. Therefore, no traffic
study was required.
8. Concerns About CIM Group
A. The appellant states that the project should not have been approved
because Planning Director David Martin was Vice President of the CIM
Group from 1999 to 2009.
Planning Director David Martin has not worked for or received income from CIM
Group since he left the company in 2009 and therefore does not have financial
interest in CIM Group.
B. The appellant states that CIM Group is presently constructing its 10-unit
2919 Lincoln/802 Ashland project on the hill behind the 2903 Lincoln site.
They do not follow the rules, and they disrespect neighbors.
The City takes seriously all complaints about rule violations. Concerns about
construction at another site, however, are not properly the subject of this appeal
but rather should be referred by concerned community members to the City’s
Building and Safety Division, which handles all on-going construction projects for
compliance with construction rules and regulations.
Environmental Status
27 of 29
The proposed four-story mixed use building is exempt from the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 21155.1 of the CEQA
Guidelines, which exempts a special class of Transit Priority Project (TPP) determined
to be a Sustainable Communities Project (SCP) by the local jurisdiction. As provided,
the proposed project meets all of the following requirements set forth in Section 21155.1
as a Sustainable Communities Project:
1. The project is consistent with the general land use designation, density, building,
intensity, and policies in the Southern California Association of Governments’
adopted Sustainable Communities Strategy.
2. The project is at least 50 percent residential use based on are a and greater than
0.75 FAR.
3. The project is at least 20 units/acre.
4. The project is located within ½ mile of a major transit stop or high quality transit
corridor included in SCAG’s Regional Transportation Plan.
5. The project can be adequately served by existing utilities and the project
applicant will pay in-lieu or development fees.
6. The project will not impact wetlands or other biological species.
7. The project site is not located on a list of hazardous waste sites compiled
pursuant to Section 65962.25 of Government Code.
8. The project site has been subject to a preliminary endangerment assessment to
determine the existence of any release of hazardous substance on the site and
to determine the potential for exposure to significant health hazards .
9. The project will not have an impact on historical resources.
10. The project site is not subject to wildland fire hazards, high fire risk or explosion,
risk of a public health exposure, seismic risk, or landslide or flood hazard.
11. The project site is not located on developed open space.
12. The project is 15 percent more efficient than Title 24 standards and using 25
percent less water than the regional average household.
13. The project site is less than 8 acres.
14. The project is less than 200 units.
28 of 29
15. The project will not result in any net loss in the number of affordable housing
units.
16. The project does not include any single level building exceeding 75,000 sf.
17. The project will incorporate any applicable mitigation measure or performan ce
standards adopted in the prior LUCE EIR.
18. The project would not conflict with nearby operating industrial uses, as the
operations of existing industrial uses nearby will not be impacted.
19. The project site is located within ½ mile of a rail station included in the RTP or
within ¼ mile of a High Quality Transit Corridor included in the RTP.
20. The project meet the requirement that at least five percent of the housing will be
available to very-low-income households for at least 55 years.
Therefore, based on the above, the proposed project is considered a Sustainable
Communities Project that is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 21155.1.
Alternative Actions
As an alternative to the staff recommendation, Council may choose to approve the
appeal based on revised findings and deny the DRP (16ENT -0034). However, in order
to do so, Council would be required to make additional findings under the Housing
Accountability Act, as stated in this report.
Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
There is no immediate financial impact or budget action required as a result of the
recommended action.
29 of 29
Prepared By: Michael Rocque, Associate Planner
Approved
Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. Draft City Council Statement of Official Action 18ENT-0012 (2903 Lincoln)
B. Planning Commission Statement of Offiical Action Janurary 10, 2018 (16ENT -
0034)
C. Plans for 16ENT-0034 (2903 Lincoln Boulevard appeal)
D. Planning Commission Staff Report Janurary 10, 2018
E. Planning Commission Supplemental Staff Report (Housing Accountability Act)
January 10, 2018
F. CEQA-Public Resources Code 21155
G. Appellant Appeal Statement-2903 Lincoln
H. Written Comments
I. Powerpoint Presentation
City of Santa Monica
City Planning Division
CITY COUNCIL
STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL ACTION
PROJECT INFORMATION
CASE NUMBER: 18ENT-0012
LOCATION: 2903 Lincoln Boulevard
APPELLENT: Rachel Kelley
APPLICANT: Lina Lee, CIM Group
PROPERTY OWNER: Lincoln Lot 7, LLC
CASE PLANNER: Michael Rocque, Associate Planner
REQUEST: Appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to
approve Development Review Permit (16ENT-0034)
allow a new four-story (36 feet) 59,319 square-foot
mixed-use project consisting of 47 residential units,
16,755 square feet of ground floor commercial space,
and 151 automobile parking spaces within a two-level
subterranean parking garage.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING: Four units affordable to 30% income households
• One 1-BR units
• Three 2-BR units
CEQA STATUS: The proposed four-story mixed use building is exempt
from the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 21155.1 of the
CEQA Guidelines, which exempts a special class of
Transit Priority Project (TPP) determined to be a
Sustainable Communities Project (SCP) by the local
jurisdiction.
2
18ENT-0012
Statement of Official Action
CITY COUNCIL ACTION
April 24, 2018 Determination Date
Appeal granted based on the following findings.
X Appeal Denied; Application approved based on the following findings
and subject to the conditions below.
Other:
EFFECTIVE DATES OF ACTIONS IF
NOT APPEALED: April 24, 2018
EXPIRATION DATE OF ANY PERMITS
GRANTED: April 24, 2020
LENGTH OF ANY POSSIBLE
EXTENSION OF EXPIRATION DATES*: 12 months
* Any request for an extension of the expiration date must be received in the
City Planning Division prior to expiration of this permit.
The City Council, having held a public hearing on April 24, 2018, hereby denies Appeal
18ENT-0012 and approves 16ENT-0034 to permit new four-story (36 feet) 59,319 square-
foot mixed-use project consisting of 47 residential units, 16,755 square feet of ground
floor commercial space, and 151 automobile parking spaces within a two-level
subterranean parking garage.
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:
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PERMIT FINDINGS
A. The physical location, size, massing, setbacks, pedestrian orientation, and
placement of proposed structures on the site and the location of proposed uses
within the project are consistent with applicable standards and are both
compatible and relate harmoniously to surrounding sites and neighborhoods in
that the proposed project includes a mixed-use commercial and residential
building that complies with the General Commercial zoning district development
standards. The proposed commercial and residential land uses relate
harmoniously to the existing commercial land uses and recently approved
mixed-use developments on Lincoln Boulevard. The building will be setback at
3
18ENT-0012
Statement of Official Action
an angle away from the front property line along Lincoln Boulevard resulting in
an outdoor plaza at the ground floor commercial area which will provide the
opportunities for enhanced pedestrian activity adjacent to the commercial
space. The commercial tenant space has a depth of 40 feet for approximately
77% of the street frontage and is 16,755 square feet in size. The ground floor-to-
floor height is 15 feet, which meets the requirement in the Zoning Ordinance for
minimum and maximum active commercial first floor height of 15 feet and 20
feet, respectively. The plaza area activates the building frontage and provides
opportunities for outdoor dining.
B. The rights-of-way can accommodate autos, bicycles, pedestrians, and multi-modal
transportation methods, including adequate parking and access in that the project
will provide 151 parking spaces and 28 motorcycle spaces within a two-level
subterranean garage with vehicle access from Lincoln Boulevard. Furthermore,
the project includes pedestrian entrances to the commercial tenant space on
Lincoln Boulevard and 13 short-term (five commercial and eight residential) bicycle
parking spaces conveniently located along the Lincoln Boulevard street frontage.
C. The health and safety services (police, fire etc.) and public infrastructure (e.g.,
utilities) are sufficient to accommodate the new development in that the proposed
development is located in an urbanized area that is already adequately served by
existing City infrastructure. No new safety services or public infrastructure will be
required for this project.
D. The project is generally consistent with the Municipal Code and General Plan in
that the proposed project complies with all the land use and development
standards in the General Commercial (GC) District in the Municipal Code including
a height of 36 feet and a floor area ratio of 2.0 for Tier 2 projects. The project is
consistent with the General Plan in that LUCE Goal B25 (Lincoln Boulevard Goals
and Policies) seeks redevelopment of Lincoln Boulevard as a district and visually-
cohesive mixed-use commercial boulevard. Specifically, Policy B25.5 encourages
a lively streetscape with places for people to socialize, where gathering spaces
and plazas are encouraged and Policy B25.9 encourages that new mixed-use
buildings adjacent to residential districts are contained within a prescribed building
envelope that steps down toward the residential district to maintain access to light
and air. Additionally, the project is consistent with Policy B25.10, which seeks to
limit ground floor uses mostly active retail with generally continuous, transparent
(non-tinted) display windows facing the sidewalks and Policy B25.11 which
encourages mixed-use projects have active ground floor uses that face the
boulevard with residential uses located on the upper floors. The proposed project
complies with these goals and policies in that it is a mixed-use building with ground
floor commercial that is inviting for pedestrians and activated by the transparent
storefront glazing system and plaza along Lincoln Boulevard, while also providing
and maintains access to light and air to the neighboring residential properties by
having the building step down from the rear (east) to the street facing side (west).
Additionally, the project consist of active retail on the ground floor and residential
4
18ENT-0012
Statement of Official Action
uses on the upper floors that feature significant common and private outdoor
areas.
E. Based on environmental review, the proposed project has no potentially significant
environmental impacts in that the proposed five-story mixed use building is
exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
pursuant to Section 21155.1 of the CEQA Guidelines, which exempts a special
class of Transit Priority Project (TPP) determined to be a Sustainable
Communities Project (SCP) by the local jurisdiction. As provided in the CEQA
Exemption Checklist, the proposed project meets all of the following requirements
set forth in Section 21155.1 as a Sustainable Communities Project:
1. The project is consistent with the general land use designation, density,
building, intensity, and policies in the Southern California Association of
Governments’ adopted Sustainable Communities Strategy.
2. The project is at least 50 percent residential use based on area and greater
than 0.75 FAR.
3. The project is at least 20 units/acre.
4. The project is located within ½ mile of a major transit stop or high quality
transit corridor included in SCAG’s Regional Transportation Plan.
5. The project can be adequately served by existing utilities and the project
applicant will pay in-lieu or development fees.
6. The project will not impact wetlands or other biological species.
7. The project site is not located on a list of hazardous waste sites compiled
pursuant to Section 65962.25 of Government Code.
8. The project site has been subject to a preliminary endangerment
assessment to determine the existence of any release of hazardous
substance on the site and to determine the potential for exposure to
significant health hazards.
9. The project will not have an impact on historical resources.
10. The project site is not subject to wildland fire hazards, high fire risk or
explosion, risk of a public health exposure, seismic risk, or landslide or flood
hazard.
11. The project site is not located on developed open space.
12. The project is 15 percent more efficient than Title 24 standards and using
25 percent less water than the regional average household.
13. The project site is less than 8 acres.
14. The project is less than 200 units.
15. The project will not result in any net loss in the number of affordable housing
units.
16. The project does not include any single level building exceeding 75,000 sf.
17. The project will incorporate any applicable mitigation measure or
performance standards adopted in the prior LUCE EIR.
18. The project would not conflict with nearby operating industrial uses, as the
5
18ENT-0012
Statement of Official Action
operations of existing industrial uses nearby will not be impacted.
19. The project site is located within ½ mile of a rail station included in the RTP
or within ¼ mile of a High Quality Transit Corridor included in the RTP.
20. The project meets the requirement that at least five percent of the housing
will be available to very-low-income households for at least 55 years.
Therefore, based on the above, the proposed project is considered a Sustainable
Communities Project that is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 21155.1.
F. The project promotes the general welfare of the community in that it allows for the
redevelopment of existing, underutilized properties with a mixed-use project that is
compliant with the LUCE vision for the area. The proposed project provides 47
residential units and features space for a neighborhood serving commercial use.
Further, the project would provide community benefits including four residential
units affordable to 30% income level households, a specified unit mix of 13%
studios, 40% one-bedrooms, 32% two-bedrooms, and 15% three bedrooms,
enhanced development impact fees 14% above the base fee, and enhanced
transportation demand management elements such as a 50% transportation
allowance and commercial employee parking cash out.
G. The project has no unacceptable adverse effects on public health or safety in that
the project is a mixed-use project consisting of residential and neighborhood-
serving commercial uses. The commercial uses are located along Lincoln
Boulevard, adjacent to existing commercial uses. The project complies with all
development standards in the Zoning Ordinance and conditions of approval for
project operations ensure that the project will not adversely affect public health or
safety.
H. The project provides Community Benefits consistent with Chapter 9.23 in that it
would provide 50% more affordable housing units than would be required by the
City’s Affordable Housing Production Program, a minimum unit mix, and enhanced
development fees 14% above the base fee. As a result, the project would provide
community benefits including four residential units affordable to 30% income level
households, a specified unit mix of 13% studios, 40% one-bedrooms, 32% two-
bedrooms, and 15% three bedrooms, enhanced development impact fees 14%
above the base fee, and enhanced transportation demand management elements
such as a 50% transportation allowance and commercial employee parking cash
out.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Project Specific Conditions
1. The ARB shall pay particular attention to the following design elements of the
project:
6
18ENT-0012
Statement of Official Action
a) Building façade along Lincoln appears monotonous. The design should be
revised to provide additional variation and visual breaks in the building
volume, especially on the upper levels throughout the project, with particular
attention to variation along the Lincoln Boulevard frontage without lowering
the housing density and unit mix to extent possible;
b) Street elevations along Ashland and Wilson should be revised for improved
pedestrian-orientation by bringing the unit floor lines closer to the street
elevation, more modulation and openness to the street;
c) Introduction of more materials and color in reference ranges which could
lead to better granularity;
d) Provide a pedestrian-oriented design along Lincoln by, for example,
providing a canopy above the door that can provide a place for retail
signage and help differentiate the ground floor commercial from the
residential units above and the ground floor residential entrance;
e) Revise the planting areas to provide more usable space and space for
gathering;and
f) Minimize upper level circulation to increase light and air into courtyard
2. The project shall comply with subsections (A), (B), and (C) of Section 9.11.030 of
the Zoning Ordinance regulating the Active Commercial Design, Active Use,
Pedestrian-Oriented Design, and Build-to Line design requirements for the ground
floor street frontage of new buildings on commercial boulevards.
3. Long-term bicycle parking storage shall be located as close to the ground floor as
possible and be easily accessible.
4. Short-term bicycle parking racks required pursuant to SMMC Section 9.28.140
shall not block pedestrian flow.
5. Pursuant to SMMC Section 9.23.030(D) the project shall provide the following
community benefits:
a. Affordable Housing: Pursuant to Santa Monica Municipal Code (SMMC)
Chapter 9.64, the project is subject to the City's Affordable Housing
Production Program which requires the proposed 47 unit housing project to
provide five percent of the total units of the project for 30% income
households, ten percent of the total units of the project for 50% income
households, or twenty percent of the total units of the project for 80%
income households. Pursuant to SMMC Section 9.23.030(A)(1), the
applicant is required to provide at least 50% more affordable housing units
than would be required pursuant to Section 9.64.050. The applicant has
elected to provide 4 units affordable to 30% income households and
approval of the Project was based upon applicant’s election.
b. Unit Mix: Pursuant to SMMC Section 9.23.030(A)(2), the project is required
7
18ENT-0012
Statement of Official Action
to have a market rate unit mix of at least 15% three-bedroom units, at least
20% two-bedroom units, and more than 15% studio units with average
number of bedrooms greater than 1.2. The average number of bedrooms
of the affordable units shall be equal to or greater than the market rate units.
Affordable Housing Commercial Linkage Fee: Pursuant to SMMC Section
9.23.030(A)(3), no building permit shall be issued for the project until the
applicant pays an Affordable Housing Commercial Linkage Fee of 14
percent above the base fee applicable at the time of issuance of the building
permit for that portion of the commercial floor area above the maximum Tier
1 floor area allowed by the Zoning Ordinance.
c. Transportation Impact Fee: Pursuant to SMMC Section 9.23.030(B), no
building permit shall be issued for the project until the applicant pays a
Transportation Impact Fee of 14 percent above the base fee applicable at
the time of issuance of the building permit for that portion of the floor area
above the maximum Tier 1 floor area allowed by the Zoning Ordinance.
d. Parks and Recreation Development Impact Fee: Pursuant to SMMC
Section 9.23.030(C), no building permit shall be issued for the project until
the applicant pays a Parks and Recreation Development Impact Fee of 14
percent above the base fee applicable at the time of issuance of the building
permit for that portion of the floor area above the maximum Tier 1 floor area
allowed by the Zoning Ordinance.
e. Transportation Demand Management: The applicant shall include the TDM
measures required by SMMC Section 9.23.030(D) in the project’s TDM
Plan.
f. Pursuant to SMMC Section 9.64.090, the Parks and Recreation Development
Impact Fee described in SMMC Chapter 9.67, the Transportation Impact Fee
described in SMMC Chapter 9.66, and the Child Care Linkage Fee described
in SMMC Chapter 9.65 shall be waived for required affordable housing units.
Prioritization of potential occupants of the on-site affordable housing unit(s)
shall be in accordance with the Affordable Housing Production Program
Ordinance Guidelines. Developer hereby acknowledges that in approving a
Development Review Permit for the Project, the City is waiving fees and
modifying development standards otherwise applicable to the Project such as
increasing the Floor Area Ratio and Building Height, reducing parking
standards, and other property development standards. In exchange for such
forms of assistance from the City, which constitute direct financial
contributions to the Developer, Developer will enter into a contract with the
City prior to issuance of a building permit which among other conditions will
require Developer to provide and maintain four units on site that are available
to and occupied by Thirty Percent Income Households at Affordable Rent, as
defined by Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 9.64. The Developer agrees
and acknowledges that this contract will provide forms of assistance to the
8
18ENT-0012
Statement of Official Action
Developer within the meaning of Civil Code Section 1954.52(b) and Chapter 4.3
of the State Planning and Zoning Laws, Government Code Section 65915 et seq.
Administrative
6. The approval of this permit shall expire if the rights granted are not exercised
within two years from the permit’s effective date. Exercise of rights shall mean
issuance of a building permit to commence construction.
7. Within ten days of City Planning Division transmittal of the Statement of Official
Action, project applicant shall sign and return a copy of the Statement of Official
Action prepared by the City Planning Division, agreeing to the conditions of
approval and acknowledging that failure to comply with such conditions shall
constitute grounds for potential revocation of the permit approval. By signing
same, applicant shall not thereby waive any legal rights applicant may possess
regarding said conditions. The signed Statement shall be returned to the City
Planning Division. Failure to comply with this condition shall constitute grounds
for potential permit revocation.
8. Within thirty (30) days after final approval of the project, a sign shall be posted on
site stating the date and nature of the approval. The sign shall be posted in
accordance with the Zoning Administrator guidelines and shall remain in place until
a building permit is issued for the project. The sign shall be removed promptly
when a building permit is issued for the project or upon expiration of the Design
Compatibility Permit.
9. In the event permittee violates or fails to comply with any conditions of approval of
this permit, no further permits, licenses, approvals or certificates of occupancy
shall be issued until such violation has been fully remedied.
Indemnity
10. Applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City and its boards,
commissions, agents, officers, and employees (collectively, "City") from any
claims, actions, or proceedings (individually referenced as "Claim" and collectively
referenced as "Claims") against the City to attack, set aside, void, or annul, the
approval of this Development Review Permit concerning the Applicant's proposed
project, or any Claims brought against the City due to the acts or omissions in any
connected to the Applicant's project. City shall promptly notify the applicant of any
Claim and shall cooperate fully in the defense. Nothing contained in this paragraph
prohibits the City from participating in the defense of any Claims, if both of the following
occur:
(1) The City bears its own attorney's fees and costs.
(2) The City defends the action in good faith.
9
18ENT-0012
Statement of Official Action
Applicant shall not be required to pay or perform any settlement unless the
settlement is approved by the Applicant.
In the event any such action is commenced to attack, set aside, void or annul all,
or any, provisions of any approvals granted for the Project, or is commenced for
any other reason against the City for the act or omissions relating to the Applicant's
project, within fourteen (14) days following notice of such action from the City, the
Applicant shall file with the City a performance bond or irrevocable letter of credit,
or other form of security satisfactory to the City ("the Security") in a form
satisfactory to the City, and in the amount of $100,000 to ensure applicant's
performance of its defense, indemnity and hold harmless obligations to City. The
Security amount shall not limit the Applicant's obligations to the City hereunder.
The failure of the Applicant to provide the Security shall be deemed an express
acknowledgment and agreement by the Applicant that the City shall have the
authority and right, without consent of the Applicant, to revoke the approvals
granted hereunder.
Conformance with Approved Plans
11. This approval is for those plans dated December 21, 2017, a copy of which shall
be maintained in the files of the City Planning Division. Project development shall
be consistent with such plans, except as otherwise specified in these conditions of
approval.
12. Minor amendments to the plans shall be subject to approval by the Director of
Planning. A significant change in the approved concept shall be subject to
Planning Commission Review. Construction shall be in conformance with the
plans submitted or as modified by the Planning Commission, Architectural Review
Board or Director of Planning.
13. Project plans shall be subject to complete Code Compliance review when the
building plans are submitted for plan check and shall comply with all applicable
provisions of Article IX of the Municipal Code and all other pertinent ordinances
and General Plan policies of the City of Santa Monica prior to building permit
issuance.
Fees
14. As required by California Government Code Section 66020, the project applicant
is hereby notified that the 90-day period has begun as of the date of the approval
of this application, in which the applicant may protest any fees, dedications,
reservations, or other exactions imposed by the City as part of the approval or as a
condition of approval of this development. The fees, dedications, reservations, or other
exactions are described in the approved plans, conditions of approval, and/or adopted
city fee schedule.
10
18ENT-0012
Statement of Official Action
15. No building permit shall be issued for the project until the developer complies with
the requirements of SMMC Chapter 9.30, Private Developer Cultural Arts
Requirement. If the developer elects to comply with these requirements by
providing on-site public art work or cultural facilities, no final City approval shall be
granted until such time as the Director of the Community and Cultural Services
Department issues a notice of compliance in accordance with Section 9.30.160.
16. No building permit shall be issued for the project until the developer complies with
the requirements of SMMC Chapter 9.65, Child Care Linkage Program.
Cultural Resources
17. No demolition of buildings or structure built 40 years of age or older shall be
permitted until the end of a 75-day review period by the Landmarks Commission
to determine whether an application for landmark designation shall be filed. If an
application for landmark designation is filed, no demolition shall be approved until
a final determination is made by the Landmarks Commission on the application.
18. If any archaeological, paleontological, or human remains are uncovered during
excavation or construction, work in the affected area shall be suspended and a
recognized specialist shall be contacted to conduct a survey of the affected area
at project owner's expense. A determination shall then be made by the Director of
Planning to determine the significance of the survey findings and appropriate
actions and requirements, if any, to address such findings.
Project Operations
19. The operation shall at all times be conducted in a manner not detrimental to
surrounding properties or residents by reason of lights, noise, activities, parking or
other actions.
20. No exterior activity such as trash disposal, disposal of bottles or noise generating
trash, deliveries or other maintenance activity generating noise audible from the
exterior of the building shall occur during the hours of 11:00pm to 7:00am daily. In
addition, there shall be no outdoor cleaning of the property with pressurized or
mechanical equipment during the hours of 9:00pm to 7:00am daily. Trash
containers shall be secured with locks.
21. The project shall at all times comply with the provisions of the Noise Ordinance
(SMMC Chapter 4.12).
Final Design
22. Plans for final design, landscaping, screening, trash enclosures, and signage shall
be subject to review and approval by the Architectural Review Board.
23. The Architectural Review Board, in its review, shall pay particular attention to the
11
18ENT-0012
Statement of Official Action
project's pedestrian orientation and amenities; scale and articulation of design
elements; exterior colors, textures and materials; window treatment; glazing; and
landscaping.
24. Landscaping plans shall comply with Subchapter 9.26.040 (Landscaping
Standards) of the Zoning Ordinance including use of water-conserving
landscaping materials, landscape maintenance and other standards contained in
the Subchapter.
25. Refuse areas, storage areas and mechanical equipment shall be screened in
accordance with SMMC Sections 9.21.100, 9.21.130 and 9.21.140. Refuse areas
shall be of a size adequate to meet on-site need, including recycling. The
Architectural Review Board in its review shall pay particular attention to the
screening of such areas and equipment. Any rooftop mechanical equipment shall
be minimized in height and area, and shall be located in such a way as to minimize
noise and visual impacts to surrounding properties. Unless otherwise approved
by the Architectural Review Board, rooftop mechanical equipment shall be located
at least five feet from the edge of the roof. Except for solar hot water heaters, no
residential water heaters shall be located on the roof.
26. No gas or electric meters shall be located within the required front or street side
yard setback areas. The Architectural Review Board in its review shall pay
particular attention to the location and screening of such meters.
27. Prior to consideration of the project by the Architectural Review Board, the
applicant shall review disabled access requirements with the Building and Safety
Division and make any necessary changes in the project design to achieve
compliance with such requirements. The Architectural Review Board, in its review,
shall pay particular attention to the aesthetic, landscaping, and setback impacts of
any ramps or other features necessitated by accessibility requirements.
28. As appropriate, the Architectural Review Board shall require the use of anti-graffiti
materials on surfaces likely to attract graffiti.
Construction Plan Requirements
29. During demolition, excavation, and construction, this project shall comply with
SCAQMD Rule 403 to minimize fugitive dust and associated particulate emission,
including but not limited to the following:
• All material excavated or graded shall be sufficiently watered to prevent
excessive amounts of dust. Watering shall occur at least three times daily with
complete coverage, preferably at the start of the day, in the late morning, and
after work is done for the day.
• All grading, earth moving, or excavation activities shall cease during periods of
high winds (i.e., greater than 20 mph measured as instantaneous wind gusts)
12
18ENT-0012
Statement of Official Action
so as to prevent excessive amounts of dust.
• All material transported on and off-site shall be securely covered to prevent
excessive amounts of dust.
• Soils stockpiles shall be covered.
• Onsite vehicle speeds shall be limited to 15 mph.
• Wheel washers shall be installed where vehicles enter and exit the construction
site onto paved roads or wash off trucks and any equipment leaving the site
each trip.
• An appointed construction relations officer shall act as a community liaison
concerning onsite construction activity including resolution of issues related to
PM10 generation.
• Streets shall be swept at the end of the day using SCAQMD Rule 1186 certified
street sweepers or roadway washing trucks if visible soil is carried onto
adjacent public paved roads (recommend water sweepers with reclaimed
water).
• All active portions the construction site shall be sufficiently watered three times
a day to prevent excessive amounts of dust.
30. Final building plans submitted for approval of a building permit shall include on the
plans a list of all permanent mechanical equipment to be placed indoors which may
be heard outdoors.
Demolition Requirements
31. Until such time as the demolition is undertaken, and unless the structure is
currently in use, the existing structure shall be maintained and secured by boarding
up all openings, erecting a security fence, and removing all debris, bushes and
planting that inhibit the easy surveillance of the property to the satisfaction of the
Building and Safety Officer and the Fire Department. Any landscaping material
remaining shall be watered and maintained until demolition occurs.
32. Prior to issuance of a demolition permit, applicant shall prepare for Building
Division approval a rodent and pest control plan to insure that demolition and
construction activities at the site do not create pest control impacts on the project
neighborhood.
Construction Period
33. Immediately after demolition and during construction, a security fence, the height
of which shall be the maximum permitted by the Zoning Ordinance, shall be
maintained around the perimeter of the lot. The lot shall be kept clear of all trash,
weeds, etc.
34. Vehicles hauling dirt or other construction debris from the site shall cover any open
load with a tarpaulin or other secure covering to minimize dust emissions.
13
18ENT-0012
Statement of Official Action
Immediately after commencing dirt removal from the site, the general contractor
shall provide the City of Santa Monica with written certification that all trucks
leaving the site are covered in accordance with this condition of approval.
35. Developer shall prepare a notice, subject to the review by the Director of Planning
and Community Development, that lists all construction mitigation requirements,
permitted hours of construction, and identifies a contact person at City Hall as well
as the developer who will respond to complaints related to the proposed
construction. The notice shall be mailed to property owners and residents within
a 200-foot radius from the subject site at least five (5) days prior to the start of
construction.
36. A sign shall be posted on the property in a manner consistent with the public
hearing sign requirements which shall identify the address and phone number of
the owner and/or applicant for the purposes of responding to questions and
complaints during the construction period. Said sign shall also indicate the hours
of permissible construction work.
37. A copy of these conditions shall be posted in an easily visible and accessible
location at all times during construction at the project site. The pages shall be
laminated or otherwise protected to ensure durability of the copy.
Standard Conditions
38. Lofts or mezzanines shall not exceed 33.3% of the room below unless compliance
with the district's limits on number of stories can be maintained.
39. Mechanical equipment shall not be located on the side of any building which is
adjacent to a residential building on the adjoining lot, unless otherwise permitted
by applicable regulations. Roof locations may be used when the mechanical
equipment is installed within a sound-rated parapet enclosure.
40. Final approval of any mechanical equipment installation will require a noise test in
compliance with SMMC Section 4.12.040. Equipment for the test shall be provided
by the owner or contractor and the test shall be conducted by the owner or
contractor. A copy of the noise test results on mechanical equipment shall be
14
18ENT-0012
Statement of Official Action
submitted to the Community Noise Officer for review to ensure that noise levels do
not exceed maximum allowable levels for the applicable noise zone.
41. Construction period signage shall be subject to the approval of the Architectural
Review Board.
42. The property owner shall insure any graffiti on the site is promptly removed through
compliance with the City’s graffiti removal program.
MOBILITY DIVISION
43. Developer shall comply with SMMC Chapter 9.53, Transportation Demand
Management, including payment of the Developer Annual TDM Fee pursuant to
Section 9.53.110.
44. Final auto parking, bicycle parking and loading layouts specifications shall be
subject to the review and approval of the Strategic and Transportation Planning
Division:
http://www.smgov.net/uploadedFiles/Departments/Transportation/Transportation
_Management/ParkingStandards.pdf
45. Where a driveway, garage, parking space or loading zone intersects with the public
right-of-way at the alley or sidewalk, hazardous visual obstruction triangles shall
be provided in accordance with SMMC Section 9.21.180. Please reference the
following standards:
http://www.smgov.net/uploadedFiles/Departments/Transportation/Transportation
_Management/HVO.pdf
46. Slopes of all driveways and ramps used for ingress or egress of parking facilities
shall be designed in accordance with the standards established by the Strategic
and Transportation Planning Manager but shall not exceed a twenty percent slope.
Please reference the following standards:
http://www.smgov.net/uploadedFiles/Departments/Transportation/Transportation
_Management/RampSlope.pdf
47. Bicycle parking provided in the Project shall meet the requirements of SMMC
Section 9.28.140.
PUBLIC LANDSCAPE
48. Street trees shall be maintained, relocated or provided as required in a manner
consistent with the City’s Urban Forest Master Plan, per the specifications of the
Public Landscape Division of the Community & Cultural Services Department and
the City’s Tree Code (SMMC Chapter 7.40). No street trees shall be removed
without the approval of the Public Landscape Division.
49. Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit all street trees that are adjacent to or
15
18ENT-0012
Statement of Official Action
will be impacted by the demolition or construction access shall have tree protection
zones established in accordance with the Urban Forest Master Plan. All tree
protection zones shall remain in place until demolition and/or construction has
been completed.
50. Replace or plant new street trees in accordance with Urban Forest Master Plan
and in consultation with City Arborist.
OFFICE OF SUSTAINABILITY AND THE ENVIRONMENT
51. Developer is hereby informed of the availability for free enrollment in the Savings-
By-Design incentive program where available through Southern California Edison.
If Developer elects to enroll in the program, enrollment shall occur prior to submittal
of plans for Architectural Review and an incentive agreement shall be executed
with Southern California Edison prior to issuance of a building permit.
52. The project shall comply with requirements in section 8.106 of the Santa Monica
Municipal code, which adopts by reference the California Green Building
Standards Code and which adds local amendments to that Code. In addition, the
project shall meet the landscape water conservation and construction and
demolition waste diversion requirements specified in Section 8.108 of the Santa
Monica Municipal Code.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (PW)
General Conditions
53. Developer shall be responsible for the payment of the following Public Works
Department (PWD) permit fees prior to issuance of a building permit:
a. Water Services
b. Wastewater Capital Facility
c. Water Demand Mitigation
d. Fire Service Connection
e. Tieback Encroachment
f. Encroachment of on-site improvements into public right-of-way
g. Construction and Demolition Waste Management – If the valuation of a
project is at least $50,000 or if the total square feet of the project is equal to
or greater than 1000 square feet, then the owner or contractor is required to
complete and submit a Waste Management Plan. All demolition projects are
required to submit a Waste Management Plan. A performance deposit is
16
18ENT-0012
Statement of Official Action
collected for all Waste Management Plans equal to 3% of the project value,
not to exceed $30,000. All demolition only permits require a $1,000 deposit
or $1.00 per square foot, whichever is the greater of the two.
Some of these fees shall be reimbursed to developer in accordance with the City’s
standard practice should Developer not proceed with development of the Project.
In order to receive a refund of the Construction and Demolition performance
deposit, the owner or contractor must provide receipts of recycling 70% of all
materials listed on the Waste Management Plan.
54. Any construction related work or use of the public right-of-way will be required to
obtain the approval of the City of Santa Monica, including but not limited to: Use
of Public Property Permits, Sewer Permits, Excavation Permits, Alley Closure
Permits, Street Closure Permits, and Temporary Traffic Control Plans.
55. Plans and specifications for all offsite improvements shall be prepared by a
Registered Civil Engineer licensed in the State of California for approval by the
City Engineer prior to issuance of a building permit.
56. Immediately after demolition and during construction, a security fence, the height
of which shall be the maximum permitted by the Zoning Ordinance, shall be
maintained around the perimeter of the lot. The lot shall be kept clear of all trash,
weeds, etc.
57. Until completion of construction, a sign shall be posted on the property in a manner
consistent with the public hearing sign requirements, which shall identify the
address and phone number of the owner, developer and contractor for the
purposes of responding to questions and complaints during the construction
period. Said sign shall also indicate the hours of permissible construction work.
58. Prior to the demolition of any existing structure, the applicant shall submit a report
from an industrial hygienist to be reviewed and approved as to content and form
by the Building & Safety Division. The report shall consist of a hazardous materials
survey for the structure proposed for demolition. The report shall include a section
on asbestos and in accordance with the South Coast AQMD Rule 1403, the
asbestos survey shall be performed by a state Certified Asbestos Consultant
(CAC). The report shall include a section on lead, which shall be performed by a
state Certified Lead Inspector/Assessor. Additional hazardous materials to be
considered by the industrial hygienist shall include: mercury (in thermostats,
switches, fluorescent light), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) (including light
Ballast), and fuels, pesticides, and batteries.
Water Resources
59. Connections to the sewer or storm drains require a sewer permit from the PWD -
Civil Engineering Division. Connections to storm drains owned by Los Angeles
17
18ENT-0012
Statement of Official Action
County require a permit from the L.A. County Department of Public Works.
60. Parking areas and structures and other facilities generating wastewater with
potential oil and grease content are required to pretreat the wastewater before
discharging to the City storm drain or sewer system. Pretreatment will require that
a clarifier or oil/water separator be installed and maintained on site.
61. If the project involves dewatering, developer/contractor shall contact the LA
Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) to obtain an NPDES Permit for
discharge of groundwater from construction dewatering to surface water. For more
information refer to: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/losangeles/ and search for
Order # R4-2003-0111.
62. Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the applicant shall submit a sewer
study that shows that the City’s sewer system can accommodate the entire
development. If the study does not show to the satisfaction of the City that the
City’s sewer system can accommodate the entire development, prior to issuance
of the first building permit, the Developer shall be responsible to upgrade any
downstream deficiencies, to the satisfaction of the Water Resources Manager, if
calculations show that the project will cause such mains to receive greater demand
than can be accommodated. Improvement plans shall be submitted to the
Engineering Division. All reports and plans shall also be approved by the Water
Resources Engineer.
63. Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the applicant shall submit a water
study that shows that the City’s water system can accommodate the entire
development for fire flows and all potable needs. Developer shall be responsible
to upgrade any water flow/pressure deficiencies, to the satisfaction of the Water
Resources Manager, if calculations show that the project will cause such mains to
receive greater demand than can be accommodated. Improvement plans shall be
submitted to the Engineering Division. All reports and plans shall also be approved
by the Water Resources Engineer.
64. Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the applicant shall submit a
hydrology study of all drainage to and from the site to demonstrate adequacy of
the existing storm drain system for the entire development. Developer shall be
responsible to upgrade any system deficiencies, to the satisfaction of City
Engineer, if calculations show that the project will cause such facilities to receive
greater demand than can be accommodated. All reports and improvement plans
shall be submitted to Engineering Division for review and approval. The study shall
be performed by a Registered Civil Engineer licensed in the State of California.
18
18ENT-0012
Statement of Official Action
65. Developer shall not directly connect to a public storm drain pipe or direct site
drainage to the public alley. Commercial or residential units are required to either
have an individual water meter or a master meter with sub-meters.
66. All existing sanitary sewer “house connections” to be abandoned, shall be removed
and capped at the “Y” connections.
67. The fire services and domestic services 3-inches or greater must be above ground,
on the applicant’s site, readily accessible for testing.
68. Developer is required to meet state cross-connection and potable water sanitation
guidelines. Refer to requirements and comply with the cross-connections
guidelines available at:
http://www.lapublichealth.org/eh/progs/envirp/ehcross.htm. Prior to issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy, a cross-connection inspection shall be completed.
69. All new restaurants and cooking facilities at the site are required to install Gravity
Grease Interceptors to pretreat wastewater containing grease. The minimum
capacity of the interceptor shall be determined by using table 10-3 of the 2007
Uniform Plumbing Code, Section 1014.3. All units shall be fitted with a standard
final-stage sample box. The 2007 Uniform Plumbing Code guideline in sizing
Gravity Grease Interceptors is intended as a minimum requirement and may be
increased at the discretion of PWD, Water Resources Protection Program.
70. Ultra-low flow plumbing fixtures are required on all new development and
remodeling where plumbing is to be added, including dual flush toilets, 1.0 gallon
urinals and low flow shower heads.
Urban Water Runoff Mitigation
71. To mitigate storm water and surface runoff from the project site, an Urban Runoff
Mitigation Plan shall be required by the PWD pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter
7.10. Prior to submittal of landscape plans for Architectural Review Board
approval, the applicant shall contact PWD to determine applicable requirements,
such as:
a. The site must comply with SMMC Chapter 7.10 Urban Runoff Pollution
Ordinance for the construction phase and post construction activities;
b. Non-storm water runoff, sediment and construction waste from the
construction site and parking areas is prohibited from leaving the site;
c. Any sediments or materials which are tracked off-site must be removed the
same day they are tracked off-site;
d. Excavated soil must be located on the site and soil piles should be covered
and otherwise protected so that sediments are not tracked into the street or
adjoining properties;
19
18ENT-0012
Statement of Official Action
e. No runoff from the construction site shall be allowed to leave the site; and
f. Drainage control measures shall be required depending on the extent of
grading and topography of the site.
g. Development sites that result in land disturbance of one acre or more are
required by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) to submit
a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Effective September 2,
2011, only individuals who have been certified by the Board as a “Qualified
SWPPP Developer” are qualified to develop and/or revise SWPPPs. A copy
of the SWPPP shall also be submitted to the PWD.
72. Prior to implementing any temporary construction dewatering or permanent
groundwater seepage pumping, a permit is required from the City Water
Resources Protection Program (WRPP). Please contact the WRPP for permit
requirements at least two weeks in advance of planned dewatering or seepage
pumping. They can be reached at (310) 458-8235.
Public Streets & Rights-of-Way
73. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the Project, all required
offsite improvements, such as AC pavement rehabilitation, replacement of
sidewalk, curbs and gutters, installation of street trees, lighting, etc. shall be
designed and installed to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department and
Public Landscape Division.
74. All off site improvements required by the Public Works Department shall be
installed. Plans and specifications for off site improvements shall be prepared by
a registered civil engineer and approved by the City Engineer.
75. Unless otherwise approved by the PWD, all sidewalks shall be kept clear and
passable during the grading and construction phase of the project.
76. Sidewalks, curbs, gutters, paving and driveways which need replacing or removal
as a result of the project or needed improvement prior to the project, as determined
by the PWD shall be reconstructed to the satisfaction of the PWD. Design,
materials and workmanship shall match the adjacent elements including
architectural concrete, pavers, tree wells, art elements, special landscaping, etc.
77. Street and alley sections adjacent to the development shall be replaced as
determined by the PWD. This typically requires full reconstruction of the street or
alley in accordance with City of Santa Monica standards for the full adjacent length
of the property.
Utilities
78. No Excavation Permit shall be issued without a Telecommunications Investigation
by the City of Santa Monica Information Systems Department. The
20
18ENT-0012
Statement of Official Action
telecommunications investigation shall provide a list of recommendations to be
incorporated into the project design including, but not limited to measures
associated with joint trench opportunities, location of tie-back and other
underground installations, telecommunications conduit size and specifications,
fiber optic cable specifications, telecommunications vault size and placement and
specifications, interior riser conduit and fiber optic cable, and adjacent public right
of way enhancements. Developer shall install two Telecommunications Vaults in
either the street, alley and/or sidewalk locations dedicated solely for City of Santa
Monica use. Developer shall provide two unique, telecommunication conduit
routes and fiber optic cables from building Telecommunications Room to
Telecommunications Vaults in street, alley and/or sidewalk. Developer will be
responsible for paying for the connection of each Telecommunications Vault to the
existing City of Santa Monica fiber optic network, or the extension of conduit and
fiber optic cable for a maximum of 1km terminating in a new Telecommunications
Vault for future interconnection with City network. The final telecommunications
design plans for the project site shall be submitted to and approved by the City of
Santa Monica Information Systems Department prior to approval of project.
a. Project shall comply with City of Santa Monica Telecommunications
Guidelines
b. Project shall comply with City of Santa Monica Right-of-Way Management
Ordinance No. 2129CCS, Section 3 (part), adopted 7/13/04
79. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the Project, provide new
street-pedestrian lighting with a multiple circuit system along the new street right-
of-way and within the development site in compliance with the PWD Standards
and requirements. New street-pedestrian light poles, fixtures and appurtenances
to meet City standards and requirements.
80. Prior to submittal of plan check application, make arrangements with all affected
utility companies and indicate points of connection for all services on the site plan
drawing. Pay for undergrounding of all overhead utilities within and along the
development frontages. Existing and proposed overhead utilities need to be
relocated underground.
81. Location of Southern California Edison electrical transformer and switch
equipment/structures must be clearly shown on the development site plan and
other appropriate plans within the project limits. The SCE structures serving the
proposed development shall not be located in the public right-of-way.
Resource Recovery and Recycling
82. Development plans must show the refuse and recycling (RR) area dimensions to
demonstrate adequate and easily accessible area. If the RR area is completely
enclosed, then lighting, ventilation and floor drain connected to sewer will be
21
18ENT-0012
Statement of Official Action
required. Section 9.21.130 of the SMMC has dimensional requirements for various
sizes and types of projects. Developments that place the RR area in subterranean
garages must also provide a bin staging area on their property for the bins to be
placed for collection.
83. Contact Resource Recovery and Recycling RRR division to obtain dimensions of
the refuse recycling enclosure.
84. Prior to issuance of a building permit, submit a Waste Management Plan, a map
of the enclosure and staging area with dimensions and a recycling plan to the RRR
Division for its approval. The State of California AB 341 requires any multi-family
building housing 5 units or more to have a recycling program in place for its
tenants. All commercial businesses generating 4 cubic yards of trash per week
must also have a recycling program in place for its employees and
clients/customers. Show compliance with these requirements on the building
plans. Visit the Resource Recovery and Recycling (RRR) website or contact the
RRR Division for requirements of the Waste Management Plan and to obtain the
minimum dimensions of the refuse recycling enclosure. The recycling plan shall
include:
a. List of materials such as white paper, computer paper, metal cans, and
glass to be recycled;
b. Location of recycling bins;
c. Designated recycling coordinator;
d. Nature and extent of internal and external pick-up service;
e. Pick-up schedule; and
f. Plan to inform tenants/ occupants of service.
85. For temporary excavation and shoring that includes tiebacks into the public right-
of-way, a Tieback Agreement, prepared by the City Attorney, will be required.
86. Nothing contained in these Conditions of Approval shall prevent Developer from
seeking relief pursuant to any Application for Alternative Materials and Methods of
Design and Construction or any other relief as otherwise may be permitted and
available under the Building Code, Fire Code, or any other provision of the SMMC.
Construction Period Mitigation
87. A construction period mitigation plan shall be prepared by the applicant for
approval by the following City departments prior to issuance of a building permit:
Public Works, Fire, Planning and Community Development, and Police. The
approved mitigation plan shall be posted on the site for the duration of the project
construction and shall be produced upon request. As applicable, this plan shall:
22
18ENT-0012
Statement of Official Action
a. Specify the names, addresses, telephone numbers and business license
numbers of all contractors and subcontractors as well as the developer and
architect;
b. Describe how demolition of any existing structures is to be accomplished;
c. Indicate where any cranes are to be located for erection/construction;
d. Describe how much of the public street, alleyway, or sidewalk is proposed
to be used in conjunction with construction;
e. Set forth the extent and nature of any pile-driving operations;
f. Describe the length and number of any tiebacks which must extend under
the property of other persons;
g. Specify the nature and extent of any dewatering and its effect on any
adjacent buildings;
h. Describe anticipated construction-related truck routes, number of truck
trips, hours of hauling and parking location;
i. Specify the nature and extent of any helicopter hauling;
j. State whether any construction activity beyond normally permitted hours is
proposed;
k. Describe any proposed construction noise mitigation measures, including
measures to limit the duration of idling construction trucks;
l. Describe construction-period security measures including any fencing,
lighting, and security personnel;
m. Provide a grading and drainage plan;
n. Provide a construction-period parking plan which shall minimize use of
public streets for parking;
o. List a designated on-site construction manager;
p. Provide a construction materials recycling plan which seeks to maximize
the reuse/recycling of construction waste;
q. Provide a plan regarding use of recycled and low-environmental-impact
materials in building construction; and
r. Provide a construction period water runoff control plan.
FIRE
88. A security gate shall be provided across the opening to the subterranean garage.
If any guest parking space is located in the subterranean garage, the security gate
shall be equipped with an electronic or other system which will open the gate to
provide visitors with vehicular access to the garage without leaving their vehicles.
The security gate shall receive approval of the Police and Fire Departments prior
to issuance of a building permit.
23
18ENT-0012
Statement of Official Action
VOTE
Ayes:
Nays:
Abstain:
Absent:
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 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.
_____________________________ _____________________________
Denise Anderson-Warren, City Clerk Date
Acknowledgement by Permit Holder
I hereby agree to the above conditions of approval and acknowledge that failure to comply with
such conditions shall constitute grounds for potential revocation of the permit approval.
______________________________
Print Name and Title Date
______________________________
Applicant’s Signature Date
LORCAN O’HERLIHY ARCHITECTS 4106 West Jefferson Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90016 t 310.657.4363 f 310.657.4980 www.loharchitects.com
2903 LINCOLN BLVD
JANUARY 10, 2018
COVER SHEET
A0
2903 Lincoln Blvd
JANUARY 10, 2018
DRP APPLICATION NUMBER : 16ENT - 0034
APPLICANT: LINCOLN LOT 7 (SM), LLC
LORCAN O’HERLIHY ARCHITECTS 4106 West Jefferson Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90016 t 310.657.4363 f 310.657.4980 www.loharchitects.com
2903 LINCOLN BLVD
JANUARY 10, 2018
2903 - 2905 - 2907 - 2919 - 2931 LINCOLN BOULEVARD, SANTA MONICA CA 90404
GC (GENERAL COMMERCIAL)
VACANT BUILDING, AUTO REPAIR SHOP, HARDWARE & PLUMBING SUPPLY
MIXED USE RETAIL & RESIDENTIAL
LOT 7 BLOCK 31TRACT: MISCELLANEOUS RECORDS 17/95 - 98 CENSUS TRACT: 7022.02PAGE 671, GRID G-4APN: 4285-027-030 APN: 4285-027-051 APN: 4285-027-042 APN: 4285-027-031APN: 4285-027-022APN: 4285-027-023
GC
LiNC LINCOLN NEIGHBORHOOD CORRIDOR PLAN
TOTAL: 32,277 SF
N/A 10 FT (ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT )10 FT
2:1
(32,277) x 2 = 64,554 SF
20,000 SF (TIER 2)
19,984 SF
N/A
10 FT (ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT)
10 FT
5’ (SEE SHEET A1.A FOR DIAGRAM)
PROJECT ADDRESS:
EXISTING ZONING:
EXISTING USE
PROPOSED USE:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
ZONE:
COMMUNITY PLAN:
LOT SIZE:
FRONT SETBACK:SIDE SETBACK:REAR SETBACK:
FAR RATIO:
ALLOWABLE FAR:
MAX FOOTPRINT
PROVIDED FOOTPRINT
FRONT SETBACK
SIDE SETBACK
REAR SETBACK
MIN UPPER STORY STEPBACK
2 TO 3 STORY MULTIFAMILY DWELLING OVER GROUND
FLOOR RETAIL STORY WITH 2 LEVELS SUBTERRANEAN
PARKING GARAGE
LEVEL 1(COMM.) 16,755 SFLEVEL 1 (RESID LOBBY) 611 SFLEVEL 2 (RESID.) 17,898 SFLEVEL 3 (RESID.) 17,035 SFLEVEL 4 (RESID.) 7,020 SF
TOTAL COMM. 16,755 SFTOTAL RESID. 42,564 SFTOTAL 59,319 SF
47 UNITS
STUDIOS (MAX 15% TOTAL) 61-BEDROOM 192-BEDROOM (MIN 20% TOTAL) 153-BEDROOM (MIN 15% TOTAL) 7TOTAL UNITS 47
(5% + 2.5%) OF TOTAL 4 UNIT
1 x 1BEDROOM 3 x 2BEDROOM
(1.2 -1.5) 1.46
1.75
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
FAR BREAKDOWN PER FLOOR
TOTAL FAR PROVIDED:
DENSITY PROVIDED:
UNIT MIX
AFFORDABLE UNITS FOR 30%AMI(PER 9.64.050 & 9.23.030.1A)
BREAKDOWN:
AVERAGE BEDROOM NUMBERFOR MARKET RATE UNITS
AVERAGE BEDROOM NUMBER FOR AFFORDABLE UNITS
PROJECT INFORMATION
A1
R-2, VA: 36,000 SQFT PER FLOOR*M,A,S-2, IA : UNLIMITED
PARKING TYPE IASUBTERRANEAN LEVEL P1: 30,431 SFSUBTERRANEAN LEVEL P2: 30,431 SF
MERCANTILE TYPE IA: 16,755 SFRESIDENTIAL TYPE IA 611 SFRESIDENTIAL TYPE VA:SECOND FLOOR: 17,898 SFTHIRD FLOOR: 17,035 SFFOURTH FLOOR: 7,020 SF
(INCLUDING BASEMENT) 120,181 SF
36’-0” & NO LIMIT TO STORIES (TIER 2 W/PROVISION OF COMMUNITY BENEFITS, AFFORDABLE HOUSING ON SITE, 100% RESIDENTIAL ABOVE GROUND FLOOR)
36’-0” FROM AVERAGE NATURAL GRADE
4 STORIES & 60’-0” FROM AVERAGE GRADE PLANE(FULLY SPRINKLERED : NFPA 13 THROUGHOUT)
62% SITE COVERED BY BUILDING 21% SITE COVERED BY PAVING 17% SITE COVERED BY LANDSCAPE
47 UNITS X 100 SF = 4,700 SF60 SF MIN AS PRIVATE OPEN SPACE
SECOND FLOOR GARDEN+SPA 2,688 SFSECOND FLOOR COURTYARD 1,774 SFFOURTH FLOOR ROOFDECK 2,757 SFPRIVATE OPEN SPACE LEVEL 2 1,563 SFPRIVATE OPEN SPACE LEVEL 3 1,453 SFPRIVATE OPEN SPACE LEVEL 4 1,313 SF
TOTAL OPEN SPACE PROVIDED: 11,548 SF
MAJORITY OF UNIT BETWEEN 60 SF -135 SF
EXCEPTION: 2 UNITS IN LEVEL 4 W/ 550SF & 260 SF PRIVATE OPEN SPACE
ALOWABLE BUILDING AREA:(PER CBC 2016)
BUILDING AREA PROVIDED:(Areas calculated from inside face of wall. Excludes balconies, stair and elevator shafts)
TOTAL BUILDING AREA
ALLOWABLE BUILDING HEIGHT: (PER ZONING)
PROVIDED BUILDING HEIGHT:
ALLOWABLE BUILDING HEIGHT: (PER CBC 2016)
LOT COVERAGE:
OPEN SPACE REQUIRED:
OPEN SPACE PROVIDED:
PRIVATE OPEN SPACE RANGE
(PER UNIT)
SEGMENTED AVERAGE NATURAL GRADE DIAGRAM
LORCAN O’HERLIHY ARCHITECTS 4106 West Jefferson Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90016 t 310.657.4363 f 310.657.4980 www.loharchitects.com
2903 LINCOLN BLVD
JANUARY 10, 2018
PARKING BREAKDOWN
A2
6 STUDIO X 1 SPACE/UN = 6 SPACES18 1-BED X 1.5 SPACE/UN = 27 SPACES12 2-BED X 2 SPACE/UN = 24 SPACES7 3-BED X 2 SPACE/UN = 14 SPACES1 AMI 1-BED X .75 SPACE/UN = 1 SPACES3 AMI 2-BED X 1 SPACE/UN = 3 SPACESGUEST PARKING (1/5 UNITS)= 9 SPACES
REQUIRED 84 SPACES
16 MOTORCYCLE STALLS -4 SPACES(MAX 5% STALLS REQ’D =4)TOTAL RESID. REQUIRED 80 SPACES (MIN 51 STANDARD)
RETAIL 11,855 SF / 300 SF = 40 SPACESRESTAURANT 4900 SF / 200 SF 25 SPACES
REQUIRED TOTAL 65 SPACES
12 MOTORCYCLE STALLS -3 SPACES(MAX 5% STALLS REQ’D =4)
TOTAL COMM. REQUIRED 62 SPACES (MIN 39 STANDARD)
(BEFORE REDUCTION) 149 SPACES (AFTER REDUCTION) 142 SPACES
151 SPACES (1.36% EXTRA)
(2% PER 1109A.4)RESIDENTIAL 2 REQUIRED, 2 PROVIDED COMMERCIAL 2 REQUIRED, 2 PROVIDED
LEVEL P1-----------------------------------
COMMERCIAL STANDARD STALL 42 + 2 ADACOMMERCIAL COMPACT STALL 22
RESIDENTIAL STANDARD 5RESIDENTIAL COMPACT 1
TOTAL LEVEL P1 : 72
LEVEL P2-----------------------------------RESIDENTIAL STANDARD 47 + 2 ADA RESIDENTIAL COMPACT 30
TOTAL LEVEL P2 : 79
RESIDENTIAL LONG TERM (1 SPACE PER BEDROOM)6 X STUDIOS 619 X 1-BEDROOM 1915 X 2-BEDROOM 307 X 3-BEDROOM 21----------------------------------------------------TOTAL LONG TERM REQUIRED 76TOTAL LONG TERM PROVIDED 77
RESIDENTIAL SHORT TERM (10% LONG TERM)TOTAL RES. SHORT TERM REQUIRED 8TOTAL RES. SHORT TERM PROVIDED 8
COMMERCIAL LONG TERM (1 SPACE PER 3,000 SF)16,755 / 3,000 6
TOTAL COMM. LONG TERM REQUIRED 6TOTAL COMM. LONG TERM PROVIDED 8 COMMERCIAL SHORT TERM (1 SPACE PER 4,000 SF)16,755/ 4,000 5
TOTAL COMM. SHORT TERM REQUIRED 5TOTAL COMM. SHORT TERM PROVIDED 5
COMMERCIAL 1 REQUIRED, 1 PROVIDED
COMMERCIAL 6 REQUIRED, 8 PROVIDED
RESIDENTIAL PARKING REQUIREMENT:
REDUCTION OF REQ’D PARKINGSMMC 9.28.180G
COMMERCIAL PARKING REQUIREMENT:
REDUCTION OF REQ’D PARKINGSMMC 9.28.180GSMMC 9.28.180F
TOTAL PARKING REQUIRED
TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED
ACCESSIBLE PARKING REQURIED:
PARKING BREAKDOWN PER LEVEL
BICYCLE PARKING:
SHOWERS
LOCKERS
5’ AVERAGE UPPER STORY STEPBACK DIAGRAM
THE AREA REQUIRED FOR AVERAGE 5’ STEPBACK
THE AREA PROVIDED AS STEPBACK
2
0
'
AL02
2
0
'
AL02
2
0
'
AL02
LORCAN O’HERLIHY ARCHITECTS 4106 West Jefferson Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90016 t 310.657.4363 f 310.657.4980 www.loharchitects.com
2903 LINCOLN BLVD
JANUARY 10, 2018
SURVEY
A3
1SCALEN/ASITE SURVEY
Issued For:
No:Description Date
Consultants
Architect's Stamp
Key Section
Key Plan
Sheet Name
Copyright 2014 Lorcan O'Herlihy Architects. If Dwg is not 24" x 36", it is reduced
PRELIMINARY REVIEW SUBMITTAL 03/10/16
1
LORCAN
O’HERLIHY
ARCHITECTS
4106 W. Jefferson Blvd
Los Angeles, CA 90016
t 310.657.4363
f 310.657.4980
www.loharchitects.com
C-24245
09-30-2015
SITE SURVEY
A1.1.01SCALEN/ASITE SURVEY
Issued For:
No:Description Date
Consultants
Architect's Stamp
Key Section
Key Plan
Sheet Name
Copyright 2014 Lorcan O'Herlihy Architects. If Dwg is not 24" x 36", it is reduced
PRELIMINARY REVIEW SUBMITTAL 03/10/16
1
LORCAN
O’HERLIHY
ARCHITECTS
4106 W. Jefferson Blvd
Los Angeles, CA 90016
t 310.657.4363
f 310.657.4980
www.loharchitects.com
C-24245
09-30-2015
SITE SURVEY
A1.1.0
1SCALEN/ASITE SURVEY
Issued For:
No:Description Date
Consultants
Architect's Stamp
Key Section
Key Plan
Sheet Name
Copyright 2014 Lorcan O'Herlihy Architects. If Dwg is not 24" x 36", it is reduced
PRELIMINARY REVIEW SUBMITTAL 03/10/16
1
LORCAN
O’HERLIHY
ARCHITECTS
4106 W. Jefferson Blvd
Los Angeles, CA 90016
t 310.657.4363
f 310.657.4980
www.loharchitects.com
C-24245
09-30-2015
SITE SURVEY
A1.1.01SCALEN/ASITE SURVEY
Issued For:
No:Description Date
Consultants
Architect's Stamp
Key Section
Key Plan
Sheet Name
Copyright 2014 Lorcan O'Herlihy Architects. If Dwg is not 24" x 36", it is reduced
PRELIMINARY REVIEW SUBMITTAL 03/10/16
1
LORCAN
O’HERLIHY
ARCHITECTS
4106 W. Jefferson Blvd
Los Angeles, CA 90016
t 310.657.4363
f 310.657.4980
www.loharchitects.com
C-24245
09-30-2015
SITE SURVEY
A1.1.0
LORCAN O’HERLIHY ARCHITECTS 4106 West Jefferson Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90016 t 310.657.4363 f 310.657.4980 www.loharchitects.com
2903 LINCOLN BLVD
JANUARY 10, 2018
SURVEY
A4
LORCAN O’HERLIHY ARCHITECTS 4106 West Jefferson Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90016 t 310.657.4363 f 310.657.4980 www.loharchitects.com
2903 LINCOLN BLVD
JANUARY 10, 2018
SITE CONTEXT PHOTOS
A5
ASHLAND AVENUE N
ASHLAND AVENUE S
LORCAN O’HERLIHY ARCHITECTS 4106 West Jefferson Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90016 t 310.657.4363 f 310.657.4980 www.loharchitects.com
2903 LINCOLN BLVD
JANUARY 10, 2018
SITE CONTEXT PHOTOS
A6
LINCOLN BLVD W
LINCOLN BLVD E
LORCAN O’HERLIHY ARCHITECTS 4106 West Jefferson Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90016 t 310.657.4363 f 310.657.4980 www.loharchitects.com
2903 LINCOLN BLVD
JANUARY 10, 2018
SITE CONTEXT PHOTOS
A7
WILSON PLACE N
WILSON PLACE S
5'
-
0
"
UN
E
X
C
A
V
A
T
E
D
ST
R
I
P
5'
-
0
"
SI
D
E
Y
A
R
D
SE
T
B
A
C
K
10
'
-
0
"
REARYARD
SETBACK
10'-0"
10'-0"
5'
-
0
"
5'
-
0
"
°5
E
G.1
G.1
G.3
G.2
2
4
9
G.7
K
G.N G.0
G.N G.O
1
A13
B
G.A
G.A
G.2
2
A13
G.3
1
3
5
8
G.7
1
A12
1
A12
2
A13
2
A13
1
A14
2
A14
6
34'-0"
23'-8"
23'-8"
33'-0"
33'-0"
19'-0"
19'-0"
23'-8"23'-8"32'-0 1/2"
G J
C
D
F
I
L M
TRP
USQO
H
N
A
7
29
'
-
6
"
29
'
-
6
"
2
9
'
-
6
"
22
'
-
0
"
7'
-
6
"
DN
DN
LORCAN O’HERLIHY ARCHITECTS 4106 West Jefferson Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90016 t 310.657.4363 f 310.657.4980 www.loharchitects.com
2903 LINCOLN BLVD
JANUARY 10, 2018
1 STORY RESIDENCE
R2
1 STORY RESIDENCE
R1
(E) GARAGE
W/ WD DECK
FUTURE
DEVELOPMENT
R2
PROPOSED FOOTPRINT OF 3 STORY MULTIFAMILY
DWELLING OVER GROUND FLOOR RETAIL STORY WITH
2 LEVELS SUBTERRANEAN PARKING GARAGE
GC
3 STORY
3 STORY
4 STORY 3 STORY
4 STORY
PROPOSED LOCATION
OF TRASH ROOM
GROUND FLOOR
PROPOSED
LOCATION OF COMM.
REFUSE ROOM
LINCOLN BLVD
AS
H
L
A
N
D
A
V
E
N
U
E
WI
L
S
O
N
P
L
A
C
E
PROPOSED
LOCATION OF
ENCLOSED
LOADING AREA
EXISTING 1 STORY
COMMERCIAL STRUCTURE
TO BE REMOVED
EXISTING 1 STORY
COMMERCIAL STRUCTURE
TO BE REMOVED
EXISTING 1 STORY VACANT
STRUCTURE TO BE
REMOVED
3 STORY
MULTIFAMILY
DWELLING
R2
4 STORY
HOSPITALITY
GC
SITE PLAN
SCALE :1/32”= 1-0”A8
RETAIL
9,560 SF
5'
-
0
"
UN
E
X
C
A
V
A
T
E
D
ST
R
I
P
5'
-
0
"
SI
D
E
Y
A
R
D
SE
T
B
A
C
K
10
'
-
0
"
REARYARD
SETBACK
10'-0"
17'-0"
25'-6"
25'-6"
25'-6"
26'-0"
27'-0"
25'-6"
25'-6"
25'-6"
26'-0"
13°
10'-0"
17'-0"
25'-6"
25'-6"
25'-6"
26'-0"
27'-0"
25'-6"
25'-6"
25'-6"
26'-0"
1
7
'
-
6
"
2
7
'
-
0
"
5'
-
0
"
5'
-
0
"
2
7
'
-
6
"
3
1
'
-
0
"
1
7
'
-
6
"
1
A5.1.1
1
A5.1.1
2
A5.1.1
2
A5.1.1
1
A4.1.1
3
A4.1.1
2
A4.2.2
1
A4.1.2
G.A
G.2
G.B G.E G.F G.G G.H G.J G.K G.L G.M G.N G.P
G.Q G.R
G.1
G.3
G.4
G.6
G.7
G.8
G.5
G.6
G.7
G.8
G.A
G.D G.E G.F G.G G.H
G.K G.L G.M G.N G.P
G.R
G.Q
G.J
G.3
G.1
G.2
3
1
'
-
0
"
G.C
25'-6"
G.D
22'-1 3/16"
5°8°
36'-9 11/16"
8°
4
A5.1.1
4
A5.1.1
1st FLOOR0'- 0"
D
N
73'-5"
1
1
'
-
1
0
"
20'-0"
DN
UP
LOBBY
611 SF
BUILDING RESPONSIBILITY
TO MOVE RESIDENTIAL BINS
TO COMMERCIAL LOADING
AREA BEFORE 7AM
22'-6"
1
0
%
R
A
M
P
1
3
%
R
A
M
P
1
0
%
R
A
M
P
- 6'- 9"
OUTDOOR
DINNING
200 SF
PER CODE 9.31.200 THE
OUTDOOR DINNING AREA
LESS THAN 200SF WILL NOT
BE COUNTED TOWARDS
FAR AND WILL NOT
REQUIRE ADDITIONAL
PARKING & LOADING
RETAIL
2295 SF
PLAZA
1,494 SF
RESID.
REFUSE RM
277 SF
6"
5'-0"PATH OF TRAVEL
TOTAL AREA OF
RECESSED FLOOR :
5,364 SF (RAMP
INCLUDED)
TRASH LOADING AREA REQUIRES
20'-7" MINIMUM CLEARANCE
TRASH ENCLOSURE TO CONTAIIN
RESIDENTIAL BIN STAGING BY
BUILDING FACILITIES STAFF
LOADING PER
SMMC 9.28.080D.1
588 SF12
'
-
0
"
30'-0"
10%
RAMP
PATH OF TRAVEL
20%
RAMP
LOADING LIFT & ACCESS
DOOR TO COMMERCIAL
REFUSE ROOM &
RESID. TRASH LOADING
SECURED, GATED ACCESS
1650 SF
40'-0"
1
5
'
-
0
"
10'-0"
STRIPES AS
NO PARKING/ TOW ZONE
49'-6"
SECURED GATE & DOOR
FOR FACILITIES STAFF,
COMMERCIAL TENANTS, &
STANITATION ONLY
8 SHORT TERM
RESID. BIKE PARKING
5'-0"
54'-0"
4+1 SHORT TERM
COMM. BIKE PARKING
2XCOMM.B.P
2XCOMM.B.P
2XRESID.B.P
COMM.B.P
2XRESID.B.P
2XRESID.B.P
2XRESID.B.P
1
2
3
50.85 TC
(44.94')
VERTICAL CLEARANCE = 20'-7"
RESTAURANT
4,900 SF
5'
-
0
"
UN
E
X
C
A
V
A
T
E
D
ST
R
I
P
5'
-
0
"
SI
D
E
Y
A
R
D
SE
T
B
A
C
K
10
'
-
0
"
REARYARD
SETBACK
10'-0"
10'-0"
5'
-
0
"
5'
-
0
"
°5
E
G.1
G.1
G.3
G.2
2
4
9
G.7
K
G.N G.0
G.N G.O
1
A13
B
G.A
G.A
G.2
2
A13
G.3
1
3
5
8
G.7
1
A12
1
A12
2
A13
2
A13
1
A14
2
A14
6
34'-0"
23'-8"
23'-8"
33'-0"
33'-0"
19'-0"
19'-0"
23'-8"23'-8"32'-0 1/2"
G J
C
D
F
I
L M
TRP
USQO
H
N
A
7
29
'
-
6
"
29
'
-
6
"
2
9
'
-
6
"
22
'
-
0
"
7'
-
6
"
DN
DN
LORCAN O’HERLIHY ARCHITECTS 4106 West Jefferson Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90016 t 310.657.4363 f 310.657.4980 www.loharchitects.com
2903 LINCOLN BLVD
JANUARY 10, 2018
PROPERTY LINE
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
PROPERTY LINE
LOBBY
AS
H
L
A
N
D
A
V
E
N
U
E
WI
L
S
O
N
P
L
A
C
E
GROUND FLOOR
SCALE :1/32”= 1-0”A9
PROPERTY LINE
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
PROPERTY LINE
LINCOLN BLVD
5'
-
0
"
UN
E
X
C
A
V
A
T
E
D
ST
R
I
P
5'
-
0
"
SI
D
E
Y
A
R
D
SE
T
B
A
C
K
10
'
-
0
"
REARYARD
SETBACK
10'-0"
10'-0"
5'
-
0
"
5'
-
0
"
F
G.1
G.1
G.3
G.2
4
8
G.7
M
G.N G.0
G.N G.O
1
A13
G.A G.2
2
A13
G.3
1
2
3
10
G.7
1
A12
1
A12
2
A13
2
A13
1
A14
2
A14
5
H L
N
Z
J
Q
A
36
'
-
7
"
29'-0"15'-3"19'-0"
23'-8"23'-8"
4'-0"
23'-8"
5°
C
34'-0"
XVT
J
K
6
A
P
GED
B
9 G.A
3'-9"
25'-4"
30'-9"
5'-0"
13
'
-
1
"
19
'
-
4
"
3
6
'
-
7
"
29'-0"
29'-0"
23'-7"
23'-7"
37
'
-
0
"
2
°
23'-7"
20'-7"29'-0"
34'-0"
19'-0"
23
'
-
1
"
29
'
-
6
"
14
'
-
0
"
5'
-
4
5
/
1
6
"
29
'
-
6
"
53'-4"
USR W Y
34'-0"
4
A5.1.1
4
A5.1.1
U
P
R.
O
.
W
.
R.
O
.
W
.
AS
H
L
A
N
D
A
V
E
N
U
E
LINCOLN BLVD
UP
DN
UP
FL 2
UP
U
P
29
'
-
5
"
29
'
-
6
"
7'
-
7
3
/
1
6
"
5'
-
5
"
6'
-
9
"
12
'
-
3
"
1
4
'
-
1
0
"
53'-4"
NATIVE LAWN
5'
-
0
"
UN
E
X
C
A
V
A
T
E
D
ST
R
I
P
5'
-
0
"
SI
D
E
Y
A
R
D
SE
T
B
A
C
K
10
'
-
0
"
REARYARD
SETBACK
10'-0"
10'-0"
5'
-
0
"
5'
-
0
"
°5
E
G.1
G.1
G.3
G.2
2
4
9
G.7
K
G.N G.0
G.N G.O
1
A13
B
G.A
G.A
G.2
2
A13
G.3
1
3
5
8
G.7
1
A12
1
A12
2
A13
2
A13
1
A14
2
A14
6
34'-0"
23'-8"
23'-8"
33'-0"
33'-0"
19'-0"
19'-0"
23'-8"23'-8"32'-0 1/2"
G J
C
D
F
I
L M
TRP
USQO
H
N
A
7
29
'
-
6
"
29
'
-
6
"
2
9
'
-
6
"
22
'
-
0
"
7'
-
6
"
DN
DN
LORCAN O’HERLIHY ARCHITECTS 4106 West Jefferson Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90016 t 310.657.4363 f 310.657.4980 www.loharchitects.com
2903 LINCOLN BLVD
JANUARY 10, 2018
GARDEN
COURTYARD
2 BR
984 SF
2 BR
1170 SF3 BR
1533 SF
1 BR
767 SF
1 BR
634 SF
3 BR
1170 SF
1 BR
662 SF
1 BR
615 SF
2 BR
984 SF
2 BR
984 SF
1 BR
735 SF1 BR
735 SF
3 BR
1200 SF
STUDIO
533 SF
STUDIO
600 SF
1 BR
629 SF
STUDIO
500 SF
1 BR
640 SF
1 BR
640 SF
STUDIO
534 SF
2 BR
963 SF
AS
H
L
A
N
D
A
V
E
N
U
E
LINCOLN BLVD
SECOND FLOOR
SCALE :1/32”= 1-0”A10
WI
L
S
O
N
P
L
A
C
E
TRANSFORMER
PROPERTY LINE
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
PROPERTY LINE
AFFORDABLE UNITS
Note: For Open Space Dimension & Area Please Refer To Sheet A31-34
D
N
UP
DN
UP
FL 3
U
P
5'
-
0
"
UN
E
X
C
A
V
A
T
E
D
ST
R
I
P
5'
-
0
"
SI
D
E
Y
A
R
D
SE
T
B
A
C
K
10
'
-
0
"
REARYARD
SETBACK
10'-0"
10'-0"
5'
-
0
"
5'
-
0
"
F
G.1
G.1
G.3
G.2
4
8
G.7
M
G.N G.0
G.N G.O
1
A13
G.A G.2
2
A13
G.3
1
2
3
10
G.7
1
A12
1
A12
2
A13
2
A13
1
A14
2
A14
5
H L
N
Z
J
Q
A
36
'
-
7
"
29'-0"15'-3"19'-0"
23'-8"23'-8"
4'-0"
23'-8"
5°
C
34'-0"
XVT
J
K
6
A
P
GED
B
9 G.A
3'-9"
25'-4"
30'-9"
5'-0"
13
'
-
1
"
19
'
-
4
"
3
6
'
-
7
"
29'-0"
29'-0"
23'-7"
23'-7"
37
'
-
0
"
2
°
23'-7"
20'-7"29'-0"
34'-0"
19'-0"
23
'
-
1
"
29
'
-
6
"
14
'
-
0
"
5'
-
4
5
/
1
6
"
29
'
-
6
"
53'-4"
USR W Y
34'-0"
4
A5.1.1
4
A5.1.1
5'
-
0
"
UN
E
X
C
A
V
A
T
E
D
ST
R
I
P
5'
-
0
"
SI
D
E
Y
A
R
D
SE
T
B
A
C
K
10
'
-
0
"
REARYARD
SETBACK
10'-0"
10'-0"
5'
-
0
"
5'
-
0
"
°5
E
G.1
G.1
G.3
G.2
2
4
9
G.7
K
G.N G.0
G.N G.O
1
A13
B
G.A
G.A
G.2
2
A13
G.3
1
3
5
8
G.7
1
A12
1
A12
2
A13
2
A13
1
A14
2
A14
6
34'-0"
23'-8"
23'-8"
33'-0"
33'-0"
19'-0"
19'-0"
23'-8"23'-8"32'-0 1/2"
G J
C
D
F
I
L M
TRP
USQO
H
N
A
7
29
'
-
6
"
29
'
-
6
"
2
9
'
-
6
"
22
'
-
0
"
7'
-
6
"
DN
DN
LORCAN O’HERLIHY ARCHITECTS 4106 West Jefferson Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90016 t 310.657.4363 f 310.657.4980 www.loharchitects.com
2903 LINCOLN BLVD
JANUARY 10, 2018
OPEN TO
BELOW
OPEN TO
BELOW
OPEN TO
BELOW
THIRD FLOOR
SCALE :1/32”= 1-0”A11
PROPERTY LINE
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
PROPERTY LINE
2 BR
984 SF2 BR
1183 SF
3 BR
1541 SF
1 BR
770 SF
1 BR
634 SF
3 BR
1183 SF
1 BR
657 SF
2 BR
984 SF
2 BR
984 SF
1 BR
767 SF1 BR
767 SF
2 BR
1210 SF
1 BR
1149 SF
1 BR
629 SF
1 BR
629 SF
1 BR
629 SF
1 BR
604 SF
STUDIO
500 SF
STUDIO
534 SF
2 BR
963 SF
AFFORDABLE UNITS
Note: For Open Space Dimension & Area Please Refer To Sheet A31-34
5'
-
0
"
UN
E
X
C
A
V
A
T
E
D
ST
R
I
P
5'
-
0
"
SI
D
E
Y
A
R
D
SE
T
B
A
C
K
10
'
-
0
"
REARYARD
SETBACK
10'-0"
10'-0"
5'
-
0
"
5'
-
0
"
°5
E
G.1
G.1
G.3
G.2
2
4
9
G.7
K
G.N G.0
G.N G.O
1
A13
B
G.A
G.A
G.2
2
A13
G.3
1
3
5
8
G.7
1
A12
1
A12
2
A13
2
A13
1
A14
2
A14
6
34'-0"
23'-8"
23'-8"
33'-0"
33'-0"
19'-0"
19'-0"
23'-8"23'-8"32'-0 1/2"
G J
C
D
F
I
L M
TRP
USQO
H
N
A
7
29
'
-
6
"
29
'
-
6
"
2
9
'
-
6
"
22
'
-
0
"
7'
-
6
"
DN
DN
5'
-
0
"
UN
E
X
C
A
V
A
T
E
D
ST
R
I
P
5'
-
0
"
SI
D
E
Y
A
R
D
SE
T
B
A
C
K
10
'
-
0
"
REARYARD
SETBACK
10'-0"
10'-0"
5'
-
0
"
5'
-
0
"
F
G.1
G.1
G.3
G.2
4
8
G.7
M
G.N G.0
G.N G.O
1
A13
G.A G.2
2
A13
G.3
1
2
3
10
G.7
1
A12
1
A12
2
A13
2
A13
1
A14
2
A14
5
H L
N
Z
J
Q
A
36
'
-
7
"
29'-0"15'-3"19'-0"
23'-8"23'-8"
4'-0"
23'-8"
5°
C
34'-0"
XVT
J
K
6
A
P
GED
B
9 G.A
3'-9"
25'-4"
30'-9"
5'-0"
13
'
-
1
"
19
'
-
4
"
3
6
'
-
7
"
29'-0"
29'-0"
23'-7"
23'-7"
37
'
-
0
"
2
°
23'-7"
20'-7"29'-0"
34'-0"
19'-0"
23
'
-
1
"
29
'
-
6
"
14
'
-
0
"
5'
-
4
5
/
1
6
"
29
'
-
6
"
53'-4"
USR W Y
34'-0"
4
A5.1.1
4
A5.1.1
DN
UP
DN
LORCAN O’HERLIHY ARCHITECTS 4106 West Jefferson Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90016 t 310.657.4363 f 310.657.4980 www.loharchitects.com
2903 LINCOLN BLVD
JANUARY 10, 2018
EQUIPMENT
OPEN TO
BELOW
EQUIPMENT
FOURTH FLOOR
SCALE :1/32”= 1-0”A12
PROPERTY LINE
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
PROPERTY LINE
3 BR
1249 SF
2 BR
1115 SF2 BR
1170 SF
2 BR
984 SF
2 BR
974 SF
ROOFDECK
2821 SF
3 BR
1533 SF
Note: For Open Space Dimension & Area Please Refer To Sheet A31-34
ROOF
45'-0"ROOF
45'-0"
5'
-
0
"
UN
E
X
C
A
V
A
T
E
D
ST
R
I
P
5'
-
0
"
SI
D
E
Y
A
R
D
SE
T
B
A
C
K
10
'
-
0
"
REARYARD
SETBACK
10'-0"
10'-0"
5'
-
0
"
5'
-
0
"
F
G.1
G.1
G.3
G.2
4
8
G.7
M
G.N G.0
G.N G.O
1
A13
G.A G.2
2
A13
G.3
1
2
3
10
G.7
1
A12
1
A12
2
A13
2
A13
1
A14
2
A14
5
H L
N
Z
J
Q
A
36
'
-
7
"
29'-0"15'-3"19'-0"
23'-8"23'-8"
4'-0"
23'-8"
5°
C
34'-0"
XVT
J
K
6
A
P
GED
B
9 G.A
3'-9"
25'-4"
30'-9"
5'-0"
13
'
-
1
"
19
'
-
4
"
3
6
'
-
7
"
29'-0"
29'-0"
23'-7"
23'-7"
37
'
-
0
"
2
°
23'-7"
20'-7"29'-0"
34'-0"
19'-0"
23
'
-
1
"
29
'
-
6
"
14
'
-
0
"
5'
-
4
5
/
1
6
"
29
'
-
6
"
53'-4"
USR W Y
34'-0"
4th FLOOR
35'-0"
4th FLOOR
35'-0"
DN
UP
UP
ROOF
45'-0"
5'
-
0
"
UN
E
X
C
A
V
A
T
E
D
ST
R
I
P
5'
-
0
"
SI
D
E
Y
A
R
D
SE
T
B
A
C
K
10
'
-
0
"
REARYARD
SETBACK
10'-0"
10'-0"
5'
-
0
"
5'
-
0
"
°5
E
G.1
G.1
G.3
G.2
2
4
9
G.7
K
G.N G.0
G.N G.O
1
A13
B
G.A
G.A
G.2
2
A13
G.3
1
3
5
8
G.7
1
A12
1
A12
2
A13
2
A13
1
A14
2
A14
6
34'-0"
23'-8"
23'-8"
33'-0"
33'-0"
19'-0"
19'-0"
23'-8"23'-8"32'-0 1/2"
G J
C
D
F
I
L M
TRP
USQO
H
N
A
7
29
'
-
6
"
29
'
-
6
"
2
9
'
-
6
"
22
'
-
0
"
7'
-
6
"
DN
DN
LORCAN O’HERLIHY ARCHITECTS 4106 West Jefferson Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90016 t 310.657.4363 f 310.657.4980 www.loharchitects.com
2903 LINCOLN BLVD
JANUARY 10, 2018
EQUIPMENT
EQUIPMENT
AREA FOR
FUTURE SOLAR
1731 sqft
AREA FOR
FUTURE SOLAR
1469 sqft
ROOF PLAN
SCALE :1/32”= 1-0”A13
PROPERTY LINE
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
PROPERTY LINE
5'
-
0
"
UN
E
X
C
A
V
A
T
E
D
ST
R
I
P
5'
-
0
"
SI
D
E
Y
A
R
D
SE
T
B
A
C
K
10
'
-
0
"
REARYARD
SETBACK
10'-0"
17'-0"
25'-6"
25'-6"
25'-6"
26'-0"
27'-0"
25'-6"
25'-6"
25'-6"
26'-0"
13°
10'-0"
17'-0"
25'-6"
25'-6"
25'-6"
26'-0"
27'-0"
25'-6"
25'-6"
25'-6"
26'-0"
1
7
'
-
6
"
2
7
'
-
0
"
5'
-
0
"
5'
-
0
"
2
7
'
-
6
"
3
1
'
-
0
"
1
7
'
-
6
"
1
A5.1.1
1
A5.1.1
2
A5.1.1
2
A5.1.1
1
A4.1.1
3
A4.1.1
2
A4.2.2
1
A4.1.2
G.A
G.2
G.B G.E G.F G.G G.H G.J G.K G.L G.M G.N G.P
G.Q G.R
G.1
G.3
G.4
G.6
G.7
G.8
G.5
G.6
G.7
G.8
G.A
G.D G.E G.F G.G G.H
G.K G.L G.M G.N G.P
G.R
G.Q
G.J
G.3
G.1
G.2
3
1
'
-
0
"
G.C
25'-6"
G.D
22'-1 3/16"
5°8°
36'-9 11/16"
8°
4
A5.1.1
4
A5.1.1
8
'
-
6
"
8
'
-
6
"
8
'
-
6
"
8
'
-
6
"
8
'
-
6
"
8
'
-
6
"
8
'
-
6
"
8
'
-
6
"
8
'
-
6
"
8
'
-
6
"
8
'
-
6
"
8
'
-
6
"
8
'
-
6
"
8
'
-
6
"
8
'
-
6
"
8
'
-
6
"
8
'
-
6
"
8
'
-
6
"
8
'
-
6
"
8
'
-
6
"
8
'
-
6
"
8
'
-
6
"
8
'
-
6
"
8
'
-
6
"
7
'
-
6
"
8'-6"8'-6"8'-6"
DN
UP
7'
-
6
"
7'
-
6
"
LEVEL P1
-16'-9"
7'
-
6
"
31
COMM.
PARKING
STALL
34
COMM.
PARKING
STALL
35
COMM.
PARKING
STALL
36
COMM.
PARKING
STALL
37
COMM.
PARKING
STALL
38
COMM.
PARKING
STALL
39
COMM.
PARKING
STALL
40
COMM.
PARKING
STALL
41
COMM.
PARKING
STALL
42
COMM.
PARKING
STALL
43
COMM.
PARKING
STALL
44
COMM.
PARKING
STALL
45
COMM.
PARKING
STALL
48
COMM
PARKING
STALL
50
COMM.
PARKING
STALL46
COMM.
VAN
PARKING
STALL
52
COMM.
PARKING
STALL
51
COMM.
PARKING
STALL47
COMM.
ADA
PARKING
STALL
6
0
C
O
M
M
.
C
O
M
P
A
C
T
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
S
T
A
L
L
65
COMM.
PARKING
STALL
64
COMM.
PARKING
STALL
29
COMM.
PARKING
STALL
30
COMM.
PARKING
STALL
15
CO
M
M
.
CO
M
P
A
C
T
PA
R
K
I
N
G
ST
A
L
L
14
CO
M
M
.
PA
R
K
I
N
G
ST
A
L
L
63
COMM.
PARKING
STALL
11
CO
M
M
.
CO
M
P
A
C
T
PA
R
K
I
N
G
ST
A
L
L
10
CO
M
M
.
CO
M
P
A
C
T
PA
R
K
I
N
G
ST
A
L
L
9
CO
M
M
.
CO
M
P
A
C
T
PA
R
K
I
N
G
ST
A
L
L
59
COMM.
PARKING
STALL
12
CO
M
M
.
CO
M
P
A
C
T
PA
R
K
I
N
G
ST
A
L
L
16
CO
M
M
.
CO
M
P
A
C
T
PA
R
K
I
N
G
ST
A
L
L
ELEC.
RM
(4) COMM.
MOTORCYCLE
PARKING STALLS
MECH.
RM
7'
-
6
"
13
CO
M
M
.
PA
R
K
I
N
G
ST
A
L
L
7'
-
6
"
7'
-
6
"
8
CO
M
M
CO
M
P
A
C
T
PA
R
K
I
N
G
ST
A
L
L
8
'
-
6
"
8
'
-
6
"
8
'
-
6
"
49
COMM.
PARKING
STALL
NO PARKING
53
COMM.
PARKING
STALL
54
COMM.
PARKING
STALL
55
COMM.
PARKING
STALL
56
COMM.
PARKING
STALL
57
COMM.
PARKING
STALL
58
COMM.
PARKING
STALL
8
'
-
6
"
(8) COMM.
MOTORCYCLE
PARKING STALLS 20%
RAMP
10%
RAMP
10%
RAMP
DN
UP
8'-6"
8'-6"
8'-6"
8'-6"
8
'
-
6
"
8
'
-
6
"
8'-6"
8
'
-
6
"
8'
-
6
"
22
COMM.
COMPACT
PARKING
STALL
21
COMM.
PARKING
STALL
20
COMM.
PARKING
STALL
19
COMM.
PARKING
STALL
18
COMM.
PARKING
STALL
6
1
C
O
M
M
.
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
S
T
A
L
L
6
2
C
O
M
M
.
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
S
T
A
L
L
66
COMM.
PARKING
STALL
7
0
R
E
S
I
D
.
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
S
T
A
L
L
6
COMM.
COMPACT
PARKING
STALL
3
COMM.
COMPACT
PARKING
STALL
4
COMM.
COMPACT
PARKING
STALL
5
COMM.
COMPACT
PARKING
STALL
33
COMM.
PARKING
STALL
32
COMM.
PARKING
STALL
72
RE
S
I
D
.
CO
M
P
A
C
T
PA
R
K
I
N
G
ST
A
L
L
71
RE
S
I
D
.
PA
R
K
I
N
G
ST
A
L
L
7'-6"
23
COMM.
COMPACT
PARKING
STALL
7'-6"
24
COMM.
COMPACT
PARKING
STALL
25
COMM.
COMPACT
PARKING
STALL
7'-6"
26
COMM.
COMPACT
PARKING
STALL
7'-6"
27
COMM.
COMPACT
PARKING
STALL
EQIP. ROOM
810 SF
2
5
'
-
0
"
8
'
-
6
"
2'
-
6
"
2'
-
6
"
2'
-
6
"
5'-0"
14 Long-term
Residential
Bike parking
7
'
-
6
"
1
COMM.
COMPACT
PARKING
STALL
9
'
-
0
"
9
'
-
0
"
28
COMM.
PARKING
STALL
8
'
-
6
"
7'-6"
7
'
-
6
"
2
COMM.
COMPACT
PARKING
STALL
7
'
-
6
"
7
COMM.
COMPACT
PARKING
STALL
7'-6"
17
COMM.
COMPACT
PARKING
STALL
8'
-
6
"
8'
-
6
"
7'-6"
LEVEL P1
-10'-10"
5% RAMP
8
'
-
6
"
6
9
R
E
S
I
D
.
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
S
T
A
L
L
8
'
-
6
"
6
8
R
E
S
I
D
.
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
S
T
A
L
L
8
'
-
6
"
6
7
R
E
S
I
D
.
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
S
T
A
L
L
7'
-
6
"
8
'
-
4
"
8
'
-
4
"
8
'
-
4
"
8
'
-
4
"
8 Long-term
Commercial
Bike parking
2345 1
678
9
10 11 12
8 COMM.
LOCKERS
1 COMM.
SHOWER
5'-0"15'-3"5'-0"
2
'
-
0
"
,
T
Y
P
2
'
-
0
"
,
T
Y
P
2
'
-
0
"
,
T
Y
P
2
'
-
0
"
,
T
Y
P
3
'
-
0
"
3
'
-
0
"
1'-6"
2
'
-
0
"
,
T
Y
P
2
'
-
0
"
,
T
Y
P
2
'
-
0
"
,
T
Y
P
2
'
-
0
"
,
T
Y
P
2
'
-
0
"
,
T
Y
P
2
'
-
0
"
,
T
Y
P
2'-0",TYP
2'-0",TYP
1
'
-
6
"
4
'
-
2
"
3
'
-
6
"
3'-0"
3
'
-
1
0
"
3'-6"3'
-
6
"
2'-0",TYP
2'-0",TYP
1
'
-
6
"
1'
-
6
"
1'-0",TYP
1'-6"
4
'
-
0
"
T
Y
P
S
T
A
N
D
A
R
D
S
T
A
L
L
8
'
6
"
X
1
8
'
T
Y
P
C
O
M
P
A
C
T
S
T
A
L
L
7
'
6
"
x
1
5
'
7'
-
6
"
3
'
-
6
"
MIN VERTICAL CLEARANCE = 8'-2"
MIN VERTICAL CLEARANCE = 8'-2"
MIN VERTICAL CL
E
A
R
A
N
C
E
=
8
'
-
2
"
5'
-
0
"
UN
E
X
C
A
V
A
T
E
D
ST
R
I
P
5'
-
0
"
SI
D
E
Y
A
R
D
SE
T
B
A
C
K
10
'
-
0
"
REARYARD
SETBACK
10'-0"
10'-0"
5'
-
0
"
5'
-
0
"
°5
E
G.1
G.1
G.3
G.2
2
4
9
G.7
K
G.N G.0
G.N G.O
1
A13
B
G.A
G.A
G.2
2
A13
G.3
1
3
5
8
G.7
1
A12
1
A12
2
A13
2
A13
1
A14
2
A14
6
34'-0"
23'-8"
23'-8"
33'-0"
33'-0"
19'-0"
19'-0"
23'-8"23'-8"32'-0 1/2"
G J
C
D
F
I
L M
TRP
USQO
H
N
A
7
29
'
-
6
"
29
'
-
6
"
2
9
'
-
6
"
22
'
-
0
"
7'
-
6
"
DN
DN
LORCAN O’HERLIHY ARCHITECTS 4106 West Jefferson Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90016 t 310.657.4363 f 310.657.4980 www.loharchitects.com
2903 LINCOLN BLVD
JANUARY 10, 2018
LEVEL P1
SCALE :1/32”= 1-0”A14
PROPERTY LINE
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
PROPERTY LINE
NOTES:
1- ALL COLUMS ARE 12”X24” AND ARE PLACED WITHIN THE NON SHADED AREA DESICRIBED IN THE PARKING STANDARDS OF CITY OF SANTA
MONICA, AND UNLESS INDICATED, DO NOT REQUIRE ADDITIONAL STALL WIDTH.
2- PARKING STALLS ARE DESIGNED ACCORDING TO PARKING STANDARDS OF CITY OF SANTA MONICA AND THE DIMENSIONS ARE AS FOLLOWS:
STANDARD STALLS: 8’6” x 18’
COMPACT STALLS: 7’6” x 15’
5'
-
0
"
UN
E
X
C
A
V
A
T
E
D
ST
R
I
P
5'
-
0
"
SI
D
E
Y
A
R
D
SE
T
B
A
C
K
10
'
-
0
"
REARYARD
SETBACK
10'-0"
10'-0"
5'
-
0
"
5'
-
0
"
°5
E
G.1
G.1
G.3
G.2
2
4
9
G.7
K
G.N G.0
G.N G.O
1
A13
B
G.A
G.A
G.2
2
A13
G.3
1
3
5
8
G.7
1
A12
1
A12
2
A13
2
A13
1
A14
2
A14
6
34'-0"
23'-8"
23'-8"
33'-0"
33'-0"
19'-0"
19'-0"
23'-8"23'-8"32'-0 1/2"
G J
C
D
F
I
L M
TRP
USQO
H
N
A
7
29
'
-
6
"
29
'
-
6
"
2
9
'
-
6
"
22
'
-
0
"
7'
-
6
"
DN
DN
5'
-
0
"
UN
E
X
C
A
V
A
T
E
D
ST
R
I
P
5'
-
0
"
SI
D
E
Y
A
R
D
SE
T
B
A
C
K
10
'
-
0
"
REARYARD
SETBACK
10'-0"
17'-0"
25'-6"
25'-6"
25'-6"
26'-0"
27'-0"
25'-6"
25'-6"
25'-6"
26'-0"
13°
10'-0"
17'-0"
25'-6"
25'-6"
25'-6"
26'-0"
27'-0"
25'-6"
25'-6"
25'-6"
26'-0"
1
7
'
-
6
"
2
7
'
-
0
"
5'
-
0
"
5'
-
0
"
2
7
'
-
6
"
3
1
'
-
0
"
1
7
'
-
6
"
1
A5.1.1
1
A5.1.1
2
A5.1.1
2
A5.1.1
1
A4.1.1
3
A4.1.1
2
A4.2.2
1
A4.1.2
G.A
G.2
G.B G.E G.F G.G G.H G.J G.K G.L G.M G.N G.P
G.Q G.R
G.1
G.3
G.4
G.6
G.7
G.8
G.5
G.6
G.7
G.8
G.A
G.D G.E G.F G.G G.H
G.K G.L G.M G.N G.P
G.R
G.Q
G.J
G.3
G.1
G.2
3
1
'
-
0
"
G.C
25'-6"
G.D
22'-1 3/16"
5°8°
36'-9 11/16"
8°
4
A5.1.1
4
A5.1.1
7
'
-
6
"
8'-6"8'-6"8'-6"
124
RESID.
PARKING
STALL
126
RESID.
PARKING
STALL122
RESID.
VAN
PARKING
STALL
128
RESID.
PARKING
STALL
127
RESID.
PARKING
STALL123
RESID.
ADA
PARKING
STALL
1
3
6
R
E
S
I
D
.
C
O
M
P
A
C
T
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
S
T
A
L
L
141
RESID.
PARKING
STALL
140
RESID.
PARKING
STALL
105
RESID.
PARKING
STALL
84
RE
S
I
D
.
CO
M
P
A
C
T
PA
R
K
I
N
G
ST
A
L
L
83
RE
S
I
D
.
CO
M
P
A
C
T
PA
R
K
I
N
G
ST
A
L
L
82
RE
S
I
D
.
CO
M
P
A
C
T
PA
R
K
I
N
G
ST
A
L
L
135
RESID.
PARKING
STALL
85
RE
S
I
D
.
CO
M
P
A
C
T
PA
R
K
I
N
G
ST
A
L
L
88
RE
S
I
D
.
CO
M
P
A
C
T
PA
R
K
I
N
G
ST
A
L
L
(4) RESID.
MOTORCYCLE
PARKING STALLS
MECH.
RM
81
RE
S
I
D
.
CO
M
P
A
C
T
PA
R
K
I
N
G
ST
A
L
L
125
RESID.
PARKING
STALL
NO PARKING
129
RESID.
PARKING
STALL
130
RESID..
PARKING
STALL
131
RESID.
PARKING
STALL
132
RESID.
PARKING
STALL
133
RESID.
PARKING
STALL
134
RESID.
PARKING
STALL
8
'
-
6
"
8
'
-
6
"
94
RESID.
PARKING
STALL
92
RESID.
PARKING
STALL
78
RESID.
COMPACT
PARKING
STALL
DN
UP
1
4
4
R
E
S
I
D
.
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
S
T
A
L
L
1
4
5
R
E
S
I
D
.
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
S
T
A
L
L
8'-6"
8
'
-
6
"
93
RESID.
PARKING
STALL
90
RESID.
COMPACT
PARKING
STALL
102
RESID.
COMPACT
PARKING
STALL
91
RESID.
PARKING
STALL
80
RESID.
COMPACT
PARKING
STALL
142
RESID.
PARKING
STALL
1
4
3
R
E
S
I
D
.
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
S
T
A
L
L
77
RESID.
COMPACT
PARKING
STALL
76
RESID.
COMPACT
PARKING
STALL
79
RESID.
COMPACT
PARKING
STALL
(5) RESID.
MOTORCYCLE
PARKING STALLS
LEVEL P2
-26'-9"
44 Long-term
Residential
parking
7
'
-
6
"
1
3
7
R
E
S
I
D
.
C
O
M
P
A
C
T
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
S
T
A
L
L
7
'
-
6
"
1
3
8
R
E
S
I
D
.
C
O
M
P
A
C
T
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
S
T
A
L
L
139
RESID.
PARKING
STALL
104
RESID.
PARKING
STALL
8
'
-
6
"
8
'
-
6
"
8
'
-
6
"
8
'
-
6
"
8
'
-
6
"
8
'
-
6
"
8
'
-
6
"
8
'
-
6
"
8
'
-
6
"
8
'
-
6
"
8
'
-
6
"
8
'
-
6
"
8
'
-
6
"
8
'
-
6
"
8
'
-
6
"
8
'
-
6
"
8
'
-
6
"
8
'
-
6
"
8
'
-
6
"
8
'
-
6
"
8
'
-
6
"
8
'
-
6
"
8
'
-
6
"
8
'
-
6
"
DN
UP
7'
-
6
"
7'
-
6
"
7'
-
6
"
7'
-
6
"
7'
-
6
"
7'
-
6
"
8
'
-
6
"
8
'
-
6
"
8
'
-
6
"
8
'
-
6
"
8'-6"
8'-6"
8'-6"
8'-6"
8
'
-
6
"
9
'
-
0
"
9
'
-
0
"
8
'
-
6
"
7'
-
6
"
7
'
-
6
"
7'-6"
8'
-
6
"
8'
-
6
"
5% RAMP
8
'
-
4
"
8
'
-
4
"
8
'
-
4
"
8
'
-
4
"
86
RE
S
I
D
.
PA
R
K
I
N
G
ST
A
L
L
87
RE
S
I
D
.
PA
R
K
I
N
G
ST
A
L
L
89
RE
S
I
D
.
CO
M
P
A
C
T
PA
R
K
I
N
G
ST
A
L
L
7
'
-
6
"
7'-6"
8
'
-
6
"
7'-6"
8'-6"
8'-6"8'-6"
101
RESID.
COMPACT
PARKING
STALL
103
RESID.
COMPACT
PARKING
STALL
98
RESID.
PARKING
STALL
99
RESID.
PARKING
STALL
100
RESID.
PARKING
STALL
7'-6"
107
RESID.
PARKING
STALL
108
RESID.
PARKING
STALL
109
RESID.
PARKING
STALL
110
RESID.
PARKING
STALL
111
RESID.
PARKING
STALL
7
'
-
6
"
112
RESID.
PARKING
STALL
114
RESID.
PARKING
STALL
115
RESID.
PARKING
STALL
116
RESID.
PARKING
STALL
117
RESID.
PARKING
STALL
118
RESID.
PARKING
STALL
7'-6"
119
RESID.
PARKING
STALL
120
RESID.
PARKING
STALL
1
4
6
R
E
S
I
D
.
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
S
T
A
L
L
7
'
-
6
"
15
0
RE
S
I
D
.
CO
M
P
A
C
T
PA
R
K
I
N
G
ST
A
L
L
14
9
RE
S
I
D
.
CO
M
P
A
C
T
PA
R
K
I
N
G
ST
A
L
L
14
8
RE
S
I
D
.
CO
M
P
A
C
T
PA
R
K
I
N
G
ST
A
L
L
15
1
RE
S
I
D
.
CO
M
P
A
C
T
PA
R
K
I
N
G
ST
A
L
L
14
7
RE
S
I
D
.
CO
M
P
A
C
T
PA
R
K
I
N
G
ST
A
L
L
7'
-
6
"
7'
-
6
"
7'
-
6
"
7'
-
6
"73
RESID.
COMPACT
PARKING
STALL
74
RESID.
COMPACT
PARKING
STALL
75
RESID.
COMPACT
PARKING
STALL
95
RESID.
COMPACT
PARKING
STALL
96
RESID.
COMPACT
PARKING
STALL
97
RESID.
COMPACT
PARKING
STALL
106
RESID.
PARKING
STALL
121
RESID.
PARKING
STALL
113
RESID.
PARKING
STALL
7'
-
6
"
MECH.
RM
7'-6"
1
2345
6
7
8 9 10 11
14
16
12
13
15
19 Long-termResidentialparking 5'
-
1
3
/
4
"
2
3
'
-
3
"
LEVEL P1
-20'-10"
2
5
'
-
0
"
2
4
'
-
5
1
/
2
"
10%
RAMP
20%
RAMP
7'-6"
3'-0"
3
'
-
9
"
2
'
-
0
"
,
T
Y
P
2
'
-
0
"
,
T
Y
P
2
'
-
0
"
,
T
Y
P
2
'
-
0
"
,
T
Y
P
T
Y
P
S
T
A
N
D
A
R
D
S
T
A
L
L
8
'
6
"
X
1
8
'
9'-0"
T
Y
P
C
O
M
P
A
C
T
S
T
A
L
L
7
'
6
"
x
1
5
'
2'-0",TYP
2'-0",TYP
1
'
-
6
"
1'
-
6
"
3
'
-
6
"
3
'
-
0
"
3
'
-
0
"
1'-6"
2
'
-
0
"
,
T
Y
P
2
'
-
0
"
,
T
Y
P
2
'
-
0
"
,
T
Y
P
2
'
-
0
"
,
T
Y
P
1'-0",TYP
2
'
-
0
"
,
T
Y
P
2
'
-
0
"
,
T
Y
P
2
'
-
0
"
,
T
Y
P
2
'
-
0
"
,
T
Y
P
2'-0",TYP
2'-0",TYP
3
'
-
8
"
3
'
-
6
"
3'-0"
3
'
-
1
0
"
T
Y
P
S
T
A
N
D
A
R
D
S
T
A
L
L
8
'
6
"
X
1
8
'
T
Y
P
C
O
M
P
A
C
T
S
T
A
L
L
7
'
6
"
x
1
5
'
4'-0"
5'-0"
4
'
-
6
"
1
'
-
6
"
5'-8"
MIN VERTICAL CLEARANCE = 8'-2"
MIN VERTICAL CLEARANCE = 8'-2"
MIN VERTICAL CL
E
A
R
A
N
C
E
=
8
'
-
2
"
LORCAN O’HERLIHY ARCHITECTS 4106 West Jefferson Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90016 t 310.657.4363 f 310.657.4980 www.loharchitects.com
2903 LINCOLN BLVD
JANUARY 10, 2018
LEVEL P2
SCALE :1/32”= 1-0”A15
PROPERTY LINE
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
PROPERTY LINE
NOTES:
1- ALL COLUMS ARE 12”X24” AND ARE PLACED WITHIN THE NON SHADED AREA DESICRIBED IN THE PARKING STANDARDS OF CITY OF SANTA
MONICA, AND UNLESS INDICATED, DO NOT REQUIRE ADDITIONAL STALL WIDTH.
2- PARKING STALLS ARE DESIGNED ACCORDING TO PARKING STANDARDS OF CITY OF SANTA MONICA AND THE DIMENSIONS ARE AS FOLLOWS:
STANDARD STALLS: 8’6” x 18’
COMPACT STALLS: 7’6” x 15’
10
'
-
0
"
10
'
-
1
0
"
36
'
-
0
"
10
'
-
0
"
10
'
-
0
"
9'
-
8
"
10
'
-
0
"
6'
-
9
"
15
'
-
0
"
10
'
-
0
"
10
'
-
0
"
15
'
-
0
"
10
'
-
8
"
ELEV. + 35'-0"
ELEV. + 15'-0"
ELEV. + 0'-0"
ELEV. -16'-9"GARAGE 1ST FLOOR
GROUND FLOOR
SECOND FLOOR
FOURTH FLOOR
ELEV. - 26'-9"GARAGE 2ND FLOOR
ELEV. + 25'-0"THIRD FLOOR
ELEV. (51.69')
MIDPOINT REAR SETBACK
ELEV. + 37'-5 3/4"REAR HEIGHT LIMIT
ELEV. + 15'-0"SECOND FLOOR
ELEV. + 25'-0"THIRD FLOOR
ELEV. + 35'-0"FOURTH FLOOR
ELEV. + 45'-8"ROOF
ELEV. -10'-10"GARAGE 1ST FLOOR
ELEV. - 20'-10"GARAGE 2ND FLOOR
ELEV. + 0'-0"GROUND FLOOR
ELEV. + 9'-8" (61.36')
MIDPOINT FRONT YARD
ELEV. + 13'-8 5/8" (65.41')
36
'
-
0
"
13
'
-
9
3
/
4
"
45
'
-
8
"
(51.69')
(66.69')
(34.94')
(24.94')
(40.85')
(30.85')
ELEV. - 6'-9"LOADING & TRASH
10
'
-
0
"
9'
-
4
"
10
'
-
0
"
10
'
-
2
"
10
'
-
1
0
"
PARKING LEVEL P1
20
'
-
7
"
8
'
-
9
"
9'-
4
"
9
'
-
2
"
15
'
-
0
"
13
'
-
1
0
"
20
'
-
7
"
9'
-
4
"
9'
-
4
"
LORCAN O’HERLIHY ARCHITECTS 4106 West Jefferson Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90016 t 310.657.4363 f 310.657.4980 www.loharchitects.com
2903 LINCOLN BLVD
JANUARY 10, 2018
SECTION 01
SECTION 02 SECTION 03
SECTIONS
SCALE :1/32”= 1-0”A16
NOTES:
1-MINIMUM VERTICAL CLEARANCES FOR ALL PARKING AREAS, INCLUDING RAMPS, ARE 8’-2”
2- LOADING AND TRASH AREA SHALL MAINTAIN A VERTICAL CLEARANCE OF 20’-7” ON NON RAMP AREAS.
36
'
-
0
"
10
'
-
0
"
10
'
-
0
"
9'
-
8
"
15
'
-
0
"
10
'
-
8
"
ELEV. + 15'-0"SECOND FLOOR
ELEV. + 25'-0"THIRD FLOOR
ELEV. + 35'-0"FOURTH FLOOR
ELEV. + 45'-8"ROOF
ELEV. + 0'-0"
ELEV. + 9'-8" (61.36')
MIDPOINT FRONT YARD
ELEV. + 13'-8 5/8" (65.41')
13
'
-
9
3
/
4
"
45
'
-
8
"
(51.69')
(66.69')
10
'
-
0
"
3'
-
6
"
FLUTED METAL SIDING -
SOLID ALUMINUM, STND 2"
SQUARE PROFILE TYP.
3
ALUMINUM WINDOW SYSTEM, TYP.
4
5
6
HIGH DENSITY FIBER
CEMENT BOARD, TYP.
7
METAL GRATE DECKING
8
9
STOREFRONT ALUMINUM
GLAZING SYSTEM, TYP.
10
11
12
PAINTED STEEL
GUARDRAIL SYSTEM, TYP.
13
EXTERIOR METAL STAIR, TYP.1
ELEVATOR, TYP.
2
14
TRANSFORMER PAD, TYP.
15
PLANTER
16
METAL GATE, TYP.
EXTERIOR BUILT-IN BENCH, TYP.
TREATED WOOD DECKING, TYP.
CASEMENT WINDOW, TYP.
EXPOSED CONCRETE, TYP.
FLUTED PERFORATED METAL SCREEN,
ASHLAND AVE.
P.
L
.
P.
L
.
WILSON PLACE
2 6 2 158 9
25LOBBY ENTRY
30
'
-
6
"
12
10'-8"
55 22
PARKING
ENTRANCE
SIGNAGE SIGNAGESIGNAGESIGNAGESIGNAGE
SIGNAGE
SIGNAGE
SIGNAGE
LORCAN O’HERLIHY ARCHITECTS 4106 West Jefferson Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90016 t 310.657.4363 f 310.657.4980 www.loharchitects.com
2903 LINCOLN BLVD
JANUARY 10, 2018
WEST ELEVATION (LINCOLN BLVD)(
EAST ELEVATION
ELEVATIONS
SCALE :1/32”= 1-0”A17
NOTES:
1-MINIMUM VERTICAL CLEARANCES FOR ALL PARKING AREAS, INCLUDING RAMPS, ARE 8’-2”
2- LOADING AND TRASH AREA SHALL MAINTAIN A VERTICAL CLEARANCE OF 20’-7” ON NON RAMP AREAS.
10
'
-
0
"
11
'
-
0
"
36
'
-
0
"
10
'
-
0
"
10
'
-
0
"
9'
-
8
"
15
'
-
0
"
10
'
-
8
"
ELEV. + 15'-0"SECOND FLOOR
ELEV. + 25'-0"THIRD FLOOR
ELEV. + 35'-0"FOURTH FLOOR
ELEV. + 45'-8"ROOF
ELEV. -11'-0"GARAGE 1ST FLOOR
ELEV. - 21'-0"GARAGE 2ND FLOOR
ELEV. + 0'-0"GROUND FLOOR
ELEV. + 9'-8" (61.23')
MIDPOINT FRONT YARD
ELEV. + 13'-9 3/4" (65.37')
DRIVEWAY EXIT
13
'
-
9
3
/
4
"
45
'
-
8
"
13
'
-
0
"
3'
-
6
"
10
'
-
0
"
11
'
-
0
"
15
'
-
0
"
10
'
-
0
"
10
'
-
0
"
ELEV. + 35'-0"
ELEV. + 15'-0"
ELEV. + 0'-0"
ELEV. -11'-0"GARAGE 1ST FLOOR
GROUND FLOOR
SECOND FLOOR
FOURTH FLOOR
ELEV. - 20'-0"GARAGE 2ND FLOOR
ELEV. + 25'-0"THIRD FLOOR
ELEV. (51.69')
MIDPOINT REAR SETBACK
ELEV. + 37'-5 3/4"REAR HEIGHT LIMIT
FLUTED METAL SIDING -
SOLID ALUMINUM, STND 2"
SQUARE PROFILE TYP.
3
ALUMINUM WINDOW SYSTEM, TYP.
4
5
6
HIGH DENSITY FIBER
CEMENT BOARD, TYP.
7
METAL GRATE DECKING
8
9
STOREFRONT ALUMINUM
GLAZING SYSTEM, TYP.
10
11
12
PAINTED STEEL
GUARDRAIL SYSTEM, TYP.
13
EXTERIOR METAL STAIR, TYP.1
ELEVATOR, TYP.
2
14
TRANSFORMER PAD, TYP.
15
PLANTER
16
METAL GATE, TYP.
EXTERIOR BUILT-IN BENCH, TYP.
TREATED WOOD DECKING, TYP.
CASEMENT WINDOW, TYP.
EXPOSED CONCRETE, TYP.
FLUTED PERFORATED METAL SCREEN,
ASHLAND AVE.WILSON PLACE
2 6 2 158 9
5 5 25
LOBBY ENTRY
EXISTING TREEEXISTING TREE BRISBANE BOX,
TYP. OF 3
EXISTING TREE
30
'
-
6
"
1
9
12
10'-0"
RE
A
R
Y
A
R
D
SE
T
B
A
C
K
P.
L
.
P.
L
.
SEGMENTED AVERAGE
NATURAL GRADE
10
'
-
0
"
10
'
-
1
0
"
36
'
-
0
"
10
'
-
0
"
10
'
-
0
"
9'
-
8
"
15
'
-
0
"
10
'
-
8
"
ELEV. + 15'-0"SECOND FLOOR
ELEV. + 25'-0"THIRD FLOOR
ELEV. + 35'-0"FOURTH FLOOR
ELEV. + 45'-8"ROOF
ELEV. -10'-10"GARAGE 1ST FLOOR
ELEV. - 20'-10"GARAGE 2ND FLOOR
ELEV. + 0'-0"GROUND FLOOR
ELEV. + 9'-8" (61.36')
MIDPOINT FRONT YARD
ELEV. + 13'-8 5/8" (65.41')
13
'
-
9
3
/
4
"
45
'
-
8
"
(51.69')
(66.69')
(40.85')
(30.85')
DAYLIGHT PLANE
25
'
-
0
"
45°
68
9 5
P.
L
.
P.
L
.
10
22
'
-
8
9
/
1
6
"
14
'
-
6
5
/
8
"
16
30
'
-
5
"
10'-0"
LORCAN O’HERLIHY ARCHITECTS 4106 West Jefferson Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90016 t 310.657.4363 f 310.657.4980 www.loharchitects.com
2903 LINCOLN BLVD
JANUARY 10, 2018
ELEVATIONS
SCALE :1/32”= 1-0”A18
NORTH ELEVATION (ASHLAND AVE)
SOUTH ELEVATION (WILSON PL)
NOTES:
1-MINIMUM VERTICAL CLEARANCES FOR ALL PARKING AREAS, INCLUDING RAMPS, ARE 8’-2”
2- LOADING AND TRASH AREA SHALL MAINTAIN A VERTICAL CLEARANCE OF 20’-7” ON NON RAMP AREAS.
5'
-
0
"
UN
E
X
C
A
V
A
T
E
D
ST
R
I
P
5'
-
0
"
SI
D
E
Y
A
R
D
SE
T
B
A
C
K
10
'
-
0
"
REARYARD
SETBACK
10'-0"
10'-0"
5'
-
0
"
5'
-
0
"
°5
E
G.1
G.1
G.3
G.2
2
4
9
G.7
K
G.N G.0
G.N G.O
1
A13
B
G.A
G.A
G.2
2
A13
G.3
1
3
5
8
G.7
1
A12
1
A12
2
A13
2
A13
1
A14
2
A14
6
34'-0"
23'-8"
23'-8"
33'-0"
33'-0"
19'-0"
19'-0"
23'-8"23'-8"32'-0 1/2"
G J
C
D
F
I
L M
TRP
USQO
H
N
A
7
29
'
-
6
"
29
'
-
6
"
2
9
'
-
6
"
22
'
-
0
"
7'
-
6
"
DN
DN
5'
-
0
"
UN
E
X
C
A
V
A
T
E
D
ST
R
I
P
5'
-
0
"
SI
D
E
Y
A
R
D
SE
T
B
A
C
K
10
'
-
0
"
REARYARD
SETBACK
10'-0"
17'-0"
25'-6"
25'-6"
25'-6"
26'-0"
27'-0"
25'-6"
25'-6"
25'-6"
26'-0"
13°
10'-0"
17'-0"
25'-6"
25'-6"
25'-6"
26'-0"
27'-0"
25'-6"
25'-6"
25'-6"
26'-0"
1
7
'
-
6
"
2
7
'
-
0
"
5'
-
0
"
5'
-
0
"
2
7
'
-
6
"
3
1
'
-
0
"
1
7
'
-
6
"
1
A5.1.1
1
A5.1.1
2
A5.1.1
2
A5.1.1
1
A4.1.1
3
A4.1.1
2
A4.2.2
1
A4.1.2
G.A
G.2
G.B G.E G.F G.G G.H G.J G.K G.L G.M G.N G.P
G.Q G.R
G.1
G.3
G.4
G.6
G.7
G.8
G.5
G.6
G.7
G.8
G.A
G.D G.E G.F G.G G.H
G.K G.L G.M G.N G.P
G.R
G.Q
G.J
G.3
G.1
G.2
3
1
'
-
0
"
G.C
25'-6"
G.D
22'-1 3/16"
5°8°
36'-9 11/16"
8°
4
A5.1.1
4
A5.1.1
1st FLOOR
0'- 0"
D
N
- 6'- 9"
(44.94')
2
5
'
-
0
"
2
5
'
-
0
"
4
0
'
-
0
"
PERCENTAGE OF GROUND FLOOR FRONTAGE W/ DEPTH OF MORE THAN 40'-0' = 77%
FRONT FACADE WITH AVERAGE DEPTH OF MORE THAN 40' = 233'-9"
37'-2"
139'-1"
4
0
'
-
0
"
35'-6"
22'-0"
FRONT FACADE TOTAL LENGHT = 300'-0"
LORCAN O’HERLIHY ARCHITECTS 4106 West Jefferson Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90016 t 310.657.4363 f 310.657.4980 www.loharchitects.com
2903 LINCOLN BLVD
JANUARY 10, 2018
AVERAGE DEPTH DIAGRAM
SCALE :1/32”= 1-0”A19
FRONT FACADE TOTAL LENGHT = 300’
FRONT FACADE WITH AVERAGE DEPTH OF MORE THAN 40’ = 233’-9”
REQUIRED PERCENTAGE OF GROUND FLOOR FRONTAGE W/ DEPT OF MORE THAN 40’ = 60 %
PROVIDED PERCENTAGE OF GROUND FLOOR FRONTAGE W/ DEPT OF MORE THAN 40’ = 77 %
HATCHED AR
E
A
I
N
D
I
C
A
T
E
S
T
H
E
7
7
%
O
F
T
H
E
FRONTAGE T
H
A
T
H
A
S
M
O
R
E
T
H
A
N
4
0
’
D
E
P
T
H
(MIN REQUIR
E
D
I
S
6
0
%
)
AS
H
L
A
N
D
A
V
E
N
U
E
WI
L
S
O
N
P
L
A
C
E
Note: For Open Space Dimension & Area Please Refer To Sheet A31-34
5'
-
0
"
UN
E
X
C
A
V
A
T
E
D
ST
R
I
P
5'
-
0
"
SI
D
E
Y
A
R
D
SE
T
B
A
C
K
10
'
-
0
"
REARYARD
SETBACK
10'-0"
10'-0"
5'
-
0
"
5'
-
0
"
°5
E
G.1
G.1
G.3
G.2
2
4
9
G.7
K
G.N G.0
G.N G.O
1
A13
B
G.A
G.A
G.2
2
A13
G.3
1
3
5
8
G.7
1
A12
1
A12
2
A13
2
A13
1
A14
2
A14
6
34'-0"
23'-8"
23'-8"
33'-0"
33'-0"
19'-0"
19'-0"
23'-8"23'-8"32'-0 1/2"
G J
C
D
F
I
L M
TRP
USQO
H
N
A
7
29
'
-
6
"
29
'
-
6
"
2
9
'
-
6
"
22
'
-
0
"
7'
-
6
"
DN
DN
5'
-
0
"
UN
E
X
C
A
V
A
T
E
D
ST
R
I
P
5'
-
0
"
SI
D
E
Y
A
R
D
SE
T
B
A
C
K
10
'
-
0
"
REARYARD
SETBACK
10'-0"
17'-0"
25'-6"
25'-6"
25'-6"
26'-0"
27'-0"
25'-6"
25'-6"
25'-6"
26'-0"
13°
10'-0"
17'-0"
25'-6"
25'-6"
25'-6"
26'-0"
27'-0"
25'-6"
25'-6"
25'-6"
26'-0"
1
7
'
-
6
"
2
7
'
-
0
"
5'
-
0
"
5'
-
0
"
2
7
'
-
6
"
3
1
'
-
0
"
1
7
'
-
6
"
1
A5.1.1
1
A5.1.1
2
A5.1.1
2
A5.1.1
1
A4.1.1
3
A4.1.1
2
A4.2.2
1
A4.1.2
G.A
G.2
G.B G.E G.F G.G G.H G.J G.K G.L G.M G.N G.P
G.Q G.R
G.1
G.3
G.4
G.6
G.7
G.8
G.5
G.6
G.7
G.8
G.A
G.D G.E G.F G.G G.H
G.K G.L G.M G.N G.P
G.R
G.Q
G.J
G.3
G.1
G.2
3
1
'
-
0
"
G.C
25'-6"
G.D
22'-1 3/16"
5°8°
36'-9 11/16"
8°
4
A5.1.1
4
A5.1.1
1st FLOOR0'- 0"
D
N
PER CODE 9.31.200 THE
OUTDOOR DINNING AREA
LESS THAN 200SF WILL NOT
BE COUNTED TOWARDS
FAR AND WILL NOT
REQUIRE ADDITIONAL
PARKING & LOADING
70'-11"
1
1
'
-
1
0
"
20'-0"
DN
UP
LOBBY
611 SF
BUILDING RESPONSIBILITY
TO MOVE RESIDENTIAL BINS
TO COMMERCIAL LOADING
AREA BEFORE 7AM
22'-6"
1
0
%
R
A
M
P
1
0
%
R
A
M
P
- 6'- 9"
TOTAL AREA OF
RECESSED FLOOR :
5,364 SF (RAMP
INCLUDED)
OUTDOOR
DINNING
200 SF
TURNING RADIUS = 40'-0"
PLAZA
1,494 SF
10%
RAMP
40'-0"
1
5
'
-
0
"
10'-0"
LOADING PER
SMMC 9.28.080D.1
588 SF12
'
-
0
"
30'-0"
5'-0"RESID.
REFUSE RM
277 SF
SECURED GATE & DOOR
FOR FACILITIES STAFF,
COMMERCIAL TENANTS, &
STANITATION ONLY
TRASH LOADING AREA REQUIRES
20'-7" MINIMUM CLEARANCE
TRASH ENCLOSURE TO CONTAIIN
RESIDENTIAL BIN STAGING BY
BUILDING FACILITIES STAFF
STRIPES AS
NO PARKING/ TOW ZONE
29
'
-
6
"
LOADING LIFT & ACCESS
DOOR TO COMMERCIAL
1
2
3
49'-6"
REFUSE ROOM &
RESID. TRASH
LOADING
SECURED, GATED
ACCESS
1650 SF
2'-0"
2'-0"33'-0"
29'-0
"
2'-0"
2'-0"
1
3
%
R
A
M
P
73'-5"
20'-0"
22'-6"
5'-0"
2XRESID.B.P
COMM.B.P
2XRESID.B.P
2XRESID.B.P
2XRESID.B.P
RETAIL
9,560 SF
RETAIL
2295 SF
RESTAURANT
4,900 SF
LORCAN O’HERLIHY ARCHITECTS 4106 West Jefferson Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90016 t 310.657.4363 f 310.657.4980 www.loharchitects.com
2903 LINCOLN BLVD
JANUARY 10, 2018
SANITATION LOADING PLAN
SCALE :1/32”= 1-0”A20
PROPERTY LINE
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
PROPERTY LINE
LORCAN O’HERLIHY ARCHITECTS 4106 West Jefferson Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90016 t 310.657.4363 f 310.657.4980 www.loharchitects.com
2903 LINCOLN BLVD
JANUARY 10, 2018
ENLARGED PARKING RAMP PLAN
SCALE :1/8”= 1-0”A21
50.85 TC
51.03 TC
1
0
%
R
A
M
P
1
3
%
R
A
M
P
1
0
%
R
A
M
P
5
'
-
0
"
3
9
'
-
8
"
5
'
-
0
"
7
'
-
4
"
4
'
-
6
"
3'-0"
20'-0"
3'-0"
22'-6"
3
A1.3.1
51.16'
50.63'
45.46'
44.94'
51.01'
50.51' F.L.
51.16'
S
I
D
E
W
A
L
K
3
A1.3.1
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
50.51' F.L.
51.01' T.C.
4'-6 1/8"5'-0"
10% MAX SLOPE2% MAX SLOPE
2% SLOPE
9.3% SLOPE
10% SLOPE
13% SLOPE
10% SLOPE
39'-8"5'-0"7'-3 1/2"
51.16'
50.63'
45.46'44.94'
10% MAX SLOPE10% MAX SLOPE 20% MAX SLOPE (ACTUAL SLOPE IS 13%)
14
'
-
4
"
14
'
-
1
1
"
20
'
-
1
"
20
'
-
7
"
-6'-9"
6
5
/
1
6
"
5'
-
2
"
6
5
/
1
6
"
5"1"
1
6
'
-
2
3
/
8
"
LINCOLN BLVD
5'-0"15'-5"5'-0"
44.94'
-6'-9"44.44'
10% MAX SLOPE10% MAX SLOPE 20% MAX SLOPE
41.35'40.86'
10% SLOPE
10% SLOPE
TRASH AND LOADING AREA
5'-0"15'-5"5'-0"
10% MAX SLOPE10% MAX SLOPE 20% MAX SLOPE
20% SLOPE
34.94'
-16'-9"
34.44'
31.35'30.86'
9'
-
4
"
10
'
-
0
"
10
'
-
2
"
10
'
-
1
0
"
PARKING LEVEL P1
PARKING LEVEL P2
20
'
-
7
"
8
'
-
9
"
9
'
-
2
"
9'
-
4
"
20%
RAMP
10%
RAMP
10%
RAMP
5'-0"15'-3"5'-0"
41.35'
44.44'
40.86' 44.94'
20
'
-
0
"
Issued For:
No:Description Date
Consultants
Architect's Stamp
Key Section
Key Plan
Sheet Name
Copyright 2014 Lorcan O'Herlihy Architects. If Dwg is not 24" x 36", it is reduced
PRELIMINARY REVIEW SUBMITTAL 03/10/16
1
LORCAN
O’HERLIHY
ARCHITECTS
4106 W. Jefferson Blvd
Los Angeles, CA 90016
t 310.657.4363
f 310.657.4980
www.loharchitects.com
C-24245
L I C E N S E D A RCHIT
E
C
T
L O R C A N P A T R ICK O'H
E
R
L
I
H
Y
S
T
A
T
E
OF C A L I F O R N I A
09-30-2015
DISCRETIONARY PERMIT SUBMIT.03/24/16
ENLARGED PARKING RAMPS
A1.3.1
50.85 TC51.03 TC 10%RAMP13%RAMP10%RAMP 5'-0"39'-8"5'-0"7'-4"4'-6"
3'-0"
20'-0"
3'-0"
22'-6"
3
A1.3.1
51.16'50.63'45.46'44.94'51.01'50.51' F.L.51.16'SIDE WALK3A1.3.1 PROPERTY LINE 50.51' F.L.51.01' T.C.4'-6 1/8"5'-0"
10% MAX SLOPE2% MAX SLOPE
2% SLOPE 9.3% SLOPE10% SLOPE13% SLOPE10% SLOPE 39'-8"5'-0"7'-3 1/2"51.16'50.63'45.46'44.94'
10% MAX SLOPE10% MAX SLOPE 20% MAX SLOPE (ACTUAL SLOPE IS 13%)
14'-4"14'-11"20'-1"20'-7"-6'-9"6 5/16"5'-2"6 5/16"5"1"16'-2 3/8"LINCOLN BLVD
5'-0"15'-5"5'-0"
44.94'-6'-9"44.44'
10% MAX SLOPE10% MAX SLOPE 20% MAX SLOPE
41.35'40.86'
10% SLOPE
10% SLOPE
TRASH AND LOADING AREA
5'-0"15'-5"5'-0"
10% MAX SLOPE10% MAX SLOPE 20% MAX SLOPE
20% SLOPE
34.94'
-16'-9"
34.44'
31.35'30.86'
9'
-
4
"
10
'
-
0
"
10
'
-
2
"
10
'
-
1
0
"
PARKING LEVEL P1
PARKING LEVEL P2
20
'
-
7
"
8
'
-
9
"
9
'
-
2
"
9'
-
4
"
20%
RAMP
10%
RAMP
10%
RAMP
5'-0"15'-3"5'-0"
41.35'
44.44'
40.86' 44.94'
20
'
-
0
"
Issued For:
No:Description Date
Consultants
Architect's Stamp
Key Section
Key Plan
Sheet Name
Copyright 2014 Lorcan O'Herlihy Architects. If Dwg is not 24" x 36", it is reduced
PRELIMINARY REVIEW SUBMITTAL 03/10/16
1
LORCANO’HERLIHYARCHITECTS4106 W. Jefferson BlvdLos Angeles, CA 90016t 310.657.4363f 310.657.4980www.loharchitects.com
C-24245
L I C E N S E D A RCHIT
E
C
T
L O R C A N P A T R ICK O'H
E
R
L
I
H
Y
S
T
A
T
E
OF C A L I F O R N I A
09-30-2015
DISCRETIONARY PERMIT SUBMIT.03/24/16
ENLARGED PARKING RAMPS
A1.3.1
LORCAN O’HERLIHY ARCHITECTS 4106 West Jefferson Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90016 t 310.657.4363 f 310.657.4980 www.loharchitects.com
2903 LINCOLN BLVD
JANUARY 10, 2018
ENLARGED ENTRANCE RAMP SECTION
SCALE :1/4”= 1-0”A22
50.85 TC
51.03 TC
1
0
%
R
A
M
P
1
3
%
R
A
M
P
1
0
%
R
A
M
P
5
'
-
0
"
3
9
'
-
8
"
5
'
-
0
"
7
'
-
4
"
4
'
-
6
"
3'-0"
20'-0"
3'-0"
22'-6"
3
A1.3.1
51.16'
50.63'
45.46'
44.94'
51.01'
50.51' F.L.
51.16'
S
I
D
E
W
A
L
K
3
A1.3.1
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
50.51' F.L.
51.01' T.C.
4'-6 1/8"5'-0"
10% MAX SLOPE2% MAX SLOPE
2% SLOPE
9.3% SLOPE
10% SLOPE
13% SLOPE
10% SLOPE
39'-8"5'-0"7'-3 1/2"
51.16'
50.63'
45.46'44.94'
10% MAX SLOPE10% MAX SLOPE 20% MAX SLOPE (ACTUAL SLOPE IS 13%)
14
'
-
4
"
14
'
-
1
1
"
20
'
-
1
"
20
'
-
7
"
-6'-9"
6
5
/
1
6
"
5'
-
2
"
6
5
/
1
6
"
5"1"
1
6
'
-
2
3
/
8
"
LINCOLN BLVD
5'-0"15'-5"5'-0"
44.94'
-6'-9"44.44'
10% MAX SLOPE10% MAX SLOPE 20% MAX SLOPE
41.35'40.86'
10% SLOPE
10% SLOPE
TRASH AND LOADING AREA
5'-0"15'-5"5'-0"
10% MAX SLOPE10% MAX SLOPE 20% MAX SLOPE
20% SLOPE
34.94'
-16'-9"
34.44'
31.35'30.86'
9'
-
4
"
10
'
-
0
"
10
'
-
2
"
10
'
-
1
0
"
PARKING LEVEL P1
PARKING LEVEL P2
20
'
-
7
"
8
'
-
9
"
9
'
-
2
"
9'
-
4
"
20%
RAMP
10%
RAMP
10%
RAMP
5'-0"15'-3"5'-0"
41.35'
44.44'
40.86' 44.94'
20
'
-
0
"
Issued For:
No:Description Date
Consultants
Architect's Stamp
Key Section
Key Plan
Sheet Name
Copyright 2014 Lorcan O'Herlihy Architects. If Dwg is not 24" x 36", it is reduced
PRELIMINARY REVIEW SUBMITTAL 03/10/16
1
LORCAN
O’HERLIHY
ARCHITECTS
4106 W. Jefferson Blvd
Los Angeles, CA 90016
t 310.657.4363
f 310.657.4980
www.loharchitects.com
C-24245
L I C E N S E D A RCHIT
E
C
T
L O R C A N P A T R ICK O'H
E
R
L
I
H
Y
S
T
A
T
E
OF C A L I F O R N I A
09-30-2015
DISCRETIONARY PERMIT SUBMIT.03/24/16
ENLARGED PARKING RAMPS
A1.3.1
LORCAN O’HERLIHY ARCHITECTS 4106 West Jefferson Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90016 t 310.657.4363 f 310.657.4980 www.loharchitects.com
2903 LINCOLN BLVD
JANUARY 10, 2018
ENLARGED PARKING RAMP SECTION
SCALE :N.T.SA23
50.85 TC51.03 TC10%RAMP13%RAMP10%RAMP5'-0"39'-8"5'-0"7'-4"4'-6"3'-0"20'-0"3'-0"22'-6"3A1.3.151.16'50.63'45.46'44.94'51.01'50.51' F.L.51.16'SIDE WALK3A1.3.1 PROPERTY LINE 50.51' F.L.51.01' T.C.4'-6 1/8"5'-0"10% MAX SLOPE2% MAX SLOPE2% SLOPE 9.3% SLOPE10% SLOPE13% SLOPE10% SLOPE 39'-8"5'-0"7'-3 1/2"51.16'50.63'45.46'44.94'10% MAX SLOPE10% MAX SLOPE 20% MAX SLOPE (ACTUAL SLOPE IS 13%)14'-4"14'-11"20'-1"20'-7"-6'-9"6 5/16"5'-2"6 5/16"5"1"16'-2 3/8"LINCOLN BLVD
5'-0"15'-5"5'-0"
44.94'-6'-9"44.44'
10% MAX SLOPE10% MAX SLOPE 20% MAX SLOPE
41.35'40.86'
10% SLOPE
10% SLOPE
TRASH AND LOADING AREA
5'-0"15'-5"5'-0"
10% MAX SLOPE10% MAX SLOPE 20% MAX SLOPE
20% SLOPE
34.94'-16'-9"
34.44'
31.35'30.86'
9'
-
4
"
10
'
-
0
"
10
'
-
2
"
10
'
-
1
0
"
PARKING LEVEL P1
PARKING LEVEL P2
20
'
-
7
"
8
'
-
9
"
9
'
-
2
"
9'
-
4
"
20%
RAMP
10%
RAMP
10%
RAMP
5'-0"15'-3"5'-0"
41.35'
44.44'
40.86' 44.94'
20
'
-
0
"
Issued For:
No:Description Date
Consultants
Architect's Stamp
Key Section
Key Plan
Sheet Name
Copyright 2014 Lorcan O'Herlihy Architects. If Dwg is not 24" x 36", it is reduced
PRELIMINARY REVIEW SUBMITTAL 03/10/16
1
LORCANO’HERLIHYARCHITECTS4106 W. Jefferson BlvdLos Angeles, CA 90016t 310.657.4363f 310.657.4980www.loharchitects.com
C-24245
L I C E N S E D A RCHIT
E
C
T
L O R C A N P A T R ICK O'H
E
R
L
I
H
Y
S
T
A
T
E
OF C A L I F O R N I A
09-30-2015
DISCRETIONARY PERMIT SUBMIT.03/24/16
ENLARGED PARKING RAMPS
A1.3.1
5'
-
0
"
UN
E
X
C
A
V
A
T
E
D
ST
R
I
P
5'
-
0
"
SI
D
E
Y
A
R
D
SE
T
B
A
C
K
10
'
-
0
"
REARYARD
SETBACK
10'-0"
10'-0"
5'
-
0
"
5'
-
0
"
°5
E
G.1
G.1
G.3
G.2
2
4
9
G.7
K
G.N G.0
G.N G.O
1
A13
B
G.A
G.A
G.2
2
A13
G.3
1
3
5
8
G.7
1
A12
1
A12
2
A13
2
A13
1
A14
2
A14
6
34'-0"
23'-8"
23'-8"
33'-0"
33'-0"
19'-0"
19'-0"
23'-8"23'-8"32'-0 1/2"
G J
C
D
F
I
L M
TRP
USQO
H
N
A
7
29
'
-
6
"
29
'
-
6
"
2
9
'
-
6
"
22
'
-
0
"
7'
-
6
"
DN
DN
LORCAN O’HERLIHY ARCHITECTS 4106 West Jefferson Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90016 t 310.657.4363 f 310.657.4980 www.loharchitects.com
2903 LINCOLN BLVD
JANUARY 10, 2018
SCALEN/A 1
73'-5"
1
1
'
-
1
0
"
20'-0"
22'-6"
6"
5'-0"
12
'
-
0
"
30'-0"
49'-6"
5'-0"
54'-0"
50.85 TC
SCALE1/32"=1'-0"2
SCALE1/32"=1'-0"3
SCALE1/32"=1'-0"8
SCALE1/32"=1'-0"9
THIRD FLOOR PLAN - OPEN AREA
FOURTH FLOOR PLAN - OPEN AREA SECOND FLOOR PLAN - OPEN AREA
FIRST FLOOR PLAN - OPEN AREA
AS
H
L
A
N
D
A
V
E
N
U
E
LINCOLN BLVD
FL 2
29
'
-
5
"
29
'
-
6
"
7'
-
7
3
/
1
6
"
5'
-
5
"
6'
-
9
"
12
'
-
3
"
1
4
'
-
1
0
"
53'-4"
FL 3
LEGENDSCALE4N/ASCALE07N/A OPEN SPACE NOTES
PRIVATE OPEN SPACE
OPEN SPACE REQUIRED
47 UNITS X 100 SF = 4700 SF
TOTAL OPEN SPACE REQUIRED = 4,700 SQ FT
OPEN SPACE PROVIDED
COMMON OUTDOOR LIVING AREA
SECOND FLOOR
GARDEN 2,688 SQ FT
COURTYARD 1,744 SQ FT
FOURTH FLOOR
ROOFDECK 2,757 SQ FT
PRIVATE OUTDOOR LIVING AREA
(@ MIN 60 SF / UNIT) 4,329 SQ FT
TOTAL OPEN SPACE PROVIDED = 11,548 SQ FT
OUTDOOR LIVING AREA
NOTE 1: COMMON OUTFOOR AREA LOCATED
ON THE GROUND LEVEL SHALL BE NO LESS
THAN 20'-0" BY 20'-0" IN DIMENSION. COMMON
UPPER STORY DECKS SHALL BE NO LESS
THAN 20'-0" BY 10'-0" IN DIMENSION. ROOF
DECKS SHALL BE NO LESS THAN 15'-0" BY
15'-0"
NOTE 2: PRIVATE OUTDOOR AREA LOCATED
ON THE GROUND LEVEL SHALL BE NO LESS
THAN 10'-0" LONG BY 4'-0" DEEP. PRIVATE
OUTDOOR LIVING LOCATED ABOVE FROUND
LEVEL SHALL BE NO LESS THAN 6'-0" LONG
MIN BY 4'-0" DEEP
NOTE 3: NO MORE THAN 20% OF THE TOTAL
AREA REQUIRED FOR OUTDOOR LIVING
SPACE MAY BE PROVIDED ON A ROOF
(SMMC 9.21.090)
COMMON OPEN SPACE
SCALE 10N/A OPEN SPACE NOTES
PRIVATE
BALCONY
91 SF
PUBLIC OPEN
SPACE
1,388 SF
COMMON
GARDEN
2,688 SF
308'-1"
10'-0"
55
'
-
6
"
1
0
'
-
6
"
3
4
'
-
1
1
"
1
4
'
-
1
0
"
COURTYARD
1,774 SF
18'-6"
15'-0"
ROOF DECK
2,757 SF
1
3
'
-
8
"
8'-1"
5'
-
6
"
PRIVATE
BALCONY
53 + 72 =
125 SF
PRIVATE
BALCONY
91 SF
PRIVATE
BALCONY
63 + 72 =
135 SF
PRIVATE
BALCONY
94 SF
PRIVATE
BALCONY
550 SF
PRIVATE
BALCONY
260 SFPRIVATE
BALCONY
77 SF
PRIVATE
BALCONY
74 SF
5
'
-
6
"
14'-0"
5
'
-
6
"
13'-5"
5
'
-
6
"
17'-0"
5'-0"
12
'
-
9
"
5'-0"
14
'
-
6
"
5'-0"
12
'
-
9
"
5'-0"
14
'
-
6
"
16'-5"
5
'
-
6
"
13'-5"
5'
-
6
"
10'-11"
5'
-
6
"
10'-11"
5'
-
6
"
10'-4"12'-0"12'-0"12'-0"13'-1"
6'
-
3
"
6'
-
4
"
6'
-
4
"
5
'
-
6
"
5
'
-
6
"
12'-5"
5
'
-
6
"
13'-11
"
5'
-
8
"
10'-8"
5'
-
9
"
5
'
-
6
"
11'-11"
5
'
-
6
"
12'-0"
5
'
-
6
"
16'-11"
5
'
-
6
"
12'-0"
5
'
-
6
"
12'-0"
5
'
-
6
"
13'-5"
5
'
-
6
"
13'-5"
5
'
-
6
"
13'-5"
5
'
-
1
0
"
10'-4"
5'
-
8
"
13'-11
"
5'
-
9
"
10'-9"
6'
-
3
"
15'-3"
5
'
-
6
"
12'-0"
5
'
-
5
"
11'-0"
5
'
-
6
"
12'-0"
5
'
-
6
"
12'-0"
5
'
-
6
"
13'-5"
5
'
-
6
"
13'-5"
1
1
'
-
0
"
5'-6"
5
'
-
6
"
12'-0"
5
'
-
6
"
12'-0"
5
'
-
6
"
12'-0"
5
'
-
6
"
12'-0"
5
'
-
6
"
10'-11"
5'
-
6
"
10'-4"
5
'
-
5
"
13'-5"
5
'
-
6
"
16'-5"
5'-0"
10
'
-
8
"
5'-0"
14
'
-
6
"
PRIVATE
BALCONY
74 SF
PRIVATE
BALCONY
60 SF
PRIVATE
BALCONY
60 SF
PRIVATE
BALCONY
60 SF PRIVATE
BALCONY
66 SF
PRIVATE
BALCONY
76 SF PRIVATE
BALCONY
76 SF
PRIVATE
BALCONY
88 SF
PRIVATE
BALCONY
72 SF
PRIVATE
BALCONY
77 SF
PRIVATE
BALCONY
77 SFPRIVATE
BALCONY
77 SFPRIVATE
BALCONY
60 SF
PRIVATE
BALCONY
66 SFPRIVATE
BALCONY
74 SF
PRIVATE
BALCONY
73 SFPRIVATE
BALCONY
74 SF
PRIVATE
BALCONY
60 SFPRIVATE
BALCONY
66 SF
PRIVATE
BALCONY
64 SF
PRIVATE
BALCONY
72 SF
PRIVATE
BALCONY
60 SF
PRIVATE
BALCONY
77 SF
PRIVATE
BALCONY
60 SF
PRIVATE
BALCONY
66 SFPRIVATE
BALCONY
73 SF
PRIVATE
BALCONY
73 SF
PRIVATE
BALCONY
73 SF
PRIVATE
BALCONY
57 SF
PRIVATE
BALCONY
44 SF
PRIVATE
BALCONY
60 SF
PRIVATE
BALCONY
66 SF
PRIVATE
BALCONY
77 SFPRIVATE
BALCONY
60 SFPRIVATE
BALCONY
60 SF
PRIVATE
BALCONY
60 SF
PRIVATE
BALCONY
66 SF
PRIVATE
BALCONY
66 SF
PRIVATE
BALCONY
66 SF
PRIVATE
BALCONY
66 SF
Issued For:
No:Description Date
Consultants
Architect's Stamp
Key Section
Key Plan
Sheet Name
Copyright 2014 Lorcan O'Herlihy Architects. If Dwg is not 24" x 36", it is reduced
PRELIMINARY REVIEW SUBMITTAL 03/10/16
1
LORCAN
O’HERLIHY
ARCHITECTS
4106 W. Jefferson Blvd
Los Angeles, CA 90016
t 310.657.4363
f 310.657.4980
www.loharchitects.com
C-24245
L I C E N S E D A RCHIT
E
C
T
L O R C A N P A T R ICK O'H
E
R
L
I
H
Y
S
T
A
T
E
OF C A L I F O R N I A
09-30-2015
DISCRETIONARY PERMIT SUBMIT.03/24/16
A0.0.5
AREA CALCULATIONS
OPEN SPACE PLAN, LEVEL 4
SCALE :1/32”= 1-0”A24
5'
-
0
"
UN
E
X
C
A
V
A
T
E
D
ST
R
I
P
5'
-
0
"
SI
D
E
Y
A
R
D
SE
T
B
A
C
K
10
'
-
0
"
REARYARD
SETBACK
10'-0"
10'-0"
5'
-
0
"
5'
-
0
"
°5
E
G.1
G.1
G.3
G.2
2
4
9
G.7
K
G.N G.0
G.N G.O
1
A13
B
G.A
G.A
G.2
2
A13
G.3
1
3
5
8
G.7
1
A12
1
A12
2
A13
2
A13
1
A14
2
A14
6
34'-0"
23'-8"
23'-8"
33'-0"
33'-0"
19'-0"
19'-0"
23'-8"23'-8"32'-0 1/2"
G J
C
D
F
I
L M
TRP
USQO
H
N
A
7
29
'
-
6
"
29
'
-
6
"
2
9
'
-
6
"
22
'
-
0
"
7'
-
6
"
DN
DN
LORCAN O’HERLIHY ARCHITECTS 4106 West Jefferson Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90016 t 310.657.4363 f 310.657.4980 www.loharchitects.com
2903 LINCOLN BLVD
JANUARY 10, 2018
OPEN SPACE PLAN, LEVEL 3
SCALE :1/32”= 1-0”A25
SCALEN/A 1
73'-5"
1
1
'
-
1
0
"
20'-0"
22'-6"
6"
5'-0"
12
'
-
0
"
30'-0"
49'-6"
5'-0"
54'-0"
50.85 TC
SCALE1/32"=1'-0"2
SCALE1/32"=1'-0"3
SCALE1/32"=1'-0"8
SCALE1/32"=1'-0"9
THIRD FLOOR PLAN - OPEN AREA
FOURTH FLOOR PLAN - OPEN AREA SECOND FLOOR PLAN - OPEN AREA
FIRST FLOOR PLAN - OPEN AREA
ASHLAND AVENUE LINCOLN BLVD FL 229'-5"29'-6"7'-7 3/16"5'-5"6'-9"12'-3"14'-10"53'-4"
FL 3
LEGENDSCALE4N/ASCALE07N/A OPEN SPACE NOTES
PRIVATE OPEN SPACE
OPEN SPACE REQUIRED
47 UNITS X 100 SF = 4700 SF
TOTAL OPEN SPACE REQUIRED = 4,700 SQ FT
OPEN SPACE PROVIDED
COMMON OUTDOOR LIVING AREA
SECOND FLOOR
GARDEN 2,688 SQ FT
COURTYARD 1,744 SQ FT
FOURTH FLOOR
ROOFDECK 2,757 SQ FT
PRIVATE OUTDOOR LIVING AREA
(@ MIN 60 SF / UNIT) 4,329 SQ FT
TOTAL OPEN SPACE PROVIDED = 11,548 SQ FT
OUTDOOR LIVING AREA
NOTE 1: COMMON OUTFOOR AREA LOCATED
ON THE GROUND LEVEL SHALL BE NO LESS
THAN 20'-0" BY 20'-0" IN DIMENSION. COMMON
UPPER STORY DECKS SHALL BE NO LESS
THAN 20'-0" BY 10'-0" IN DIMENSION. ROOF
DECKS SHALL BE NO LESS THAN 15'-0" BY
15'-0"
NOTE 2: PRIVATE OUTDOOR AREA LOCATED
ON THE GROUND LEVEL SHALL BE NO LESS
THAN 10'-0" LONG BY 4'-0" DEEP. PRIVATE
OUTDOOR LIVING LOCATED ABOVE FROUND
LEVEL SHALL BE NO LESS THAN 6'-0" LONG
MIN BY 4'-0" DEEP
NOTE 3: NO MORE THAN 20% OF THE TOTAL
AREA REQUIRED FOR OUTDOOR LIVING
SPACE MAY BE PROVIDED ON A ROOF
(SMMC 9.21.090)
COMMON OPEN SPACE
SCALE 10N/A OPEN SPACE NOTES
PRIVATEBALCONY91 SF
PUBLIC OPEN
SPACE
1,388 SF
COMMONGARDEN2,688 SF
308'-1"
10'-0"
55
'
-
6
"
1
0
'
-
6
"
3
4
'
-
1
1
"
14'-10"COURTYARD1,774 SF18'-6"15'-0"ROOF DECK2,757 SF 13'-8"
8'-1"
5'
-
6
"
PRIVATE
BALCONY
53 + 72 =
125 SF
PRIVATE
BALCONY
91 SF
PRIVATEBALCONY63 + 72 =135 SF PRIVATEBALCONY94 SF PRIVATEBALCONY550 SFPRIVATEBALCONY
260 SFPRIVATE
BALCONY
77 SF
PRIVATE
BALCONY
74 SF
5'-6"14'-0"5'-6"13'-5"5'-6"17'-0"5'-0"12'-9"5'-0"14'-6"5'-0"12'-9"5'-0"14'-6"16'-5"5'-6"13'-5"5'-6"10'-11"5'-6"10'-11"5'-6"10'-4"12'-0"12'-0"12'-0"13'-1"6'-3"6'-4"6'-4"5'-6"5'-6"12'-5"5'-6"13'-11"5'-8"10'-8"5'-9"5'-6"11'-11"5'-6"12'-0"5'-6"16'-11"5'-6"12'-0"5'-6"12'-0"5'-6"13'-5"5'-6"13'-5"5'-6"13'-5"
5
'
-
1
0
"
10'-4"
5'
-
8
"
13'-11
"
5'
-
9
"
10'-9"
6'
-
3
"
15'-3"
5
'
-
6
"
12'-0"
5
'
-
5
"
11'-0"
5
'
-
6
"
12'-0"
5
'
-
6
"
12'-0"
5
'
-
6
"
13'-5"
5
'
-
6
"
13'-5"
1
1
'
-
0
"
5'-6"
5
'
-
6
"
12'-0"
5
'
-
6
"
12'-0"
5
'
-
6
"
12'-0"
5
'
-
6
"
12'-0"
5
'
-
6
"
10'-11"
5'
-
6
"
10'-4"
5
'
-
5
"
13'-5"
5
'
-
6
"
16'-5"
5'-0"
10
'
-
8
"
5'-0"
14
'
-
6
"
PRIVATEBALCONY74 SF PRIVATEBALCONY60 SFPRIVATEBALCONY60 SF PRIVATEBALCONY60 SF PRIVATEBALCONY66 SF PRIVATEBALCONY76 SF PRIVATEBALCONY76 SF PRIVATEBALCONY88 SFPRIVATEBALCONY72 SFPRIVATEBALCONY77 SFPRIVATEBALCONY77 SFPRIVATEBALCONY77 SFPRIVATEBALCONY60 SFPRIVATEBALCONY66 SFPRIVATEBALCONY74 SFPRIVATEBALCONY73 SFPRIVATEBALCONY74 SF PRIVATEBALCONY60 SFPRIVATEBALCONY66 SFPRIVATEBALCONY64 SFPRIVATEBALCONY72 SF
PRIVATE
BALCONY
60 SF
PRIVATE
BALCONY
77 SF
PRIVATE
BALCONY
60 SF
PRIVATE
BALCONY
66 SFPRIVATE
BALCONY
73 SF
PRIVATE
BALCONY
73 SF
PRIVATE
BALCONY
73 SF
PRIVATE
BALCONY
57 SF
PRIVATE
BALCONY
44 SF
PRIVATE
BALCONY
60 SF
PRIVATE
BALCONY
66 SF
PRIVATE
BALCONY
77 SFPRIVATE
BALCONY
60 SFPRIVATE
BALCONY
60 SF
PRIVATE
BALCONY
60 SF
PRIVATE
BALCONY
66 SF
PRIVATE
BALCONY
66 SF
PRIVATE
BALCONY
66 SF
PRIVATE
BALCONY
66 SF
Issued For:
No:Description Date
Consultants
Architect's Stamp
Key Section
Key Plan
Sheet Name
Copyright 2014 Lorcan O'Herlihy Architects. If Dwg is not 24" x 36", it is reduced
PRELIMINARY REVIEW SUBMITTAL 03/10/16
1
LORCANO’HERLIHYARCHITECTS4106 W. Jefferson Blvd
Los Angeles, CA 90016
t 310.657.4363
f 310.657.4980
www.loharchitects.com
C-24245
L I C E N S E D A RCHIT
E
C
T
L O R C A N P A T R ICK O'H
E
R
L
I
H
Y
S
T
A
T
E
OF C A L I F O R N I A
09-30-2015
DISCRETIONARY PERMIT SUBMIT.03/24/16
A0.0.5
AREA CALCULATIONS
5'
-
0
"
UN
E
X
C
A
V
A
T
E
D
ST
R
I
P
5'
-
0
"
SI
D
E
Y
A
R
D
SE
T
B
A
C
K
10
'
-
0
"
REARYARD
SETBACK
10'-0"
10'-0"
5'
-
0
"
5'
-
0
"
°5
E
G.1
G.1
G.3
G.2
2
4
9
G.7
K
G.N G.0
G.N G.O
1
A13
B
G.A
G.A
G.2
2
A13
G.3
1
3
5
8
G.7
1
A12
1
A12
2
A13
2
A13
1
A14
2
A14
6
34'-0"
23'-8"
23'-8"
33'-0"
33'-0"
19'-0"
19'-0"
23'-8"23'-8"32'-0 1/2"
G J
C
D
F
I
L M
TRP
USQO
H
N
A
7
29
'
-
6
"
29
'
-
6
"
2
9
'
-
6
"
22
'
-
0
"
7'
-
6
"
DN
DN
LORCAN O’HERLIHY ARCHITECTS 4106 West Jefferson Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90016 t 310.657.4363 f 310.657.4980 www.loharchitects.com
2903 LINCOLN BLVD
JANUARY 10, 2018
SCALEN/A 1
73'-5"
1
1
'
-
1
0
"
20'-0"
22'-6"
6"
5'-0"
12
'
-
0
"
30'-0"
49'-6"
5'-0"
54'-0"
50.85 TC
SCALE1/32"=1'-0"2
SCALE1/32"=1'-0"3
SCALE1/32"=1'-0"8
SCALE1/32"=1'-0"9
THIRD FLOOR PLAN - OPEN AREA
FOURTH FLOOR PLAN - OPEN AREA SECOND FLOOR PLAN - OPEN AREA
FIRST FLOOR PLAN - OPEN AREA
AS
H
L
A
N
D
A
V
E
N
U
E
LINCOLN BLVD
FL 2
29
'
-
5
"
29
'
-
6
"
7'
-
7
3
/
1
6
"
5'
-
5
"
6'
-
9
"
12
'
-
3
"
1
4
'
-
1
0
"
53'-4"
FL 3
LEGENDSCALE4N/ASCALE07N/A OPEN SPACE NOTES
PRIVATE OPEN SPACE
OPEN SPACE REQUIRED
47 UNITS X 100 SF = 4700 SF
TOTAL OPEN SPACE REQUIRED = 4,700 SQ FT
OPEN SPACE PROVIDED
COMMON OUTDOOR LIVING AREA
SECOND FLOOR
GARDEN 2,688 SQ FT
COURTYARD 1,744 SQ FT
FOURTH FLOOR
ROOFDECK 2,757 SQ FT
PRIVATE OUTDOOR LIVING AREA
(@ MIN 60 SF / UNIT) 4,329 SQ FT
TOTAL OPEN SPACE PROVIDED = 11,548 SQ FT
OUTDOOR LIVING AREA
NOTE 1: COMMON OUTFOOR AREA LOCATED
ON THE GROUND LEVEL SHALL BE NO LESS
THAN 20'-0" BY 20'-0" IN DIMENSION. COMMON
UPPER STORY DECKS SHALL BE NO LESS
THAN 20'-0" BY 10'-0" IN DIMENSION. ROOF
DECKS SHALL BE NO LESS THAN 15'-0" BY
15'-0"
NOTE 2: PRIVATE OUTDOOR AREA LOCATED
ON THE GROUND LEVEL SHALL BE NO LESS
THAN 10'-0" LONG BY 4'-0" DEEP. PRIVATE
OUTDOOR LIVING LOCATED ABOVE FROUND
LEVEL SHALL BE NO LESS THAN 6'-0" LONG
MIN BY 4'-0" DEEP
NOTE 3: NO MORE THAN 20% OF THE TOTAL
AREA REQUIRED FOR OUTDOOR LIVING
SPACE MAY BE PROVIDED ON A ROOF
(SMMC 9.21.090)
COMMON OPEN SPACE
SCALE10N/AOPEN SPACE NOTES
PRIVATE
BALCONY
91 SF
PUBLIC OPEN
SPACE
1,388 SF
COMMON
GARDEN
2,688 SF
308'-1"
10'-0"
55
'
-
6
"
1
0
'
-
6
"
3
4
'
-
1
1
"
1
4
'
-
1
0
"
COURTYARD
1,774 SF
18'-6"
15'-0"
ROOF DECK
2,757 SF
1
3
'
-
8
"
8'-1"
5'
-
6
"
PRIVATE
BALCONY
53 + 72 =
125 SF
PRIVATE
BALCONY
91 SF
PRIVATE
BALCONY
63 + 72 =
135 SF
PRIVATE
BALCONY
94 SF
PRIVATE
BALCONY
550 SF
PRIVATE
BALCONY
260 SFPRIVATE
BALCONY
77 SF
PRIVATE
BALCONY
74 SF
5
'
-
6
"
14'-0"
5
'
-
6
"
13'-5"
5
'
-
6
"
17'-0"
5'-0"
12
'
-
9
"
5'-0"
14
'
-
6
"
5'-0"
12
'
-
9
"
5'-0"
14
'
-
6
"
16'-5"
5
'
-
6
"
13'-5"
5'
-
6
"
10'-11"
5'
-
6
"
10'-11"
5'
-
6
"
10'-4"12'-0"12'-0"12'-0"13'-1"
6'
-
3
"
6'
-
4
"
6'
-
4
"
5
'
-
6
"
5
'
-
6
"
12'-5"
5
'
-
6
"
13'-11
"
5'
-
8
"
10'-8"
5'
-
9
"
5
'
-
6
"
11'-11"
5
'
-
6
"
12'-0"
5
'
-
6
"
16'-11"
5
'
-
6
"
12'-0"
5
'
-
6
"
12'-0"
5
'
-
6
"
13'-5"
5
'
-
6
"
13'-5"
5
'
-
6
"
13'-5"
5
'
-
1
0
"
10'-4"
5'
-
8
"
13'-11
"
5'
-
9
"
10'-9"
6'
-
3
"
15'-3"
5
'
-
6
"
12'-0"
5
'
-
5
"
11'-0"
5
'
-
6
"
12'-0"
5
'
-
6
"
12'-0"
5
'
-
6
"
13'-5"
5
'
-
6
"
13'-5"
1
1
'
-
0
"
5'-6"
5
'
-
6
"
12'-0"
5
'
-
6
"
12'-0"
5
'
-
6
"
12'-0"
5
'
-
6
"
12'-0"
5
'
-
6
"
10'-11"
5'
-
6
"
10'-4"
5
'
-
5
"
13'-5"
5
'
-
6
"
16'-5"
5'-0"
10
'
-
8
"
5'-0"
14
'
-
6
"
PRIVATE
BALCONY
74 SF
PRIVATE
BALCONY
60 SF
PRIVATE
BALCONY
60 SF
PRIVATE
BALCONY
60 SF PRIVATE
BALCONY
66 SF
PRIVATE
BALCONY
76 SF PRIVATE
BALCONY
76 SF
PRIVATE
BALCONY
88 SF
PRIVATE
BALCONY
72 SF
PRIVATE
BALCONY
77 SF
PRIVATE
BALCONY
77 SFPRIVATE
BALCONY
77 SFPRIVATE
BALCONY
60 SF
PRIVATE
BALCONY
66 SFPRIVATE
BALCONY
74 SF
PRIVATE
BALCONY
73 SFPRIVATE
BALCONY
74 SF
PRIVATE
BALCONY
60 SFPRIVATE
BALCONY
66 SF
PRIVATE
BALCONY
64 SF
PRIVATE
BALCONY
72 SF
PRIVATE
BALCONY
60 SF
PRIVATE
BALCONY
77 SF
PRIVATE
BALCONY
60 SF
PRIVATE
BALCONY
66 SFPRIVATE
BALCONY
73 SF
PRIVATE
BALCONY
73 SF
PRIVATE
BALCONY
73 SF
PRIVATE
BALCONY
57 SF
PRIVATE
BALCONY
44 SF
PRIVATE
BALCONY
60 SF
PRIVATE
BALCONY
66 SF
PRIVATE
BALCONY
77 SFPRIVATE
BALCONY
60 SFPRIVATE
BALCONY
60 SF
PRIVATE
BALCONY
60 SF
PRIVATE
BALCONY
66 SF
PRIVATE
BALCONY
66 SF
PRIVATE
BALCONY
66 SF
PRIVATE
BALCONY
66 SF
Issued For:
No:Description Date
Consultants
Architect's Stamp
Key Section
Key Plan
Sheet Name
Copyright 2014 Lorcan O'Herlihy Architects. If Dwg is not 24" x 36", it is reduced
PRELIMINARY REVIEW SUBMITTAL 03/10/16
1
LORCAN
O’HERLIHY
ARCHITECTS
4106 W. Jefferson Blvd
Los Angeles, CA 90016
t 310.657.4363
f 310.657.4980
www.loharchitects.com
C-24245
L I C E N S E D A RCHIT
E
C
T
L O R C A N P A T R ICK O'H
E
R
L
I
H
Y
S
T
A
T
E
OF C A L I F O R N I A
09-30-2015
DISCRETIONARY PERMIT SUBMIT.03/24/16
A0.0.5
AREA CALCULATIONS
OPEN SPACE PLAN, LEVEL 2
SCALE :1/32”= 1-0”A26
5'
-
0
"
UN
E
X
C
A
V
A
T
E
D
ST
R
I
P
5'
-
0
"
SI
D
E
Y
A
R
D
SE
T
B
A
C
K
10
'
-
0
"
REARYARD
SETBACK
10'-0"
10'-0"
5'
-
0
"
5'
-
0
"
°5
E
G.1
G.1
G.3
G.2
2
4
9
G.7
K
G.N G.0
G.N G.O
1
A13
B
G.A
G.A
G.2
2
A13
G.3
1
3
5
8
G.7
1
A12
1
A12
2
A13
2
A13
1
A14
2
A14
6
34'-0"
23'-8"
23'-8"
33'-0"
33'-0"
19'-0"
19'-0"
23'-8"23'-8"32'-0 1/2"
G J
C
D
F
I
L M
TRP
USQO
H
N
A
7
29
'
-
6
"
29
'
-
6
"
2
9
'
-
6
"
22
'
-
0
"
7'
-
6
"
DN
DN
LORCAN O’HERLIHY ARCHITECTS 4106 West Jefferson Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90016 t 310.657.4363 f 310.657.4980 www.loharchitects.com
2903 LINCOLN BLVD
JANUARY 10, 2018
OPEN SPACE PLAN, LEVEL 1
SCALE :1/32”= 1-0”A27
SCALEN/A 1
73'-5"
1
1
'
-
1
0
"
20'-0"
22'-6"
6"
5'-0"
12
'
-
0
"
30'-0"
49'-6"
5'-0"
54'-0"
50.85 TC
SCALE1/32"=1'-0"2
SCALE1/32"=1'-0"3
SCALE1/32"=1'-0"8
SCALE1/32"=1'-0"9
THIRD FLOOR PLAN - OPEN AREA
FOURTH FLOOR PLAN - OPEN AREA SECOND FLOOR PLAN - OPEN AREA
FIRST FLOOR PLAN - OPEN AREA
ASHLAND AVENUE LINCOLN BLVD FL 229'-5"29'-6"7'-7 3/16"5'-5"6'-9"12'-3"14'-10"53'-4"
FL 3
LEGENDSCALE4N/ASCALE07N/A OPEN SPACE NOTES
PRIVATE OPEN SPACE
OPEN SPACE REQUIRED
47 UNITS X 100 SF = 4700 SF
TOTAL OPEN SPACE REQUIRED = 4,700 SQ FT
OPEN SPACE PROVIDED
COMMON OUTDOOR LIVING AREA
SECOND FLOOR
GARDEN 2,688 SQ FT
COURTYARD 1,744 SQ FT
FOURTH FLOOR
ROOFDECK 2,757 SQ FT
PRIVATE OUTDOOR LIVING AREA
(@ MIN 60 SF / UNIT) 4,329 SQ FT
TOTAL OPEN SPACE PROVIDED = 11,548 SQ FT
OUTDOOR LIVING AREA
NOTE 1: COMMON OUTFOOR AREA LOCATED
ON THE GROUND LEVEL SHALL BE NO LESS
THAN 20'-0" BY 20'-0" IN DIMENSION. COMMON
UPPER STORY DECKS SHALL BE NO LESS
THAN 20'-0" BY 10'-0" IN DIMENSION. ROOF
DECKS SHALL BE NO LESS THAN 15'-0" BY
15'-0"
NOTE 2: PRIVATE OUTDOOR AREA LOCATED
ON THE GROUND LEVEL SHALL BE NO LESS
THAN 10'-0" LONG BY 4'-0" DEEP. PRIVATE
OUTDOOR LIVING LOCATED ABOVE FROUND
LEVEL SHALL BE NO LESS THAN 6'-0" LONG
MIN BY 4'-0" DEEP
NOTE 3: NO MORE THAN 20% OF THE TOTAL
AREA REQUIRED FOR OUTDOOR LIVING
SPACE MAY BE PROVIDED ON A ROOF
(SMMC 9.21.090)
COMMON OPEN SPACE
SCALE10N/AOPEN SPACE NOTES
PRIVATEBALCONY91 SF
PUBLIC OPEN
SPACE
1,388 SF
COMMONGARDEN2,688 SF
308'-1"
10'-0"
55
'
-
6
"
1
0
'
-
6
"
3
4
'
-
1
1
"
14'-10"COURTYARD1,774 SF18'-6"15'-0"ROOF DECK2,757 SF 13'-8"
8'-1"
5'
-
6
"
PRIVATE
BALCONY
53 + 72 =
125 SF
PRIVATE
BALCONY
91 SF
PRIVATEBALCONY63 + 72 =135 SFPRIVATEBALCONY94 SFPRIVATEBALCONY550 SFPRIVATEBALCONY
260 SFPRIVATE
BALCONY
77 SF
PRIVATE
BALCONY
74 SF
5'-6"14'-0"5'-6"13'-5"5'-6"17'-0"5'-0"12'-9"5'-0"14'-6"5'-0"12'-9"5'-0"14'-6"16'-5"5'-6"13'-5"5'-6"10'-11"5'-6"10'-11"5'-6"10'-4"12'-0"12'-0"12'-0"13'-1"6'-3"6'-4"6'-4"5'-6"5'-6"12'-5"5'-6"13'-11"5'-8"10'-8"5'-9"5'-6"11'-11"5'-6"12'-0"5'-6"16'-11"5'-6"12'-0"5'-6"12'-0"5'-6"13'-5"5'-6"13'-5"5'-6"13'-5"
5
'
-
1
0
"
10'-4"
5'
-
8
"
13'-11
"
5'
-
9
"
10'-9"
6'
-
3
"
15'-3"
5
'
-
6
"
12'-0"
5
'
-
5
"
11'-0"
5
'
-
6
"
12'-0"
5
'
-
6
"
12'-0"
5
'
-
6
"
13'-5"
5
'
-
6
"
13'-5"
1
1
'
-
0
"
5'-6"
5
'
-
6
"
12'-0"
5
'
-
6
"
12'-0"
5
'
-
6
"
12'-0"
5
'
-
6
"
12'-0"
5
'
-
6
"
10'-11"
5'
-
6
"
10'-4"
5
'
-
5
"
13'-5"
5
'
-
6
"
16'-5"
5'-0"
10
'
-
8
"
5'-0"
14
'
-
6
"
PRIVATEBALCONY74 SF PRIVATEBALCONY60 SFPRIVATEBALCONY60 SF PRIVATEBALCONY60 SF PRIVATEBALCONY66 SF PRIVATEBALCONY76 SF PRIVATEBALCONY76 SF PRIVATEBALCONY88 SFPRIVATEBALCONY72 SFPRIVATEBALCONY77 SFPRIVATEBALCONY77 SFPRIVATEBALCONY77 SFPRIVATEBALCONY60 SFPRIVATEBALCONY66 SFPRIVATEBALCONY74 SFPRIVATEBALCONY73 SFPRIVATEBALCONY74 SF PRIVATEBALCONY60 SFPRIVATEBALCONY66 SFPRIVATEBALCONY64 SFPRIVATEBALCONY72 SF
PRIVATE
BALCONY
60 SF
PRIVATE
BALCONY
77 SF
PRIVATE
BALCONY
60 SF
PRIVATE
BALCONY
66 SFPRIVATE
BALCONY
73 SF
PRIVATE
BALCONY
73 SF
PRIVATE
BALCONY
73 SF
PRIVATE
BALCONY
57 SF
PRIVATE
BALCONY
44 SF
PRIVATE
BALCONY
60 SF
PRIVATE
BALCONY
66 SF
PRIVATE
BALCONY
77 SFPRIVATE
BALCONY
60 SFPRIVATE
BALCONY
60 SF
PRIVATE
BALCONY
60 SF
PRIVATE
BALCONY
66 SF
PRIVATE
BALCONY
66 SF
PRIVATE
BALCONY
66 SF
PRIVATE
BALCONY
66 SF
Issued For:
No:Description Date
Consultants
Architect's Stamp
Key Section
Key Plan
Sheet Name
Copyright 2014 Lorcan O'Herlihy Architects. If Dwg is not 24" x 36", it is reduced
PRELIMINARY REVIEW SUBMITTAL 03/10/16
1
LORCANO’HERLIHYARCHITECTS4106 W. Jefferson Blvd
Los Angeles, CA 90016
t 310.657.4363
f 310.657.4980
www.loharchitects.com
C-24245
L I C E N S E D A RCHIT
E
C
T
L O R C A N P A T R ICK O'H
E
R
L
I
H
Y
S
T
A
T
E
OF C A L I F O R N I A
09-30-2015
DISCRETIONARY PERMIT SUBMIT.03/24/16
A0.0.5
AREA CALCULATIONS
LORCAN O’HERLIHY ARCHITECTS 4106 West Jefferson Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90016 t 310.657.4363 f 310.657.4980 www.loharchitects.com
2903 LINCOLN BLVD
JANUARY 10, 2018
PHOTO MONTAGE
A28
LINCOLN BLVD
LORCAN O’HERLIHY ARCHITECTS 4106 West Jefferson Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90016 t 310.657.4363 f 310.657.4980 www.loharchitects.com
2903 LINCOLN BLVD
JANUARY 10, 2018
AERIAL VIEWS
A29
LORCAN O’HERLIHY ARCHITECTS 4106 West Jefferson Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90016 t 310.657.4363 f 310.657.4980 www.loharchitects.com
2903 LINCOLN BLVD
JANUARY 10, 2018
MATERIAL BOARD
A30
A A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
FLUTED PERFORATED METAL SCREEN
FLUTED METAL SIDING, STND 2” SQAURE PROFILE
EXPOSED CONCRETE
CLEAR ANODIZED ALUMINUM WINDOW FRAME
CLEAR GLASS
THERMO TREATED WOOD
HIGH DENSITY FIBER CEMENT BOARD
METAL GRATE DECKING
PAINTED STEEL GUARDRAIL
B
C
D
F
E
H I
G
LORCAN O’HERLIHY ARCHITECTS 4106 West Jefferson Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90016 t 310.657.4363 f 310.657.4980 www.loharchitects.com
2903 LINCOLN BLVD
JANUARY 10, 2018
REFERENCE IMAGERY - ARCHITECTURE & MATERIALITY
A31
LORCAN O’HERLIHY ARCHITECTS 4106 West Jefferson Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90016 t 310.657.4363 f 310.657.4980 www.loharchitects.com
2903 LINCOLN BLVD
JANUARY 10, 2018
REFERENCE IMAGERY - ARCHITECTURE & MATERIALITY
A32
STEPHEN BILLINGS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE 1815 Stanford St, Santa Monica, CA 90404 t 310.310.8438 www.sblastudio.com
DROPLET IMAGERY - STREETSCAPE
Boardwalk-inspired paving pattern
2903 LINCOLN BLVD
JANUARY 10, 2018
LORCAN O’HERLIHY ARCHITECTS 4106 West Jefferson Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90016 t 310.657.4363 f 310.657.4980 www.loharchitects.com
REFERENCE IMAGERY - STREETSCAPE
A33
STEPHEN BILLINGS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE 1815 Stanford St, Santa Monica, CA 90404 t 310.310.8438 www.sblastudio.com
LANDSCAPE PLAN - STREETSCAPE
Sweet Gum (existing)Brisbane BoxChinese Elm (matches existing Peppermint Tree (matches
existing on Wilson Pl)
Mat Rush
Reed Grass
Dwarf Cape Reed
Gray RushWild RyeAfrican Flag
AchilleaPhormium
2903 LINCOLN BLVD
JANUARY 10, 2018
LORCAN O’HERLIHY ARCHITECTS 4106 West Jefferson Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90016 t 310.657.4363 f 310.657.4980 www.loharchitects.com
LANDSCAPE PLAN - STREETSCAPE
A34
STEPHEN BILLINGS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE 1815 Stanford St, Santa Monica, CA 90404 t 310.310.8438 www.sblastudio.com
LANDSCAPE ELEVATIONS
NORTH ELEVATION (ASHLAND AVE)SOUTH ELEVATION (WILSON PL)
WEST ELEVATION (LINCOLN BLVD)
2903 LINCOLN BLVD
JANUARY 10, 2018
LORCAN O’HERLIHY ARCHITECTS 4106 West Jefferson Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90016 t 310.657.4363 f 310.657.4980 www.loharchitects.com
LANDSCAPE ELEVATIONS
A35
STEPHEN BILLINGS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE 1815 Stanford St, Santa Monica, CA 90404 t 310.310.8438 www.sblastudio.com
UNDERSEA PLANTING PALETTE - LINCOLN PLAZA AND INTERIOR SPACES
2903 LINCOLN BLVD
JANUARY 10, 2018
LORCAN O’HERLIHY ARCHITECTS 4106 West Jefferson Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90016 t 310.657.4363 f 310.657.4980 www.loharchitects.com
‘UNDERSEA’ PLANTING PALETTE - LINCOLN PLAZA AND INTERIOR SPACES
A36
STEPHEN BILLINGS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE 1815 Stanford St, Santa Monica, CA 90404 t 310.310.8438 www.sblastudio.com
UNDERSEA PLANTING PALETTE - INTERIOR SPACES
Lemon-Scented Gum Fruit TreesRainbow Eucalyptus Madagascar Date Palm
Tree Aloe
Foxtail AgaveCylindrical Snake
Velvet Leaf
Native Lawn -Fan Aloe
Ponytail Palm Bird’s Nest Fern Creeping Jenny Sago Palm
2903 LINCOLN BLVD
JANUARY 10, 2018
LORCAN O’HERLIHY ARCHITECTS 4106 West Jefferson Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90016 t 310.657.4363 f 310.657.4980 www.loharchitects.com
‘UNDERSEA’ PLANTING PALETTE - INTERIOR SPACES
A37
STEPHEN BILLINGS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE 1815 Stanford St, Santa Monica, CA 90404 t 310.310.8438 www.sblastudio.com
ROOF AMENITY TERRACE
2903 LINCOLN BLVD
JANUARY 10, 2018
LORCAN O’HERLIHY ARCHITECTS 4106 West Jefferson Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90016 t 310.657.4363 f 310.657.4980 www.loharchitects.com
ROOF AMENITY TERRACE
A38
STEPHEN BILLINGS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE 1815 Stanford St, Santa Monica, CA 90404 t 310.310.8438 www.sblastudio.com
LANDSCAPE PLAN - ROOF
Fern Pine Hedge Mat RushDwarf OliveOlive tree
2903 LINCOLN BLVD
JANUARY 10, 2018
LORCAN O’HERLIHY ARCHITECTS 4106 West Jefferson Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90016 t 310.657.4363 f 310.657.4980 www.loharchitects.com
LANDSCAPE PLAN - ROOF
A39
LORCAN O’HERLIHY ARCHITECTS 4106 West Jefferson Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90016 t 310.657.4363 f 310.657.4980 www.loharchitects.com
2903 LINCOLN BLVD
JANUARY 10, 2018
PERSPECTIVE - ASHLAND AVE
A40
LORCAN O’HERLIHY ARCHITECTS 4106 West Jefferson Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90016 t 310.657.4363 f 310.657.4980 www.loharchitects.com
2903 LINCOLN BLVD
JANUARY 10, 2018
PERSPECTIVE - WILSON PLACE
A41
LORCAN O’HERLIHY ARCHITECTS 4106 West Jefferson Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90016 t 310.657.4363 f 310.657.4980 www.loharchitects.com
2903 LINCOLN BLVD
JANUARY 10, 2018
PERSPECTIVE - LINCOLN BLVD / WILSON PLACE
A42
LORCAN O’HERLIHY ARCHITECTS 4106 West Jefferson Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90016 t 310.657.4363 f 310.657.4980 www.loharchitects.com
2903 LINCOLN BLVD
JANUARY 10, 2018
PERSPECTIVE - LINCOLN BLVD SIDEWALK
A43
LORCAN O’HERLIHY ARCHITECTS 4106 West Jefferson Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90016 t 310.657.4363 f 310.657.4980 www.loharchitects.com
2903 LINCOLN BLVD
JANUARY 10, 2018
PERSPECTIVE - LINCOLN BLVD SIDEWALK
A44
LORCAN O’HERLIHY ARCHITECTS 4106 West Jefferson Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90016 t 310.657.4363 f 310.657.4980 www.loharchitects.com
2903 LINCOLN BLVD
JANUARY 10, 2018
PERSPECTIVE - LINCOLN BLVD / ASHLAND AVE
A45
Planning Commission
Report
1
Planning Commission Meeting: January 10, 2018
Agenda Item: 7-A
To: Planning Commission
From: Jing Yeo, AICP, City Planning Division Manager
Subject: Development Review Permit 16ENT-0034 to allow a new four-story (36 feet)
59,319 square-foot mixed-use project consisting of 47 residential units,
16,755 square feet of ground floor commercial space, and 151 automobile
parking spaces within a two-level subterranean parking garage.
Address: 2903 Lincoln Boulevard
Applicant: Lina Lee, CIM Group
Recommended Action
It is recommended that the Planning Commission take the following action s subject to
findings and conditions contained in Attachment B:
1. Approve Development Review Permit No. 16ENT-0034.
2. Adopt the Statement of Official Action.
Executive Summary
The applicant requests approval of a Development Review Permit (DRP) to construct a
Tier 2, 4-story (36 feet) mixed-use project with 47 rental units and 16,755 square feet of
ground floor commercial space. The project includes 151 vehicle parking spaces in a two-
level subterranean parking garage and 98-bicycle parking spaces (13 short-term, 85 long-
term).
The site is located on the east side of Lincoln Boulevard between Ashland Avenue and
Wilson Place in the General Commercial (GC) zoning district. According to Santa Monica
Municipal Code (SMMC) Section 9.40.020, a DRP is required for any project that exceeds
the Tier 1 standards. The maximum Tier 1 limits for the GC zoning district are 3 stories
(36 feet) in height and a floor area ratio (FAR) of 1.5 for projects consisting of 100%
residential uses above the ground floor and include on-site affordable housing in
compliance with the minimum requirements of the Affordable Housing Production
Program (AHPP). The proposed 4-story (36 feet) height and 1.81 FAR exceed the Tier 1
maximum limits and therefore, a DRP is required.
While staff recommends approval of the project, there are significant concerns regarding
the proposed design and massing that require further review by the ARB. These include:
2
Building façade along Lincoln appears monotonous. The design should be revised
to provide additional variation throughout the project, with particular attention to
variation along the Lincoln Boulevard frontage;
Street elevations along Ashland and Wilson should be revised for improved
pedestrian-orientation by bringing the unit floor lines closer to the street elevation,
more modulation and openness to the street;
Introduction of more materials and color in reference ranges which could lead to
better granularity;
Provide a pedestrian-oriented design along Lincoln by, for example, providing a
canopy above the door that can provide a place for retail signage and help
differentiate the ground floor commercial from the residential units above;
Revise the planting areas to provide more usable space and space for gathering;
and
Minimize upper level circulation to increase light and air into courtyard
Development Review Permit
A DRP is intended to allow the construction of certain projects for which the design, siting,
and use could result in an adverse impact on the surrounding area. As such, the DRP
allows for the discretionary review of the location, size, massing, and placement of
proposed structures and the location of proposed uses on a site. Accordingly, the required
findings identified in SMMC Section 9.40.050 shall be made in the affirmative to approve
a DRP. In addition to the required DRP findings provided in this report, the following
issues should be considered by the Planning Commission in its review of the proposed
project:
Whether the location, size, massing, and placement of the proposed structure on the
site is appropriate and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood ;
Whether the location of the proposed uses within the project are appropriate and
compatible with the surrounding neighborhood;
Whether the project conforms with established standards in the Zoning Ordinance
including consistency with the required community benefits in SMMC Chapter 9.23;
Whether the proposed siting and design should be permitted by weighing the public
need for the benefit to be derived from the proposed site plan use against the impact
which it may cause;
Whether the project is generally consistent with the Municipal Code and General Plan;
and
Whether the project promotes the general welfare of the community.
Project / Site Information
The following table provides a brief summary of the project location. Additional information
regarding the project’s compliance with applicable municipal regulations and the General
Plan is available in Attachment A.
3
Site Location Map
Zoning District: General Commercial (GC)
Land Use Element Designation: General Commercial
Parcel Area: 32,277 square feet
Parcel Dimensions: Irregular shaped lot
Existing On-Site Improvements (Year
Built):
Auto Repair and Sales one-story
buildings (1932-1971)
Rent Control Status: Commercial (Exempt)
Adjacent Zoning Districts and Land Uses: North: GC & R2 (Multi-Family
Residential)
East: R2 & R1 (Multi-Family and Single
Family)
South: GC (Restaurant)
West: GC (Retail and Restaurant)
Historic Resource Inventory Not listed on HRI.
Affordable Housing Per SMMC Section 9.23.030(A)(1)(a) of
the Zoning Ordinance:
5% of total units as affordable
50% more affordable housing units than
would be required pursuant to Section
9.64.050
Providing 8.5% residential units (4) as
affordable at 30% income level
(extremely low)
4
Transportation Impact Fee Based on project SF x commercial cost
per SF; and number of units x cost per
unit at the time the DR is approved. For
discussion purposes, based on current
rates for a Tier 2 project (14%
enhancement):
Providing: $618,946.51
Affordable Housing Commercial Linkage
Fee
Based on project SF x commercial cost
per SF at the time the DR is approved.
For discussion purposes, based on
current rates for a Tier 2 project ( 14%
enhancement):
Providing: $131,534.55
Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Based on project SF x commercial cost
per SF; and number of units x cost per
unit at the time the DR is approved.
For discussion purposes, based on
current rates for a Tier 2 project ( 14%
enhancement):
Providing: $323,241.15
Child Care Linkage Fee Based on project SF x commercial cost
per SF; and number of units x cost per
unit at the time the DR is approved.
Providing: $111,661.98
Private Developer Cultural Arts Based on project SF x construction cost
per SF at the time the DR is approved
For discussion purposes, based on
current fee rates:
Providing: $140,445.00
Existing Site Description
The subject site is approximately 32,277 square feet in size and is located on the east
side of Lincoln Boulevard between Ashland Avenue and Wilson Place. The site has an
upward slope from the Lincoln Boulevard street frontage to the rear of the site of
approximately 12.5% average. The existing building improvements consist of multiple
one-story vacant auto repair commercial buildings.
5
View East on Lincoln Boulevard-Subject Site
A majority of the existing neighborhood context is modest in height. Adjacent uses along
Lincoln Boulevard include retail, service, and restaurant uses with structures that are
primarily one-story in height. Ashland Avenue contains R2 Multi-Unit properties while
Wilson Place consists of R1 Single-Unit properties.
View West on Lincoln Boulevard
Background
The applicant submitted the Development Review Permit application for a Tier 2 project
on March 24, 2016. Subsequent to plan revisions required for compliance with the
development standards of the Zoning Ordinance, as well as changes to the project design
in response to the comments provided by City staff, the project was presented to the
Architectural Review Board for conceptual review, pursuant to Section 9.40.040 of the
Zoning Ordinance.
Architectural Review Board Concept Review
Pursuant to SMMC Section 9.40.040 (Development Review Permit – Procedures) of the
Zoning Ordinance, a DRP requires Architectural Review Board (ARB) review and
recommendation on the design of the proposal. The project was presented to the ARB as
a concept review item at its November 21, 2016 meeting.
6
Figure 1: ARB Concept Review-Lincoln Boulevard Elevation
The project design was generally well-received with the ARB expressing support of the
project massing and acknowledging that the location of the new mixed -use project is
challenging due to the site configuration and topography. While the ARB was positive
regarding the overall direction of the project, there were some concerns expressed
regarding certain aspects of the design. Staff expressed similar concerns with the overall
project design and has met with the applicant to convey these concerns:
The project’s site access is challenging with access being provided off Ashland
Avenue which already has three existing curb cuts on the south side;
No rear elevation or rendering provided;
The project’s sameness of materials on all facades and along Lincoln accentuates the
length and mass of the building resulting in the appearance of a unrelenting elevation;
The project needs further development of the ground floor pedestrian area so it feels
less like a block long building and the interesting pedestrian experience depends on
granularity/details on ground floor;
The rear façade and edges of the site along Ashland and Wilson need further
development; and
The exploration of stretching the storefronts so they provide differentiation from the
residential units;
The applicant has responded to these comments as follows:
The site access has been revised to be off Lincoln Boulevard adjacent to the hinge
point area of the project and residential lobby. The applicant worked diligently with
City Staff to provide a design that would result in the least amount of visual and traffic
impact to Lincoln Boulevard. The relocation of the site access to Lincoln Boulevard
would reduce the project’s impact on existing traffic volumes on Ashland Avenue,
Wilson Place and nearby residential neighborhoods.
Both elevations and project renderings have been provided for the rear elevation.
The applicant feels that their design approach along Lincoln has been to match the
scale and iconicity of the historic boulevard with a bold and unified façade design. The
use of patterning, geometry and depth of shadow was done thoughtfully and is
intentionally nuanced to break down the scale along different points of the experience.
7
By using a singular material and pattern, the design seeks to emphasize and celebrate
the folds in the geometry of the building. The use of white metal siding will allow the
building to reflect the surrounding atmosphere, and accentuate shifts in weather, time
of day and season.
The applicant agrees that the Lincoln pedestrian experience is a priority and deserving
of continued attention. The addition of a proposed signage support system will help to
provide a pedestrian scale to the code-required commercial ground floor glazing,
adding a visual layer to further anchor the active street retail. Planting is being re-
evaluated to incorporate more human-scale materials along the commercial plaza,
and the addition of more canopied trees will increase the amount of shade on the
sidewalk and plaza space, further encouraging active use.
The ground level commercial along has been revised to wrap around the Wilson Place
façade to further activate the corner and additional glazing has been added to create
more modulation. Screening elements of resident gates on both Ash land and Wilson
elevations have been re-designed for more visual porosity. Planting will be revisited,
including addition of more canopy trees and street furnishings on the corner.
Applicant to explore “stretching” the storefronts by widening the ground floor glazing
so they provide differentiation from the floors above and defer this to formal ARB
review.
While the applicant responded to some of the ARB and staff comments, there were
several other substantive design comments provided by the Architectural Review Board
that have not been addressed. In particular, the design strategy along the Lincoln
Boulevard frontage is one of a repetition of forms. The project site combine s six parcels
and the design strategy results in a dramatic difference with the context and existing
development pattern. Some variation along the length of Lincoln Boulevard is essential
for the project’s compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. Additional concerns
include:
Street frontage along Ashland and Wilson should be revised for pedestrian
orientation by, for example, providing more modulation and opening the units to
the street and bringing unit floor lines closer to street level;
Introduction of additional materials, color and texture which could lead to better
granularity; and
Improving the pedestrian scale along Lincoln by, for example, providing a canopy
above the door that can provide a place for retail signage and help differentia te
the ground floor commercial from the residential units above.
The shallow depth and topography of the site are a particular challenge. Nevertheless,
the project design incorporates an exterior courtyard, which is to be commended. Staff
has provided comments to the applicant regarding the livability and usability of this
important amenity:
The configuration of landscape berms in the courtyard has the result of breaking
down the courtyard into more circulation space rather than gathering space.
Revise the planting areas to provide more usable space and space for gathering.
8
Upper level circulation can be further minimized to increase light and air into
courtyard.
In summary, as the project moves forward, the applicant should revise the design to
respond to the comments provided by ARB and Staff:
Building façade along Lincoln appears monotonous. The design should be revised
to provide additional variation throughout the project, with particular attention to
variation along the Lincoln Boulevard frontage;
Street elevations along Ashland and Wilson should be revised for improved
pedestrian-orientation by bringing the unit floor lines closer to the street elevation,
more modulation and openness to the street;
Introduction of more materials and color in reference ranges which could lead to
better granularity;
Provide a pedestrian-oriented design along Lincoln by, for example, providing a
canopy above the door that can provide a place for retail signag e and help
differentiate the ground floor commercial from the residential units above;
Revise the planting areas to provide more usable space and space for gathering;
and
Minimize upper level circulation to increase light and air into courtyard
The ARB’s comments as well as Staffs concerns have been included as conditions of
approval for the ARB to pay particular attention in their formal review of the project design.
Project Analysis
Project Description
The project is a four-story building with a maximum height of 36 feet that includes 16,755
square feet of ground floor commercial space, 47 residential units totaling 42,564 square-
feet of residential area, and a floor area ratio of 1.81. Additionally, the project includes
11,548 square feet of open space consisting of 7,219 square feet of common open space
and 4,329 square feet of private open space. The project includes 151 vehicle parking
spaces and 28 motorcycle parking spaces in a two-level subterranean parking garage for
the commercial users, residential tenant, and guests of the building. Bicycle parking
spaces are proposed at grade and within the subterranean garage totaling 98 spaces (13
short-term spaces, 85 long-term spaces).
The project’s residential component consists of 47 residential units with the following
overall unit mix identified in Table 1.
Unit Type Number of Units Percentage Average Sq Ft
Studio 6 13% 534 Sq Ft
1-BR 19 40% 700 Sq Ft
2-BR 15 32% 1,042 Sq Ft
3-BR 7 15% 1,344 Sq Ft
Table 1: Project Unit Mix
9
The proposed affordable unit mix for the project would consist of the following:
One 1-BR units for 30% income households (Average size: 657 Sq. Ft)
Three 2-BR units for 30% income households (Average size: 984 Sq. Ft)
As detailed further in this staff report, the proposed project complies with the minimum
community benefits identified in Chapter 9.23 (Community Benefits) of the Zoning
Ordinance required for Tier 2 projects, which include at least 50% more affordable
housing units than would be required by Section 9.64.050 (Affordable Housing Production
Program) of the Zoning Ordinance, and a unit mix of at least 15% 3 -BR units, at least
20% 2-BR units, and no more than 15% Studio units. Also, the average number of
bedrooms for all of the affordable housing units in a Tier 2 project shall be equal to or
greater than the average number of bedrooms for all of the market rate units in the project.
Project Design + Site Planning
As illustrated in Figure 1 below, the proposed building design is modern/contemporary.
The ground floor will consist of retail and restaurant type uses and is comprised of floor
to ceiling storefront aluminum glazing along the commercial frontage for transparency at
the pedestrian level. The upper residential floors also feature a fair amount of floor to
ceiling glazing with the units recessed along a horizontal plane that incorporate industrial-
type materials with neutral hues such as white fluted metal siding panels and perforated
metal screening. Residential balconies are recessed along the building façade and
interplay with the horizontal scheme through the incorporation of symmetrical square
framing techniques and materials. Private open space in the form of residential balconies
are also provided along the upper floor elevations for all residential units. Common open
space areas totaling 7,219 square feet are provided throughout the building including a
1,774 square-foot landscaped courtyard lounge area on the second floor, a 2,688 square-
foot second floor garden and spa adjacent to the courtyard and a 2,757 square-foot roof
deck.
As discussed previously, the site access and design was extensively reviewed by both
staff and the applicant and went through various iterations to provide access that would
result in the least amount of impact to Lincoln Boulevard and by reducing traffic along
both Ashland Avenue and Wilson Place and nearby residential neighborhoods. In
providing the site access off Lincoln, it created a challenge to provide compliant driveway
slope and access to the subterranean garage and location of both the loading and trash/
recycling areas. The project has been reviewed by both the Mobility Division and the
Resource Recovery and Recycling Division and has been found to be in compliance.
10
Figure 2: Lincoln Boulevard Elevation
As shown in Figure 2 below, the ground floor is comprised of a commercial tenant space
at the building frontage totaling approximately 16,755 square feet in size with a 1,494
square-foot plaza area adjacent to Lincoln Boulevard. A residential lobby is also directly
accessed from the building frontage along Lincoln Boulevard next to the driveway and
site access that leads to an elevator and stairwell to the units above . The upper floors
consist entirely of residential units. The placement and orientation of the commercial and
residential land uses in the project is consistent with the surrounding commercial area
along Lincoln Boulevard and other recently approved mixed -use projects.
Figure 3: Ground Floor Plan
11
Pedestrian Orientation
The proposed building is constructed no farther than 10-feet from the street facing
property line for 70 percent of the linear frontage and provides for an outdoor dining area
located the corner of Ashland and Lincoln and an outdoor plaza area which is located
near the hinge point of the building adjacent to the driveway. The proposed setback or
‘Build-to Line’ is within the maximum front setback allowed in this zoning district for
buildings with ground floor nonresidential uses, as required by Section 9.11.030(C) of the
Zoning Ordinance. It is the intent of this development standard to require nonresidential
buildings to be designed prominently with ‘Build-to Line’ features at the ground level that
require a significant portion of the building to be placed near the front property line to
enhance its pedestrian orientation and activate the sidewalk.
Active Commercial Design and Use
The ground floor commercial tenant space has a depth of more than 40 feet for
approximately 77% of the street frontage and provides a floor-to-floor height of 15 feet.
As proposed, the design complies with the Zoning Ordinance standards for active
commercial design that require a minimum average depth of 40 feet, and a minimum
floor-to-floor height of 15 feet. Additionally, a significant amount of glazing is provided
along the storefront that satisfies the transparency requirement for street -facing facades
in Section 9.11.030(A)(3) of the Zoning Ordinance, whereby a minimum of 70% of the
façade facing a commercial street shall be transparent and include windows, doors, and
other openings between 2.5 feet and 8 feet above finished grade. The following
recommended Condition of Approval No. 2 included in the attached draft Statement of
Official Action requires that the project comply with the Active Commercial Design and
Active Use requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
The project shall comply with subsections (A), (B), and (C) of Section 9.11.030 of
the Zoning Ordinance regulating the Active Commercial Design, Active Use,
Pedestrian-Oriented Design, and Build-to Line requirements for the ground floor
street frontage of new buildings on commercial boulevards.
Further, as noted above in the summary of the ARB’s concept review, development of the
project’s ground floor is necessary in accordance with design conditions for the ARB to
pay particular attention to in design review of the project.
Open Space
According to SMMC Section 9.11.030, the project must provide 100 square-feet of open
space per unit, of which, a minimum of 60 square-feet per unit must be provided as private
open space. According to Section 9.21.090 of the Zoning Ordinance, common outdoor
living area located on the ground floor shall be no less than 20 -feet by 20-feet in
dimension. Common upper-story open space shall be no less than 10-feet by 10-feet in
dimension, and roof decks shall be at least 15 -feet by 15-feet in dimension. Private
outdoor area located at the ground level shall be no less than 10 -feet long by 4-feet deep.
Private outdoor areas located above ground level shall be no less than 6 -feet long by 4-
feet deep.
12
The proposed project contains 47 units, which requires a minimum of 4,700 square-feet
of overall open space for the project. As described previously, the project includes 11,548
square feet of open space consisting of a 1,774 square-foot landscaped courtyard lounge
area on the second floor, a 2,688 square-foot second floor garden and spa adjacent to
the courtyard, 2,757 square-foot roof deck and 4,329 square feet of private open space
(i.e. balconies, patios) associated with the majority of individual units ranging in size from
60 square feet to 135 square feet. As proposed, the project complies with the minimum
open space requirements of the Zoning Ordinance by providing common open space in
the amount of 154 square-feet per unit of overall open space, and 92.1 square-feet per
unit of private open space.
Building Mass + Modulation
The proposed height of the building is 4 stories and 36 feet, consistent with Tier 2 limits
established for this zoning district. The building façade is modulated with differentiation in
building plane and building stepbacks of an average of approximately 5 feet on the upper
floors through the incorporation of roofline breaks and recessed balconies, which is
consistent with the minimum 5-foot average upper-story stepback required by Section
9.11.030 of the Zoning Ordinance. Additionally, the building façade along Lincoln
Boulevard differentiates in plane by the incorporation of extruded volumes on the upper
floor as well. The applicant has designed a project that is compliant with all the
development standards applicable to a Tier 2 project in the GC (General Commercial)
zoning district. The proposed project design considers the appropriate building placement
for purposes of establishing consistency along the pedestrian sidewalk, and as illustrated
in Figures 4 and 5 below, the proposed building is of a size and height compatible with
existing and anticipated development along Lincoln Boulevard.
Figure 4: Building Massing Elevation on Lincoln Blvd.
13
Figure 5: Building Massing Section Across Subject Site
However, as noted above in the summary of the ARB’s concept review, further variation
of the project’s façade and development of the materiality is necessary in accordance
with design conditions for the ARB to pay particular attention to in design review of the
project.
Vehicle and Bicycle Parking
Vehicle Parking
The two-level subterranean garage is designed with vehicular access from Lincoln
Boulevard at the front of the subject site. The subterranean garage includes 151 vehicle
parking spaces and 28 motorcycle spaces for the commercial users, residential tenants,
and guests. Parking Level 1 contains the off -street parking spaces for the majority of
nonresidential users and guests of the building. The residential parking spaces are
provided on Parking Levels 2 and are not separate and secure from use by nonresidents
of the building. The following recommended Condition of Approval No . 3 included in the
attached draft Statement of Official Action requires that the project provide separate and
secure parking from residential and non-residential users. The breakdown of parking
spaces in the subterranean garage by level is shown in Table 2 below.
PARKING SCHEDULE
Level 1
Commercial 42 Standard
Commercial 22 Compact
Commercial 2 Accessible
Residential 5 Standard
Residential 1 Compact
Total 72
14
Level 2
Residential 47 Standard
Residential 30 Compact
Residential 2 Accessible
Total 79
Table 2: Parking Schedule
The proposed 151 parking spaces in the subterranean garage complies with the 149
minimum off-street parking spaces required by the Zoning Ordinance, as detailed in Table
3 below. However, Section 9.28.180(G) of the Zoning Ordinance authorizes a credit of
one automobile parking space for every four motorcycle parking space s, up to a maximum
of 5 percent of the total number of automobile parking spaces required. In this case, the
proposed 28 motorcycle spaces result in a seven-space credit reducing the required of
automobile parking spaces to 142 spaces therefore creating a surplus of parking and
consistent with the proposed project’s parking design.
Use Parking Ratio Parking Required
Residential Units
Studio
1-BR
2-BR
3-BR
30% AMI 1-BR
30% AMI 2-BR
Residential Guests
6 units @ 1 space
18 units @ 1.5 spaces
12 units @ 2 spaces
7 units @ 2 spaces
1 units @ .75 space
3 units @ 1 space
43 market-rate units @ 1/5 spaces
6 spaces
27 spaces
24 spaces
14 spaces
1 spaces
3 spaces
9 spaces
Total: 84 spaces
Commercial Spaces
Retail
Restaurant
11,855SF @ 1/300 SF
4,900SF @ 1/200 SF
40 spaces
25 spaces
Total: 65 spaces
Total Required 149 spaces
Table 3: Off-Street Parking Requirements
It should be noted that the required off -street parking for the commercial tenant space
calculated in Table 3 above assumes the occupancy of the commercial space by a retail
uses and a restaurant use between 2,500-5,000 square feet in size, as identified in SMMC
Section 9.28.060. Given that there are surplus spaces provided in the project based on
this calculation, if a use with a higher parking requirement than 1 space per 200sf is
proposed within the commercial space, the project would be subject to the requirements
of Chapter 9.28 of the Zoning Ordinance (Parking, Loading, and Circulation).
Bicycle Parking
The project includes 98 bicycle parking spaces, which consist of 13 short-term spaces
and 85 long-term spaces, as further detailed by assigned use in Table 4 below.
15
Use Bicycle Parking Ratios Bicycle Parking
Required
Residential
Long-Term
1 space per bedroom
Short-Term
10% of long-term; min. 2
spaces
Long-Term
76 spaces
Short-Term
8 spaces
Commercial
(16,755SF)
Long-Term
1 space per 3,000sf; min. 4
spaces
Short-Term
1 space per 4,000sf; min. 4
spaces
Long-Term
6 spaces
Short-Term
4 spaces
Table 4: Bicycle
Parking
Requirements
Total Required 82 Long-Term Spaces
12 Short-Term Spaces
As shown, the proposed number of bicycle parking spaces comply with the minimum
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The project will be providing 8 commercial long-
term bike spaces which exceeds the maximum required and would be located in the first
level of the subterranean garage along with a shower and locker area. Long-term bike
parking for the residents would be located in a separate area on the first level of the
subterranean parking garage as well as on the second level of the subterranean parking
garage. Short-term bicycle parking for both the residents and commercial users of the
building would be located at ground level along Lincoln Boulevard street frontage and be
relocated from the public right of way to private property at conveniently accessible
locations. The design, number, and location of the bicycle parking stalls will be reviewed
by the City’s Mobility Division for compliance with the requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance as part of the plan check process prior to the issuance of building permits.
Zoning Code Compliance
The project is located within the GC zoning district, which establishes property
development standards that govern the height, FAR, and setbacks of the proposed
building. Furthermore, the GC zoning district along Lincoln Boulevard, was intended to
maintain areas for affordable and market rate housing and a broad range of commercial
uses that provide necessary daily services that facilitate the transformation of sections of
boulevards into vibrant, highly walkable areas with broad, pedestrian -friendly sidewalks,
trees, landscaping, and local-serving uses with new buildings that step down in
relationship to the scale and character of adjacent lower density neighborhoods.
According to Santa Monica Municipal Code (SMMC) Section 9.40.020, a Development
Review Permit (DRP) is required for any project that exceeds the Tier 1 maximum
16
standards. The established Tier 1 limits in the GC zoning district along Lincoln Boulevard
are 3 stories/36 feet in height and a floor area ratio (FAR) of 1.5 for projects including on-
site affordable housing. The proposed project is 4 stories/36 feet in height with an FAR of
1.81. As such, a DRP is requested for the project.
Development standards in the GC zoning district for a Tier 2 project allow for a maximum
of 36 feet with on-site affordable housing provided (no limitation of stories) and 2.0 FAR.
As indicated above, the project is within the established maximums to qualify as a Tier 2
project. Additionally, the Zoning Ordinance contains general development standards that
are applicable to all commercial and mixed-use districts addressing active commercial
retail, pedestrian orientation, build-to line, and daylight plane adjacent to residential
districts. As proposed, the project complies with all development standards applicable to
the site. Attachment A to this staff report contains a detailed comparison of these
development standards and the proposed project.
Tier 2 Community Benefits
According to Chapter 9.23 of the Zoning Ordinance, projects that exceed the maximum
height or FAR allowed for Tier 1 projects are required to provide the community benefits
outlined in subsection 9.23.030 of the Chapter. The purpose of the community benefits is
to ensure that projects are allowed to exceed the base height and FAR of a respective
zoning district, and in return provide community benefits that enhance t he City’s
community character. The project would provide the following community benefits in
accordance with the requirements of Chapter 9.23:
1. Affordable Housing
According to SMMC 9.23.030(A)(1)(a), the project shall incorporate at least 50
percent more affordable housing units than would be required pursuant to Section
9.64.050 (Affordable Housing Production Program (AHPP) – On-site Option). The
applicant is proposing on-site residential units affordable to 30% income
households. Per the AHPP, a minimum of five percent of the total units of a
residential project shall be provided at this income level. As such, the AHPP
requires a minimum of three residential units affordable to 30% income
households. The applicant is proposing four residential units at the 30% income
level of affordability, which equals 8.5 percent of the total project and a 50 percent
increase over the minimum 5 percent required by the AHPP.
The proposed four residential units affordable to 30% income households (8.5
percent of the total of 47 units) to be provided on-site are as follows:
One 1-BR units
Three 2-BR units
2. Unit Mix
According to SMMC 9.23.030, projects shall incorporate the following unit mix
requirements:
17
Market rate units:
o Minimum 15% 3-bedroom units
o Minimum 20% 2-bedroom units
o Maximum 15% studios
o Average number of bedrooms for market rate units combined shall
be 1.2 or greater.
Affordable housing units:
o The average number of bedrooms for all of the affordable housing units
shall be equal to or greater than the average number of bedroom provided
for all of the market rate units.
The following tables provide analysis of the unit mix of the project’s 47 residential units to
determine compliance with the required Tier 2 Community Benefits. The proposed
affordable unit mix for the project would consist of the following deed-restricted units:
One (1), 1-BR unit for 30% income households
Three (3), 2-BR unit for 30% income households
PROJECT UNIT SIZE MIX
Unit Type No. of Units Percentage
Studio 6 13%
(Max. 15% allowed)
1-BR 19 40%
2-BR 15 32%
(Min. 20% required)
3-BR 7 15%
(Min. 15% required)
Total 47 100%
Table 4: Project Unit Size Mix
18
AFFORDABLE UNIT SIZE MIX
Unit Type No. of Units Percentage No. of
Bedrooms
1-BR 1 2.2% 1
2-BR 3 6.3% 6
Total 4 N/A 7
Average Number of Bedrooms 1.75
Table 5: Affordable Unit Size Mix
MARKET RATE UNIT SIZE MIX
Table 6: Market Rate Unit Size Mix
As proposed, the market rate units meet the unit mix requirements, as established in
Section 9.23.030(A)(2)(a) of the Zoning Ordinance. The 1.47 average number of
bedrooms is greater than the minimum 1.2 required. Additionally, the average number of
bedrooms for the affordable units (1.75) is greater than the average number of bedrooms
for the market rate units, as required.
3. Affordable Housing Commercial Linkage Fee Program
Non-residential and mixed-use projects shall pay a housing mitigation fee 14
percent above the base Affordable Housing Commercial Linkage Fee as required
by SMMC Chapter 9.68, for that portion of the commercial floor area above the
maximum Tier 1 floor area. Additionally, the ordinance establishing the fee allows
for a credit in the calculation of the Affordable Housing Commercial Linkage Fee
for the amount of square footage demolished in an existing building. Based on the
proposed commercial floor area of 16,755 square feet, and the credit for the
existing floor area of 7,810 square feet to be demolished, the estimated fee is
$131,534.55.
4. Transportation Impact Fee Program
Non-residential and mixed-use projects shall pay a Transportation Impact Fee
(TIF) 14 percent above the base TIF, as required by SMMC Chapter 9.66, for that
portion of the floor area above the maximum Tier 1 floor area. Additionally, the
ordinance establishing the fee allows for a credit in the calculation of the TIF for
Unit Type No. of Units No. of Bedrooms
Studio 6 0
1-BR 18 19
2-BR 12 30
3-BR 7 21
Total 43 63
Average Number of Bedrooms 1.47
19
the amount of square footage demolished in an existing building. Based on a
calculated Tier 1 floor area of 49,165 square feet (1.5 FAR), 47 residential units,
and the credit for the existing floor area of 7,810 square feet to be demolished, the
estimated fee is: $618,945.51.
5. Parks and Recreation Development Impact Fee Program
All Tier 2 Projects shall either pay an additional Open Space Fee (OSF) 14 percent
above the base fee required by Chapter 9.67, Open Space Fee Program, for that
portion of the floor area above the maximum Tier 1 floor area. Additionally, the
ordinance establishing the fee allows for a credit in the calculation of the fee for
the amount of square footage demolished in an existing building. Based on a
calculated Tier 1 floor area of 49,165 square feet (1.5 FAR), 47 residential units,
and the credit for the existing floor area of 7,810 square feet to be demolished, the
estimated fee is: $323,241.15.
6. Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
All Tier 2 Projects shall include the following Transportation Demand Management
measures in addition to those required by Chapter 9.53, Transportation Demand
Management:
1. For non-residential components of projects, provide the following:
a. A Transportation Allowance equivalent to at least 75% of the cost of
a monthly regional transit pass, in accordance with Section
9.53.130(B)(2)(b)(viii).
b. Bike valet, free of charge, during all automobile valet operating
hours.
2. For residential components of projects, provide the following:
a. A Transportation Allowance equivalent to at least 75% of the cost of
a monthly regional transit pass, in accordance with Section
9.53.130(B)(2)(c)(iv).
The applicant submitted a preliminary TDM Plan that has been reviewed by the
City’s Mobility Division. The TDM Plan includes the following:
A transportation information web portal for the commercial and
residential uses;
Assignment of a Project Transportation Coordinator responsible for
the implementation and monitoring of the TDM Plan;
Transportation allowance for commercial and residential uses of up
to 50% of the current regional transit mode of choice;
Information on Long term bike parking, showers and lockers on site;
Parking cash-out for commercial employees;
Commuter matching services
The property owner shall ensure that compliance with the TDM Plan is included as a
requirement in lease documents and any other agreements for occupancy in the project
20
to information commit project occupants to applicable measures of the approved TDM
Plan. Additionally, annual surveys will be conducted to determine vehicle trip behaviors
including the collection of data pertaining to employee’s means of travel, arrival time, and
interest in information on ridesharing opportunities (for commercial uses). The information
collected shall be reported to the City’s Transportation Demand Manager annually for
review.
Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) Consistency
The project is located in the General Commercial land use designation in the LUCE. The
development parameters in the LUCE are implemented in the Zoning Ordinance for Tier
2 projects. The proposed project complies with all of the development standards outlined
in the Zoning Ordinance.
The proposed development is also consistent with the goals, obje ctives and policies in
the LUCE. Specifically, Goal B25 (Lincoln Boulevard Goals and Policies) seeks
redevelopment of Lincoln Boulevard as a district and visually -cohesive mixed-use
commercial boulevard. Specifically, Policy B25.5 encourages a lively stre etscape with
places for people to socialize, where gathering spaces and plazas are en couraged and
Policy B25.9 encourages that new mixed -use buildings adjacent to residential districts
are contained within a prescribed building envelope that steps down toward the residential
district to maintain access to light and air. Additionally, the project is consistent with Policy
B25.10, which seeks to limit ground floor uses mostly active retail with generally
continuous, transparent (non-tinted) display windows facing the sidewalks and Policy
B25.11 which encourages mixed-use projects have active ground floor uses that face the
boulevard with residential uses located on the upper floors.
The proposed project complies with these goals and policies in that it is a mixed -use
building with ground floor commercial that is inviting for pedestrians and activated by the
transparent storefront glazing system and plaza along Lincoln Boulevard, while also
providing and maintains access to light and air to the neighboring residential properties
by having the building step down from the rear (east) to the street facing side (west).
Additionally, the project consist of active retail on the ground floor and residential uses on
the upper floors that feature significant common and private outdoor areas.
Environmental Status
The proposed four-story mixed use building is exempt from the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 21155.1 of the CEQA Guidelines,
which exempts a special class of Transit Priority Project (TPP) determined to be a
Sustainable Communities Project (SCP) by the local jurisdiction. As provided in
Attachment D, the proposed project meets all of the following requirements set forth in
Section 21155.1 as a Sustainable Communities Project:
1. The project is consistent with the general land use designation, density, building,
intensity, and policies in the Southern California Association of Governments’
adopted Sustainable Communities Strategy.
21
2. The project is at least 50 percent residential use based on area and greater than
0.75 FAR.
3. The project is at least 20 units/acre.
4. The project is located within ½ mile of a major transit stop or high quality transit
corridor included in SCAG’s Regional Transportation Plan.
5. The project can be adequately served by existing utilities and the project applicant
will pay in-lieu or development fees.
6. The project will not impact wetlands or other biological species.
7. The project site is not located on a list of hazardous waste sites compiled pursuant
to Section 65962.25 of Government Code.
8. The project site has been subject to a preliminary endangerment assessment to
determine the existence of any release of hazardous substance on the site and to
determine the potential for exposure to significant health hazards.
9. The project will not have an impact on historical resources.
10. The project site is not subject to wildland fire hazards, high fire risk or explosion,
risk of a public health exposure, seismic risk, or landslide or flood hazard.
11. The project site is not located on developed open space.
12. The project is 15 percent more efficient than Title 24 standards and using 25
percent less water than the regional average household.
13. The project site is less than 8 acres.
14. The project is less than 200 units.
15. The project will not result in any net loss in the number of affordable hous ing units.
16. The project does not include any single level building exceeding 75,000 sf.
17. The project will incorporate any applicable mitigation measure or performance
standards adopted in the prior LUCE EIR.
18. The project would not conflict with nearby operat ing industrial uses, as the
operations of existing industrial uses nearby will not be impacted.
19. The project site is located within ½ mile of a rail station included in the RTP or
within ¼ mile of a High Quality Transit Corridor included in the RTP.
20. The project meet the requirement that at least five percent of the housing will be
available to very-low-income households for at least 55 years.
Therefore, based on the above, the proposed project is considered a Sustainable
Communities Project that is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 21155.1.
Public Input
The applicant presented the project to the Friends of Sunset Park Association on
September 15, 2016 and July 10, 2017 as well as the Ocean Park Association on
November 11, 2016 and June 12, 2017 . The applicant has stated that they conducted a
full design presentation and update to the project design at both meetings.
At the Friends of Sunset Park meeting, the discussion was focused on vehicular
circulation off Ashland. These concerns have been alleviated with the relocation of the
project’s vehicular, loading, and service access to Lincoln Boulevard . Exterior materials
and colors were not explored in depth as participants understood that there would be
22
future opportunities for input when the project proceeds to the design review phase at
the Architectural Review Board.
At the Ocean Park Association meeting, the primary focus was on number, type and
size of commercial spaces to be proposed on Lincoln, as well as how the Lincoln
Neighborhood Corridor Plan objectives were being addressed by the project.
Staff had not received any comments or concerns from the public at the time the staff
report was being drafted.
Alternative Actions:
In addition to the recommended action, the Planning Commission could consider the
following with respect to the project if supported by the evidentiary record and consistent
with applicable legal requirements:
A1. Continue the project for specific reasons, consistent with applicable deadlines and
with agreement from the applicant
A2. Articulate revised findings and/or conditions to Approve OR Deny, with or without
prejudice, the subject application, in accordance with Health and Safety Code
section 65589.5(j), as follows:
(j) (1) When a proposed housing development project complies with
applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and
criteria, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the
housing development project’s application is determined to be complete,
but the local agency proposes to disapprove the project or to impose a
condition that the project be developed at a lower density, the local agency
shall base its decision regarding the proposed housing development project
upon written findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence on the
record that both of the following conditions exist:
(A) The housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact
upon the public health or safety unless the project is d isapproved or
approved upon the condition that the project be developed at a lower
density. As used in this paragraph, a “specific, adverse impact” means a
significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective,
identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as
they existed on the date the application was deemed complete.
(B) There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the
adverse impact identified pursuant to paragraph (1), other than the
disapproval of the housing development project or the approval of the
project upon the condition that it be developed at a lower density.
For purposes of this section, "lower density" includes any conditions that
have the same effect or impact on the ability of the project to provide
housing.
23
Conclusion
The applicant requests approval of a Development Review Permit to construct a Tier 2,
36-foot-tall, 4-story, mixed-use apartment building with 47 units and 16,755 square-feet
of ground floor commercial space. The project includes 151 vehicle parking spaces and
28 motorcycle parking spaces in a two-level subterranean parking garage, as well as 98
bicycle parking spaces (13 short-term, 98 long-term) throughout the project site. The Tier
2 project would provide the standard community benefits outlined in the Municipal Code
including a minimum unit mix, a minimum average number of bedrooms, 50% more
affordable housing than required by the AHPP, enhanced development impact fees, and
a TDM plan. Staff recommends approval of this proposed project.
Prepared by: Michael Rocque, Associate Planner
Attachments
A. General Plan and Municipal Code Compliance Worksheet
B. Draft Statement of Official Action
C. Public Notification
D. Environmental Documentation – CEQA Exemption Checklist
E. Project Plans
24 Attachment A
General Plan & Municipal Code Compliance Worksheet
ATTACHMENT A
GENERAL PLAN AND MUNICIPAL CODE COMPLIANCE WORKSHEET
Project Location and Permit Processing Time Limits
Project Address: 2903 Lincoln Boulevard
Application Filing Date:
Deemed Complete Date:
March 24, 2016
May 12, 2016
CEQA Deadline: November 14, 2017
PSA Deadline: January 13, 2018
Total Process Review
Time (Days):
629 days
General Plan and Municipal Code Compliance Worksheet
CATEGORY
LAND USE
ELEMENT
MUNICIPAL CODE
PROJECT
Permitted Use
General
Commercial
General Commercial
Mixed Use Project.
Residential and
commercial.
Height of Building
Tier 2. 36
feet.
Tier 2. 26 feet.
36 feet.
Number of Stories
Tier 2 with
affordable
housing on
site. No limit.
Tier 2 with affordable
housing on-site. No
limit.
4 stories.
Setbacks
Frontyard
Sideyard
Rear Yard
Stepbacks
N/A
N/A
N/A
Average 5’ for street
facing facades.
No Setback for interior
side.
Rear daylight plane
adjacent to residential
district.
Average 5 feet
provided
Complies
Mezzanine
N/A
Intermediate level
open to space below.
May not exceed 1/3 of
room floor area.
No Mezzanines
proposed.
Building Height
Projections
N/A
Parapets as required
by law.
42 inches.
Attachment A
General Plan & Municipal Code Compliance Worksheet
25
Mechanical rooms: 12
feet max.
Stairwells: 14 feet
Elevators: 18 feet
(9.21.060)
N/A
N/A
Elevator: 10’
F.A.R.
Tier 2. 2.0
Tier 2. 2.0
1.81
Parking Access
Alley access
is
encouraged
when alley
exists.
Alley access is
required when alley
exists, with exceptions
per Sec. 9.28.120(B).
No existing alley.
Parking access
provided off of Lincoln
Boulevard
Parking Space
Number
N/A
Commercial:
Restaurant: 4,900 /
200 = 25 spaces
Retail: 11,855SF/300=
40 spaces
Total residential:
75 residential
9 guest
65 spaces are
provided
77 provided
9 provided
Compact Parking
%
N/A
40% maximum = 59
spaces
52 provided.
Bicycle Parking
N/A
Commercial: 5 short
term spaces and 6
long term spaces for
tenant space under
4,000 sf
Residential: 1 long-
term space per
bedroom (70
bedrooms) plus 10%
short term.
5 short term spaces
provided and 8 long
term spaces provided.
8 short term spaces
and 77 long term
spaces provided.
Loading Spaces
N/A
1 space required
9.28.080
1 loading space
provided
Attachment A
General Plan & Municipal Code Compliance Worksheet
26
Trash Area
N/A
Trash enclosure with
minimum 5'- 8' solid
wall and gate is
required.
Secured trash area
provided at
subterranean garage
Mechanical
Equipment
Screening
N/A
Mechanical equipment
extending more than
12" above roof parapet
shall be fully screened
from a horizontal
plane.
Mechanical equipment
located on the roof and
below roof parapet
Location of
Mechanical
Equipment
N/A
Not permitted on side
of building if adjacent
to a residential building
on an adjoining lot.
Mechanical equipment
located on the roof and
in parking levels 1 and
2
Parking Area
Screen
N/A
Screening required.
Parking is
subterranean.
Private Open
Space
N/A
60sf/unit
A minimum of 60sf/unit
of private open space
is provided. An overall
average of 92.1sf of
private open space
provided.
Inclusionary
Units/Fees
N/A
Must provide 3 deed
restricted units
affordable to 30%
income households.
4 deed restricted units
affordable to 30%
income households
provided.
Attachment A
General Plan & Municipal Code Compliance Worksheet
27
Park and
Recreation
Development
Impact Fee
Private Developer
Cultural Arts
Requirement
Child Care Linkage
Requirements
Affordable Housing
Commercial
Linkage Fee
Transportation
Impact Fee
Transportation
Demand
Management Fee
N/A
Compliance with 9.23
of increased 14%
Community Benefits
fees.
Open Space / Park
and Recreation
Development Impact
Fee
$264,318.
See Condition #13
below
See Condition #14
below
Affordable Housing
Commercial Linkage
Fee
$93,171
Transportation Impact
Fee
$445,555.
Transportation
Demand Management
Fee
$0
Historic Resources
Inventory
N/A
Project not listed on
Historic Resources
Inventory.
28 Attachment B
Draft Statement of Official Action
ATTACHMENT B
DRAFT STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL ACTION
City of Santa Monica
City Planning Division
PLANNING COMMISSION
STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL ACTION
PROJECT INFORMATION
CASE NUMBER: 16ENT-0034
LOCATION: 2903 Lincoln Boulevard
APPLICANT: Lina Lee, CIM Group
PROPERTY OWNER: Lincoln Lot 7, LLC
CASE PLANNER: Michael Rocque, Associate Planner
REQUEST: Development Review Permit 16ENT-0034 to allow a new
four-story (36 feet) 59,319 square-foot mixed-use project
consisting of 47 residential units, 16,755 square feet of
ground floor commercial space, and 151 automobile
parking spaces within a two-level subterranean parking
garage.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING: Four units affordable to 30% income households
One 1-BR units
Three 2-BR units
CEQA STATUS: The proposed five-story mixed use building is exempt
from the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 21155.1 of the
CEQA Guidelines, which exempts a special class of
Transit Priority Project (TPP) determined to be a
Sustainable Communities Project (SCP) by the local
jurisdiction.
Attachment B
Draft Statement of Official Action
29
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
1/10/18 Determination Date
X
Approved based on the following findings and subject to the
conditions below.
Denied.
Other:
EFFECTIVE DATES OF ACTIONS IF
NOT APPEALED: January 24, 2018
EXPIRATION DATE OF ANY PERMITS
GRANTED: January 24, 2020
LENGTH OF ANY POSSIBLE
EXTENSION OF EXPIRATION DATES*: 12 months
* Any request for an extension of the expiration date must be received in the City
Planning Division prior to expiration of this permit.
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:
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PERMIT FINDINGS
A. The physical location, size, massing, setbacks, pedestrian orientation, and
placement of proposed structures on the site and the location of proposed uses
within the project are consistent with applicable standards and are both compatible
and relate harmoniously to surrounding sites and neighborhoods in that the
proposed project includes a mixed-use commercial and residential building that
complies with the General Commercial zoning district development standards. The
proposed commercial and residential land uses relate harmoniously to the existing
commercial land uses and recently approved mixed-use developments on Lincoln
Boulevard. The building will be setback at an angle away from the front property
line along Lincoln Boulevard resulting in an outdoor plaza at the ground floor
commercial area which will provide the opportunities for enhanced pedestrian
activity adjacent to the commercial space. The commercial tenant space has a
depth of 40 feet for approximately 77% of the street frontage and is 16,755 square
feet in size. The ground floor-to-floor height is 15 feet, which meets the requirement
in the Zoning Ordinance for minimum and maximum active commercial first floor
height of 15 feet and 20 feet, respectively. The plaza area activates the building
frontage and provides opportunities for outdoor dining.
Attachment B
Draft Statement of Official Action
30
B. The rights-of-way can accommodate autos, bicycles, pedestrians, and multi-modal
transportation methods, including adequate parking and access in that the project
will provide 151 parking spaces and 28 motorcycle spaces within a two-level
subterranean garage with vehicle access from Lincoln Boulevard. Furthermore,
the project includes pedestrian entrances to the commercial tenant space on
Lincoln Boulevard and 13 short-term (five commercial and eight residential) bicycle
parking spaces conveniently located along the Lincoln Boulevard street frontage.
C. The health and safety services (police, fire etc.) and public infrastructure (e.g.,
utilities) are sufficient to accommodate the new development in that the proposed
development is located in an urbanized area that is already adequately served by
existing City infrastructure. No new safety services or public infrastructure will be
required for this project.
D. The project is generally consistent with the Municipal Code and General Plan in
that the proposed project complies with all the land use and development
standards in the General Commercial (GC) District in the Municipal Code including
a height of 36 feet and a floor area ratio of 2.0 for Tier 2 projects. The project is
consistent with the General Plan in that LUCE Goal B25 (Lincoln Boulevard Goals
and Policies) seeks redevelopment of Lincoln Boulevard as a district and visually-
cohesive mixed-use commercial boulevard. Specifically, Policy B25.5 encourages
a lively streetscape with places for people to socialize, where gathering spaces
and plazas are encouraged and Policy B25.9 encourages that new mixed -use
buildings adjacent to residential districts are contained within a prescribed building
envelope that steps down toward the residential district to maintain access to light
and air. Additionally, the project is consistent with Policy B25.10, which seeks to
limit ground floor uses mostly active retail with generally continuous, transparent
(non-tinted) display windows facing the sidewalks and Policy B25.11 which
encourages mixed-use projects have active ground floor uses that face the
boulevard with residential uses located on the upper floors. The proposed project
complies with these goals and policies in that it is a mixed-use building with ground
floor commercial that is inviting for pedestrians and activated by the transparent
storefront glazing system and plaza along Lincoln Boulevard, while also providing
and maintains access to light and air to the neighboring residential properties by
having the building step down from the rear (east) to the street facing side (west).
Additionally, the project consist of active retail on the gro und floor and residential
uses on the upper floors that feature significant common and private outdoor
areas.
E. Based on environmental review, the proposed project has no potentially significant
environmental impacts in that the proposed five-story mixed use building is exempt
from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant
to Section 21155.1 of the CEQA Guidelines, which exempts a special class of
Transit Priority Project (TPP) determined to be a Sustainable Communities Project
(SCP) by the local jurisdiction. As provided in Attachment D, the proposed project
Attachment B
Draft Statement of Official Action
31
meets all of the following requirements set forth in Section 21155.1 as a
Sustainable Communities Project:
1. The project is consistent with the general land use designat ion, density,
building, intensity, and policies in the Southern California Association of
Governments’ adopted Sustainable Communities Strategy.
2. The project is at least 50 percent residential use based on area and greater
than 0.75 FAR.
3. The project is at least 20 units/acre.
4. The project is located within ½ mile of a major transit stop or high quality
transit corridor included in SCAG’s Regional Transportation Plan.
5. The project can be adequately served by existing utilities and the project
applicant will pay in-lieu or development fees.
6. The project will not impact wetlands or other biological species.
7. The project site is not located on a list of hazardous waste sites compiled
pursuant to Section 65962.25 of Government Code.
8. The project site has been subject to a preliminary endangerment
assessment to determine the existence of any release of hazardous
substance on the site and to determine the potential for exposure to
significant health hazards.
9. The project will not have an impact on historical resources.
10. The project site is not subject to wildland fire hazards, high fire risk or
explosion, risk of a public health exposure, seismic risk, or landslide or flood
hazard.
11. The project site is not located on developed open space.
12. The project is 15 percent more efficient than Title 24 standards and using
25 percent less water than the regional average household.
13. The project site is less than 8 acres.
14. The project is less than 200 units.
15. The project will not result in any net loss in the number of affordable housing
units.
16. The project does not include any single level building exceeding 75,000 sf.
17. The project will incorporate any applicable mitigation measure or
performance standards adopted in the prior LUCE EIR.
18. The project would not conflict with nearby operating industrial uses, as the
operations of existing industrial uses nearby will not be impacted.
19. The project site is located within ½ mile of a rail station included in the RTP
or within ¼ mile of a High Quality Transit Corridor included in the RTP.
20. The project meets the requirement that at least five percent of the housing
will be available to very-low-income households for at least 55 years.
Therefore, based on the above, the proposed project is considered a Sustainable
Communities Project that is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 21155.1.
Attachment B
Draft Statement of Official Action
32
F. The project promotes the general welfare of the community in that it allows for the
redevelopment of existing, underutilized properties with a mixed-use project that is
compliant with the LUCE vision for the area. The proposed project provides 47
residential units and features space for a neighborhood serving commercial use.
Further, the project would provide community benefits including four residential
units affordable to 30% income level households, a specified unit mix of 13%
studios, 40% one-bedrooms, 32% two-bedrooms, and 15% three bedrooms,
enhanced development impact fees 14% above the base fee, and enhanced
transportation demand management elements such as a 50% transportation
allowance and commercial employee parking cash out.
G. The project has no unacceptable adverse effects on public health or safety in that
the project is a mixed-use project consisting of residential and neighborhood-
serving commercial uses. The commercial uses are located along Lincoln
Boulevard, adjacent to existing commercial uses. The project complies with all
development standards in the Zoning Ordinance and conditions of approval for
project operations ensure that the project will not adversely affect public health or
safety.
H. The project provides Community Benefits consistent with Chapter 9.23 in that it
would provide 50% more affordable housing units than would be required by the
City’s Affordable Housing Production Program, a minimum unit mix, and enhanced
development fees 14% above the base fee. As a result, the project would provide
community benefits including four residential units affordable to 30% income level
households, a specified unit mix of 1 3% studios, 40% one-bedrooms, 32% two-
bedrooms, and 15% three bedrooms, enhanced development impact fees 14%
above the base fee, and enhanced transportation demand management elements
such as a 50% transportation allowance and commercial employee parking cash
out.
.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Project Specific Conditions
1. The ARB shall pay particular attention to the following design elements of the
project:
a) Building façade along Lincoln appears monotonous. The design should be
revised to provide additional variation throughout the project, with particular
attention to variation along the Lincoln Boulevard frontage;
b) Street elevations along Ashland and Wilson should be revised for improved
pedestrian-orientation by bringing the unit floor lines closer to the street
elevation, more modulation and openness to the street;
Attachment B
Draft Statement of Official Action
33
c) Introduction of more materials and color in reference ranges which could
lead to better granularity;
d) Provide a pedestrian-oriented design along Lincoln by, for example,
providing a canopy above the door that can provide a place for retail
signage and help differentiate the ground floor commercial from the
residential units above;
e) Revise the planting areas to provide more usable space and space for
gathering;and
f) Minimize upper level circulation to increase light and air into courtyard
2. The project shall comply with subsections (A), (B), and (C) of Section 9.11.030 of
the Zoning Ordinance regulating the Active Commercial Design, Active Use,
Pedestrian-Oriented Design, and Build-to Line design requirements for the ground
floor street frontage of new buildings on commercial boulevards.
3. Pursuant to SMMC Section 9.23.030(D) the project shall provide the following
community benefits:
a. Affordable Housing: Pursuant to Santa Monica Municipal Code (SMMC)
Chapter 9.64, the project is subject to the City's Affordable Housing
Production Program which requires the proposed 66-unit housing project to
provide five percent of the total units of the project for 30% in come
households, ten percent of the total units of the project for 50% income
households, or twenty percent of the total units of the project for 80%
income households. Pursuant to SMMC Section 9.23.030(A)(1), the
applicant is required to provide at least 50% more affordable housing units
than would be required pursuant to Section 9.64.050. The applicant has
elected to provide 4 units affordable to 30% income households and
approval of the Project was based upon applicant’s election.
b. Unit Mix: Pursuant to SMMC Section 9.23.030(A)(2), the project is required
to have a market rate unit mix of at least 15% three-bedroom units, at least
20% two-bedroom units, and more than 15% studio units with average
number of bedrooms greater than 1.2. The average number of bedrooms
of the affordable units shall be equal to or greater than the market rate units.
c. Affordable Housing Commercial Linkage Fee: Pursuant to SMMC Section
9.23.030(A)(3), no building permit shall be issued for the project u ntil the
applicant pays an Affordable Housing Commercial Linkage Fee of 14
percent above the base fee applicable at the time of issuance of the building
permit for that portion of the commercial floor area above the maximum Tier
1 floor area allowed by the Zoning Ordinance.
d. Transportation Impact Fee: Pursuant to SMMC Section 9.23.030(B), no
building permit shall be issued for the project until the applicant pays a
Transportation Impact Fee of 14 percent above the base fee applicable at
Attachment B
Draft Statement of Official Action
34
the time of issuance of the building permit for that portion of the floor area
above the maximum Tier 1 floor area allowed by the Zoning Ordinance.
e. Parks and Recreation Development Impact Fee: Pursuant to SMMC
Section 9.23.030(C), no building permit shall be issued for the project until
the applicant pays a Parks and Recreation Development Impact Fee of 14
percent above the base fee applicable at the time of issuance of the building
permit for that portion of the floor area above the maximum Tier 1 floor area
allowed by the Zoning Ordinance.
f. Transportation Demand Management: The applicant shall include the TDM
measures required by SMMC Section 9.23.030(D) in the project’s TDM
Plan.
g. Pursuant to SMMC Section 9.64.090, the Parks and Recreation
Development Impact Fee described in SMMC Chapter 9.67, the
Transportation Impact Fee described in SMMC Chapter 9.66, and the Child
Care Linkage Fee described in SMMC Chapter 9.65 shall be waived for
required affordable housing units. Prioritization of potential occupants of the
on-site affordable housing unit(s) shall be in accordance with the Affordable
Housing Production Program Ordinance Guidelines. Developer hereby
acknowledges that in approving a Development Review Permit for the
Project, the City is waiving fees and modifying development standards
otherwise applicable to the Project such as increasing the Floor Area Ratio
and Building Height, reducing parking standards, and other property
development standards. In exchange for such forms of assistance from the
City, which constitute direct financial contributions to the Developer,
Developer will enter into a contract with the City prior to issuance of a
building permit which among other conditions will require Developer to
provide and maintain four units on site that are available to and occupied by
Thirty Percent Income Households at Affordable Rent, as defined by Santa
Monica Municipal Code Chapter 9.64. The Developer agrees and
acknowledges that this contract will provide forms of assistance to the
Developer within the meaning of Civil Code Section 1954.52(b) and Chapter
4.3 of the State Planning and Zoning Laws, Government Code Section
65915 et seq.
Administrative
4. The Planning Commission’s approval, conditions of approval, or denial of this
application may be appealed to the City Council if the appeal is filed with the Zoning
Administrator within fourteen consecutive days following the date of the Planning
Commission’s determination in the manner provided in Section 9.40.070. An
appeal of the approval, conditions of approval, or denial of this application must be
filed with the Director within fourteen consecutive days following the date of the
Planning Commission decision in the manner provided in Section 9.37.130. Any
Attachment B
Draft Statement of Official Action
35
appeal must be made in the form required by the Director. The approval of this
permit shall expire if the rights granted are not exercised within two years from the
permit’s effective date. Exercise of rights shall mean issuance of a building permit
to commence construction.
5. Within ten days of City Planning Division transmittal of the Statement of Official
Action, project applicant shall sign and return a copy of the Statement of Official
Action prepared by the City Planning Division, agreeing to the conditions of
approval and acknowledging that failure to comply with such conditions shall
constitute grounds for potential revocation of the permit approval. By signing
same, applicant shall not thereby waive any legal rights applicant may possess
regarding said conditions. The signed Statement shall be returned to the City
Planning Division. Failure to comply with this condition shall constitute grounds
for potential permit revocation.
6. Within thirty (30) days after final approval of the project, a sign shall be posted on
site stating the date and nature of the approval. The sign shall be posted in
accordance with the Zoning Administrator guidelines and shall remain in place until
a building permit is issued for the project. The sign shall be removed promptly
when a building permit is issued for the project or upon expiration of the Design
Compatibility Permit.
7. In the event permittee violates or fails to comply with any conditions of approval of
this permit, no further permits, licenses, approvals or certificates of occupancy
shall be issued until such violation has been fully remedied.
Indemnity
8. Applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City and its boards,
commissions, agents, officers, and employees (collectively, "City") from any
claims, actions, or proceedings (individually referenced as "Claim" and collectively
referenced as "Claims") against the City to attack, set aside, void, or annul, the
approval of this Development Review Permit concerning the Applicant's proposed
project, or any Claims brought against the City due to the acts or omissions in any
connected to the Applicant's project. City shall promptly notify the applicant of any
Claim and shall cooperate fully in the defense. Nothing contained in this paragraph
prohibits the City from participating in the defense of any Claims, if both of the
following occur:
(1) The City bears its own attorney's fees and costs.
(2) The City defends the action in good faith.
Applicant shall not be required to pay or perform any settlement unless the
settlement is approved by the Applicant.
Attachment B
Draft Statement of Official Action
36
In the event any such action is commenced to attack, set aside, void or annul all,
or any, provisions of any approvals granted for the Project, or is commenced for
any other reason against the City for the act or omissions relating to the Applicant's
project, within fourteen (14) days following notice of such action from the City, the
Applicant shall file with the City a performance bond or irrevocable letter of credit,
or other form of security satisfactory to the City ("the Sec urity") in a form
satisfactory to the City, and in the amount of $100,000 to ensure applicant's
performance of its defense, indemnity and hold harmless obligations to City. The
Security amount shall not limit the Applicant's obligations to the City hereund er.
The failure of the Applicant to provide the Security shall be deemed an express
acknowledgment and agreement by the Applicant that the City shall have the
authority and right, without consent of the Applicant, to revoke the approvals
granted hereunder.
Conformance with Approved Plans
9. This approval is for those plans dated October 25, 2017, a copy of which shall be
maintained in the files of the City Planning Division. Project development shall be
consistent with such plans, except as otherwise specified in these conditions of
approval.
10. Minor amendments to the plans shall be subject to approval by the Director of
Planning. A significant change in the approved concept shall be subject to
Planning Commission Review. Construction shall be in conformance with the
plans submitted or as modified by the Planning Commission, Architectural Review
Board or Director of Planning.
11. Project plans shall be subject to complete Code Compliance review when the
building plans are submitted for plan check and shall comply with all applicable
provisions of Article IX of the Municipal Code and all other pertinent ordinances
and General Plan policies of the City of Santa Monica prior to building permit
issuance.
Fees
12. As required by California Government Code Section 66020, the project applicant
is hereby notified that the 90-day period has begun as of the date of the approval
of this application, in which the applicant may protest any fees, dedications,
reservations, or other exactions imposed by the City as part of the approval or as
a condition of approval of this development. The fees, dedications, reservations,
or other exactions are described in the approved plans, conditions of approval,
and/or adopted city fee schedule.
13. No building permit shall be issued for the project until the developer complies with
the requirements of SMMC Chapter 9.30, Private Developer Cultural Arts
Requirement. If the developer elects to comply with these requirements by
Attachment B
Draft Statement of Official Action
37
providing on-site public art work or cultural facilities, no final City approval shall be
granted until such time as the Director of the Community and Cultural Services
Department issues a notice of compliance in accordance with Section 9.30.160.
14. No building permit shall be issued for the project until the developer complies with
the requirements of SMMC Chapter 9.65, Child Care Linkage Program.
Cultural Resources
15. No demolition of buildings or structure built 40 years of age or older shall be
permitted until the end of a 75-day review period by the Landmarks Commission
to determine whether an application for landmark designation shall be filed. If an
application for landmark designation is filed, no demolition shall be approved until
a final determination is made by the Landmarks Commission on the application.
16. If any archaeological, paleontological, or human remains are uncovered during
excavation or construction, work in the affected area shall be suspended and a
recognized specialist shall be contacted to conduct a survey of the affected area
at project owner's expense. A determination shall then be made by the Director of
Planning to determine the significance of the survey findings and appropriate
actions and requirements, if any, to address such findings.
Project Operations
17. The operation shall at all times be conducted in a manner not detrimental to
surrounding properties or residents by reason of lights, noise, activities, parking or
other actions.
18. No exterior activity such as trash disposal, disposal of bottles or noise generating
trash, deliveries or other maintenance activity generating noise audible from the
exterior of the building shall occur during the hours of 11:00pm to 7:00am daily. In
addition, there shall be no outdoor cleaning of the property with pressurized or
mechanical equipment during the hours of 9:00pm to 7:00am daily. Trash
containers shall be secured with locks.
19. The project shall at all times comply with the provisions of the No ise Ordinance
(SMMC Chapter 4.12).
Final Design
20. Plans for final design, landscaping, screening, trash enclosures, and signage shall
be subject to review and approval by the Architectural Review Board.
21. The Architectural Review Board, in its review, shall pay particular attention to the
project's pedestrian orientation and amenities; scale and articulation of design
Attachment B
Draft Statement of Official Action
38
elements; exterior colors, textures and materials; window treatment; glazing; and
landscaping.
22. Landscaping plans shall comply with Subchapter 9.26.040 (Landscaping
Standards) of the Zoning Ordinance including use of water -conserving
landscaping materials, landscape maintenance and other standards contained in
the Subchapter.
23. Refuse areas, storage areas and mechanical equipment shall be screen ed in
accordance with SMMC Sections 9.21.100, 9.21.130 and 9.21.140. Refuse areas
shall be of a size adequate to meet on -site need, including recycling. The
Architectural Review Board in its review shall pay particular attention to the
screening of such areas and equipment. Any rooftop mechanical equipment shall
be minimized in height and area, and shall be located in such a way as to minimize
noise and visual impacts to surrounding properties. Unless otherwise approved
by the Architectural Review Board, rooftop mechanical equipment shall be located
at least five feet from the edge of the roof. Except for solar hot water heaters, no
residential water heaters shall be located on the roof.
24. No gas or electric meters shall be located within the required fr ont or street side
yard setback areas. The Architectural Review Board in its review shall pay
particular attention to the location and screening of such meters.
25. Prior to consideration of the project by the Architectural Review Board, the
applicant shall review disabled access requirements with the Building and Safety
Division and make any necessary changes in the project design to achieve
compliance with such requirements. The Architectural Review Board, in its review,
shall pay particular attention to the aesthetic, landscaping, and setback impacts of
any ramps or other features necessitated by accessibility requirements.
26. As appropriate, the Architectural Review Board shall require the use of anti-graffiti
materials on surfaces likely to attract graffiti.
Construction Plan Requirements
27. During demolition, excavation, and construction, this project shall comply with
SCAQMD Rule 403 to minimize fugitive dust and associated particulate emission,
including but not limited to the following:
All material excavated or graded shall be sufficiently watered to prevent
excessive amounts of dust. Watering shall occur at least three times daily with
complete coverage, preferably at the start of the day, in the late morning, and
after work is done for the day.
All grading, earth moving, or excavation activities shall cease during periods of
high winds (i.e., greater than 20 mph measured as instantaneous wind gusts)
so as to prevent excessive amounts of dust.
Attachment B
Draft Statement of Official Action
39
All material transported on and off -site shall be securely covered to prevent
excessive amounts of dust.
Soils stockpiles shall be covered.
Onsite vehicle speeds shall be limited to 15 mph.
Wheel washers shall be installed where vehicles enter and exit the construction
site onto paved roads or wash off trucks and any equipment leaving the site
each trip.
An appointed construction relations officer shall act as a community liaison
concerning onsite construction activity including resolution of issues related to
PM10 generation.
Streets shall be swept at the end of the day using SCAQMD Rule 1186 certified
street sweepers or roadway washing trucks if visible soil is carried onto
adjacent public paved roads (recommend water swee pers with reclaimed
water).
All active portions the construction site shall be sufficiently watered three times
a day to prevent excessive amounts of dust.
28. Final building plans submitted for approval of a building permit shall include on the
plans a list of all permanent mechanical equipment to be placed indoors which may
be heard outdoors.
Demolition Requirements
29. Until such time as the demolition is undertaken, and unless the structure is
currently in use, the existing structure shall be maintained and secured by boarding
up all openings, erecting a security fence, and removing all debris, bushes and
planting that inhibit the easy surveillance of the property to the satisfaction of the
Building and Safety Officer and the Fire Department. Any landscaping material
remaining shall be watered and maintained until demolition occurs.
30. Prior to issuance of a demolition permit, applicant shall prepare for Building
Division approval a rodent and pest control plan to insure that demolition and
construction activities at the site do not create pest control impacts on the project
neighborhood.
Construction Period
31. Immediately after demolition and during construction, a security fence, the height
of which shall be the maximum permitted by the Zoning Ordinance, shall be
maintained around the perimeter of the lot. The lot shall be kept clear of all trash,
weeds, etc.
32. Vehicles hauling dirt or other construction debris from the site shall cover any open
load with a tarpaulin or other secure covering to minimize dust emi ssions.
Immediately after commencing dirt removal from the site, the general contractor
Attachment B
Draft Statement of Official Action
40
shall provide the City of Santa Monica with written certification that all trucks
leaving the site are covered in accordance with this condition of approval.
33. Developer shall prepare a notice, subject to the review by the Director of Planning
and Community Development, that lists all construction mitigation requirements,
permitted hours of construction, and identifies a contact person at City Hall as well
as the developer who will respond to complaints related to the proposed
construction. The notice shall be mailed to property owners and residents within
a 200-foot radius from the subject site at least five (5) days prior to the start of
construction.
34. A sign shall be posted on the property in a manner consistent with the public
hearing sign requirements which shall identify the address and phone number of
the owner and/or applicant for the purposes of responding to questions and
complaints during the construction period. Said sign shall also indicate the hours
of permissible construction work.
35. A copy of these conditions shall be posted in an easily visible and accessible
location at all times during construction at the project site. The pages shall be
laminated or otherwise protected to ensure durability of the copy.
Standard Conditions
36. Lofts or mezzanines shall not exceed 33.3% of the room below unless compliance
with the district's limits on number of stories can be maintained.
37. Mechanical equipment shall not be located on the side of any building which is
adjacent to a residential building on the adjoining lot , unless otherwise permitted
by applicable regulations. Roof locations may be used when the mechanical
equipment is installed within a sound-rated parapet enclosure.
38. Final approval of any mechanical equipment installation will require a noise test in
compliance with SMMC Section 4.12.040. Equipment for the test shall be provided
by the owner or contractor and the test shall be conducted by the owner or
contractor. A copy of the noise test results on mechanical equipment shall be
submitted to the Community Noise Officer for review to ensure that noise levels do
not exceed maximum allowable levels for the applicable noise zone.
39. Construction period signage shall be subject to the approval of the Architectural
Review Board.
40. The property owner shall insure any graffiti on the site is promptly removed through
compliance with the City’s graffiti removal program.
Attachment B
Draft Statement of Official Action
41
MOBILITY DIVISION
41. Developer shall comply with SMMC Chapter 9.53, Transportation Demand
Management, including payment of the Developer Annual TDM Fee pursuant to
Section 9.53.110.
42. Final auto parking, bicycle parking and loading layouts specifications shall be
subject to the review and approval of the Strategic and Transportation Planning
Division:
http://www.smgov.net/uploadedFiles/Departments/Transportation/Transportation
_Management/ParkingStandards.pdf
43. Where a driveway, garage, parking space or loading zone intersects with the public
right-of-way at the alley or sidewalk, hazardous visual obstruction triangles shall
be provided in accordance with SMMC Section 9.21.180. Please reference the
following standards:
http://www.smgov.net/uploadedFiles/Departments/Transportation/Transportation
_Management/HVO.pdf
44. Slopes of all driveways and ramps used for ingress or egress of parking facilities
shall be designed in accordance with the standards establishe d by the Strategic
and Transportation Planning Manager but shall not exceed a twenty percent slope.
Please reference the following standards:
http://www.smgov.net/uploadedFiles/Departments/Transportation/Transportation
_Management/RampSlope.pdf
45. Bicycle parking provided in the Project shall meet the requirements of SMMC
Section 9.28.140.
PUBLIC LANDSCAPE
46. Street trees shall be maintained, relocated or provided as required in a manner
consistent with the City’s Urban Forest Master Plan, per the specifications of the
Public Landscape Division of the Community & Cultural Services Department and
the City’s Tree Code (SMMC Chapter 7.40). No street trees shall be removed
without the approval of the Public Landscape Division.
47. Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit all street trees that are adjacent to or
will be impacted by the demolition or construction access shall have tree protection
zones established in accordance with the Urban Forest Master Plan. All tree
protection zones shall remain in place until demolition and/or construction has
been completed.
48. Replace or plant new street trees in accordance with Urban Forest Master Plan
and in consultation with City Arborist.
Attachment B
Draft Statement of Official Action
42
OFFICE OF SUSTAINABILITY AND THE ENVIRONMENT
49. Developer is hereby informed of the availability for free enrollment in the Savings -
By-Design incentive program where available through Southern California Edison.
If Developer elects to enroll in the program, enrollment shall occur prior to submittal
of plans for Architectural Review and an incentive agreement shall be executed
with Southern California Edison prior to issuance of a building permit.
50. The project shall comply with requirements in section 8.106 of the Santa Monica
Municipal code, which adopts by reference the California Green Building
Standards Code and which adds local amendments to that Code. In addition, the
project shall meet the landscape water conservation and construction and
demolition waste diversion requirements specified in Section 8.108 of the Santa
Monica Municipal Code.
RENT CONTROL
51. Pursuant to SMMC Section 4.24.030, prior to receipt of the final permit necessary
to demolish, convert, or otherwise remove a controlled rental unit(s) from the
housing market, the owner of the property shall first secure a removal permit under
Section 1803(t), an exemption determination, an approval of a vested rights claim
from the Rent Control Board, or have withdrawn the controlled rental unit(s)
pursuant to the provisions of the Ellis Act.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (PW)
General Conditions
52. Developer shall be responsible for the payment of the following Public Works
Department (PWD) permit fees prior to issuance of a building permit:
a. Water Services
b. Wastewater Capital Facility
c. Water Demand Mitigation
d. Fire Service Connection
e. Tieback Encroachment
f. Encroachment of on-site improvements into public right-of-way
g. Construction and Demolition Waste Management – If the valuation of a
project is at least $50,000 or if the total square feet of the project is equal to
or greater than 1000 square feet, then the owner or contractor is required to
complete and submit a Waste Management Plan. All demolition projects are
required to submit a Waste Management Plan. A performance deposit is
collected for all Waste Management Plans equal to 3% of the project value,
Attachment B
Draft Statement of Official Action
43
not to exceed $30,000. All demolition only permits require a $1,000 deposit
or $1.00 per square foot, whichever is the greater of the two.
Some of these fees shall be reimbursed to developer in accordance with the City’s
standard practice should Developer not proceed with development of the Project.
In order to receive a refund of the Construction and Demolition performance
deposit, the owner or contractor must provide receipts of recycling 70% of all
materials listed on the Waste Management Plan.
53. Developer shall comply with the Construction Mitigation Obligations set forth in
Exhibit “G” attached hereto.
54. Any construction related work or use of the public right-of-way will be required to
obtain the approval of the City of Santa Monica, including but not limited to: Use
of Public Property Permits, Sewer Permits, Excavation Permits, Alley Closure
Permits, Street Closure Permits, and Temporary Traffic Control Plans.
55. Plans and specifications for all offsite improvements shall be prepared by a
Registered Civil Engineer licensed in the State of California for approval by the
City Engineer prior to issuance of a building permit.
56. Immediately after demolition and during construction, a security fence, the height
of which shall be the maximum permitted by the Zoning Ordinance, shall be
maintained around the perimeter of the lot. The lot shall be kept clear of all trash,
weeds, etc.
57. Until completion of construction, a sign shall be posted on the property in a manner
consistent with the public hearing sign requirements, which shall identify the
address and phone number of the owner, developer and contractor for the
purposes of responding to questions and complaints during the construction
period. Said sign shall also indicate the hours of permissible construction work.
58. Prior to the demolition of any existing structure, the applicant shall submit a report
from an industrial hygienist to be reviewed and approved as to content and form
by the Building & Safety Division. The report shall consist of a hazardous materials
survey for the structure proposed for demolition. The report shall include a section
on asbestos and in accordance with the South Coast AQMD Rule 1403, the
asbestos survey shall be performed by a state Certified Asbestos Consultant
(CAC). The report shall include a section on lead, which shall be performed by a
state Certified Lead Inspector/Assessor. Additional hazardous materials to be
considered by the industrial hygienist shall include: mercury (in thermostats,
switches, fluorescent light), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) (including light
Ballast), and fuels, pesticides, and batteries.
Attachment B
Draft Statement of Official Action
44
Water Resources
59. Connections to the sewer or storm drains require a sewer permit from the PWD -
Civil Engineering Division. Connections to storm drains owned by Los Angeles
County require a permit from the L.A. County Departme nt of Public Works.
60. Parking areas and structures and other facilities generating wastewater with
potential oil and grease content are required to pretreat the wastewater before
discharging to the City storm drain or sewer system. Pretreatment will require that
a clarifier or oil/water separator be installed and maintained on site.
61. If the project involves dewatering, developer/contractor shall contact the LA
Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) to obtain an NPDES Permit for
discharge of groundwater from construction dewatering to surface water. For more
information refer to: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/losangeles/ and search for
Order # R4-2003-0111.
62. Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the applicant shall submit a sewer
study that shows that the City’s sewer system can accommodate the entire
development. If the study does not show to the satisfaction of the City that the
City’s sewer system can accommodate the entire development, prior to issuance
of the first building permit, the Developer shall be responsible to upgrade any
downstream deficiencies, to the satisfaction of the Water Resources Manager, if
calculations show that the project will cause such mains to receive greater demand
than can be accommodated. Improvement plans shall be submitted to the
Engineering Division. All reports and plans shall also be approved by the Water
Resources Engineer.
63. Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the applicant shall submit a water
study that shows that the City’s water system can accommodate the entire
development for fire flows and all potable needs. Developer shall be responsible
to upgrade any water flow/pressure deficiencies, to the satisfaction of the Water
Resources Manager, if calculations show that the project will cause such mains to
receive greater demand than can be accommodated. Improvement plans shall be
submitted to the Engineering Division. All reports and plans shall also be approved
by the Water Resources Engineer.
64. Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the applicant shall submit a
hydrology study of all drainage to and from the site to demonstrate adequacy of
the existing storm drain system for the ent ire development. Developer shall be
responsible to upgrade any system deficiencies, to the satisfaction of City
Engineer, if calculations show that the project will cause such facilities to receive
greater demand than can be accommodated. All reports and i mprovement plans
shall be submitted to Engineering Division for review and approval. The study shall
be performed by a Registered Civil Engineer licensed in the State of California.
Attachment B
Draft Statement of Official Action
45
65. Developer shall not directly connect to a public storm drain pipe or direc t site
drainage to the public alley. Commercial or residential units are required to either
have an individual water meter or a master meter with sub-meters.
66. All existing sanitary sewer “house connections” to be abandoned, shall be removed
and capped at the “Y” connections.
67. The fire services and domestic services 3-inches or greater must be above ground,
on the applicant’s site, readily accessible for testing.
68. Developer is required to meet state cross-connection and potable water sanitation
guidelines. Refer to requirements and comply with the cross-connections
guidelines available at:
http://www.lapublichealth.org/eh/progs/envirp/ehcross.htm. Prior to issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy, a cross-connection inspection shall be completed.
69. All new restaurants and cooking facilities at the site are required to install Gravity
Grease Interceptors to pretreat wastewater containing grease. The minimum
capacity of the interceptor shall be determined by using table 10-3 of the 2007
Uniform Plumbing Code, Section 1014.3. All units shall be fitted with a standard
final-stage sample box. The 2007 Uniform Plumbing Code guideline in sizing
Gravity Grease Interceptors is intended as a minimum requirement and may be
increased at the discretion of PWD, Water Resources Protection Program.
70. Ultra-low flow plumbing fixtures are required on all new development and
remodeling where plumbing is to be added, including dual flush toilets, 1.0 gallon
urinals and low flow shower heads.
Urban Water Runoff Mitigation
71. To mitigate storm water and surface runoff from the project site, an Urban Runoff
Mitigation Plan shall be required by the PWD pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter
7.10. Prior to submittal of landscape plans for Architectural Review Board
approval, the applicant shall contact PWD to determine applicable requirements,
such as:
a. The site must comply with SMMC Chapter 7.10 Urban Runoff Pollution
Ordinance for the construction phase and post constructi on activities;
b. Non-storm water runoff, sediment and construction waste from the
construction site and parking areas is prohibited from leaving the site;
c. Any sediments or materials which are tracked off-site must be removed the
same day they are tracked off-site;
d. Excavated soil must be located on the site and soil piles should be covered
and otherwise protected so that sediments are not tracked into the street or
adjoining properties;
e. No runoff from the construction site shall be allowed to leave the site; and
Attachment B
Draft Statement of Official Action
46
f. Drainage control measures shall be required depending on the extent of
grading and topography of the site.
g. Development sites that result in land disturbance of one acre or more are
required by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) to submit
a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Effective September 2,
2011, only individuals who have been certified by the Board as a “Qualified
SWPPP Developer” are qualified to develop and/or revise SWPPPs. A copy
of the SWPPP shall also be submitted to the PWD.
72. Prior to implementing any temporary construction dewatering or permanent
groundwater seepage pumping, a permit is required from the City Water
Resources Protection Program (WRPP). Please contact the WRPP for permit
requirements at least two weeks in advance of planned dewatering or seepage
pumping. They can be reached at (310) 458-8235.
Public Streets & Rights-of-Way
73. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the Project, all required
offsite improvements, such as AC pavement rehabilitation, replacement of
sidewalk, curbs and gutters, installation of street trees, lighting, etc. shall be
designed and installed to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department and
Public Landscape Division.
74. All off site improvements required by the Public Works Department shall be
installed. Plans and specifications for off site improvements shall be prepared by
a registered civil engineer and approved by the City Engineer.
75. Unless otherwise approved by the PWD, all sidewalks shall be kept clear and
passable during the grading and construction phase of the project.
76. Sidewalks, curbs, gutters, paving and driveways which need replacing or removal
as a result of the project or needed improvement prior to the project, as determined
by the PWD shall be reconstructed to the satisfaction of the PWD. Design,
materials and workmanship shall match the adjacent elements including
architectural concrete, pavers, tree wells, art elements, special landscaping, etc.
77. Street and alley sections adjacent to the development shall be replaced as
determined by the PWD. This typically requires full reconstruction of the street or
alley in accordance with City of Santa Monica standards for the full adjacent length
of the property.
Utilities
78. No Excavation Permit shall be issued without a Telecommunications Investigation
by the City of Santa Monica Information Systems Department. The
telecommunications investigation shall provide a list of recommendations to be
incorporated into the project design including, but not limited to measures
Attachment B
Draft Statement of Official Action
47
associated with joint trench opportunities, location of tie -back and other
underground installations, telecommunications conduit size and specifications,
fiber optic cable specifications, telecommunications vault size and placement and
specifications, interior riser conduit and fiber optic cable, and adjacent public right
of way enhancements. Developer shall install two Telecommunications Vaults in
either the street, alley and/or sidewalk locations dedicated solely for City of Santa
Monica use. Developer shall provide two unique, telecommunication conduit
routes and fiber optic cables from building Telecommunications Room to
Telecommunications Vaults in street, alley and/or sidewalk. Developer will be
responsible for paying for the connection of each Telecommunications Vault to the
existing City of Santa Monica fiber optic network, or the extension of conduit and
fiber optic cable for a maximum of 1km terminating in a new Telecommunications
Vault for future interconnection with City network. The final telecommunications
design plans for the project site shall be submitted to and approved by the City of
Santa Monica Information Systems Department prior to approval of project.
a. Project shall comply with City of Santa Monica Telecommunications
Guidelines
b. Project shall comply with City of Santa Monica Right -of-Way Management
Ordinance No. 2129CCS, Section 3 (part), adopted 7/13/04
79. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the Project, provide new
street-pedestrian lighting with a multiple circuit system along the new street right-
of-way and within the development site in compliance with the PWD Standards
and requirements. New street-pedestrian light poles, fixtures and appurtenances
to meet City standards and requirements.
80. Prior to submittal of plan check application, make arrangements with all affected
utility companies and indicate points of connection for all services on the site plan
drawing. Pay for undergrounding of all overhead utilities within and along the
development frontages. Existing and proposed overhead utilities need to be
relocated underground.
81. Location of Southern California Edison electrical transformer and switch
equipment/structures must be clearly shown on the development site plan and
other appropriate plans within the project limits. The SCE structures serving the
proposed development shall not be located in the public right-of-way.
Resource Recovery and Recyling
82. Development plans must show the refuse and recycling (RR) area dimensions to
demonstrate adequate and easily accessible area. If the RR area is completely
enclosed, then lighting, ventilation and floor drain connected to sewer will be
required. Section 9.21.130 of the SMMC has dimensional requirements for various
sizes and types of projects. Developments that place the RR area in subterranean
Attachment B
Draft Statement of Official Action
48
garages must also provide a bin staging area on their property for the bins to be
placed for collection.
83. Contact Resource Recovery and Recycling RRR division to obtain dimensions of
the refuse recycling enclosure.
84. Prior to issuance of a building permit, submit a Waste Management Plan, a map
of the enclosure and staging area with dimensions and a recycling plan to the RRR
Division for its approval. The State of California AB 341 requires any multi -family
building housing 5 units or more to have a recycling program in place for its
tenants. All commercial businesses generating 4 cubic yards of trash per week
must also have a recycling program in place for its employees and
clients/customers. Show compliance with these requirements on the building
plans. Visit the Resource Recovery and Recycling (RRR) website or contact the
RRR Division for requirements of the Waste Management Plan and to obtain the
minimum dimensions of the refuse recycling enclosure. The recycling plan shall
include:
a. List of materials such as white paper, computer paper, metal cans, and
glass to be recycled;
b. Location of recycling bins;
c. Designated recycling coordinator;
d. Nature and extent of internal and external pick-up service;
e. Pick-up schedule; and
f. Plan to inform tenants/ occupants of service.
85. For temporary excavation and shoring that includes tiebacks into the public right -
of-way, a Tieback Agreement, prepared by the City Attorney, will be required.
86. Nothing contained in these Conditions of Approval shall prevent Developer from
seeking relief pursuant to any Application for Alternative Materials and Methods of
Design and Construction or any other relief as otherwise may be permitted and
available under the Building Code, Fire Code, or any other provision of the SMMC.
Construction Period Mitigation
87. A construction period mitigation plan shall be prepared by the applicant for
approval by the following City departments prior to issuance of a building permit:.
Public Works, Fire, Planning and Community Development, and Police. The
approved mitigation plan shall be posted on the site for the duration of the project
construction and shall be produced upon request. As applicable, this plan shall:
a. Specify the names, addresses, telephone numbers and business license
numbers of all contractors and subcontractors as well as the developer and
architect;
b. Describe how demolition of any existing structures is to be accomplished;
Attachment B
Draft Statement of Official Action
49
c. Indicate where any cranes are to be located for erection/construction;
d. Describe how much of the public street, alleyway, or sidewalk is proposed
to be used in conjunction with construction;
e. Set forth the extent and nature of any pile-driving operations;
f. Describe the length and number of any tiebacks which must extend under
the property of other persons;
g. Specify the nature and extent of any dewatering and its effect on any
adjacent buildings;
h. Describe anticipated construction-related truck routes, number of truck
trips, hours of hauling and parking location;
i. Specify the nature and extent of any helicopter hauling;
j. State whether any construction activity beyond normally permitted hours is
proposed;
k. Describe any proposed construction noise mitigation measures, including
measures to limit the duration of idling construction trucks;
l. Describe construction-period security measures including any fencing,
lighting, and security personnel;
m. Provide a grading and drainage plan;
n. Provide a construction-period parking plan which shall minimize use of
public streets for parking;
o. List a designated on-site construction manager;
p. Provide a construction materials recycling plan which seeks to maximize
the reuse/recycling of construction waste;
q. Provide a plan regarding use of recycled and low-environmental-impact
materials in building construction; and
r. Provide a construction period water runoff control plan.
FIRE
88. A security gate shall be provided across the opening to the subterranean garage.
If any guest parking space is located in the subterranean garage, the security gate
shall be equipped with an electronic or other system which will open the gate to
provide visitors with vehicular access to the garage without leaving their vehicles.
The security gate shall receive approval of the Police and Fire Departments prior
to issuance of a building permit.
VOTE
Ayes:
Nays:
Abstain:
Absent:
Attachment B
Draft Statement of Official Action
50
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 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 Planning Commission of the City of Santa Monica.
_____________________________ _____________________________
Amy Anderson, Chairperson Date
Acknowledgement by Permit Holder
I hereby agree to the above conditions of approval and acknowledge that failure to comply
with such conditions shall constitute grounds for potential revocation of the permit
approval.
Print Name and Title Date
Applicant’s Signature
51 Attachment C
Public Notification Information
ATTACHMENT C
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION INFORMATION
Consistent with SMMC 9.37.050, notice of the subject application was published in a
newspaper of general circulation (Santa Monica Daily Press) and mailed to owners and
occupants within 750 feet of the property, at least fourteen days prior to the hearing. In
addition, a copy of the notice was posted on the City’s website, on the City’s bulletin
board, and copies of the agenda mailed to all City-recognized neighborhood groups prior
to the hearing.
On October 25th, 2017 the applicant/appellant was notified by phone and in writing of the
subject hearing date.
The applicant provided the following information regarding attempts to contact
area property owners, residents, and recognized neighborhood associations:
The applicant has contacted the Friends of Sunset Park neighborhood group on both
September 15, 2016 and July 10, 2017 as well as the Ocean Park Association on
November 14, 2016 and June 12, 2017 about the project on September 1, 2016. Staff
had not been informed of any response at the time the Planning Commission staff report
was prepared.
Attachment C
Draft Statement of Official Action
52
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING
BEFORE THE SANTA MONICA PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBJECT: 16ENT-0034
2903 Lincoln Boulevard
APPLICANT: Lina Lee, CIM Group
PROPERTY OWNER: Lincoln Lot 7 (SM), LLC
A public hearing will be held by the Planning Commission to consider the following
request:
Development Review Permit 16ENT -0034 to allow a new four-story (36 feet) 59,319
square-foot mixed-use project consisting of 47 residential units, 16,755 square feet of
ground floor commercial space, and 151 automobile parking spaces within a two-level
subterranean parking garage on a property located in the GC (General Commercial)
zoning district. According to Section 9.40.020 of the Zoning Ordinance, a D evelopment
Review Permit is required for any project exceeding the maxim um Tier 1 limits of 3
stories/36 feet in height and a 1.5 FAR for a property in the GC zoning district.
DATE/TIME: WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 10, 2018 AT 7:00 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 Planning
Commission public hearing, or by writing a letter. Written information will be given to the
Planning Commission at the meeting.
Address your letters to: Michael Rocque, Associate Planner
Re: 16ENT-0034
City Planning Division
1685 Main Street, Room 212
Santa Monica, CA 90401
MORE INFORMATION
If you want more information about this project or wish to review the project file, please
contact Michael Rocque at (310) 458-8341, or by e-mail at michael.rocque@smgov.net.
The Zoning Ordinance is available at the Planning Counter during business hours and on
the City’s web site at www.santa-monica.org.
The meeting facility is wheelchair accessible. If you have any disability -related
accommodation request, please contact (310) 458-8341, or TYY Number: (310) 458-8696
at least five (5) business days prior to the meeting. Santa Monica “Big Blue” Bus Lines
#1, #2, #3, Rapid 3, #7, #8, #9, #10R, and #18 service the City Hall and the Civic Center.
The Expo Line terminus is at Colorado Avenue and Fourth Street, a short walk to City
Hall. Public parking is available in front of City Hall and on Olympic Drive and in the Civic
Center Parking Structure (validation free).
Attachment C
Draft Statement of Official Action
53
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 publi c
hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of
Santa Monica at, or prior to, the public hearing.
ESPAÑOL
Esto es una noticia de una audiencia pública para revisar applicaciónes proponiendo
desarrollo en Santa Monica. Si deseas más información, favor de llamar a Carmen
Gutierrez en la División de Planificación al número (310) 458-8341.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________
Jing Yeo, AICP, Planning Manager
54 Attachment D
Environmental Documentation
ATTACHMENT D
Environmental Documentation –
CEQA Exemption Checklist
2903 Lincoln Boulevard
55 Attachment E
Project Plans
ATTACHMENT E
Project Plans
2903 Lincoln Boulevard
Planning Commission
Report
Planning Commission Meeting: January 10, 2018
Agenda Item: 7-A
To: Planning Commission
From: Jing Yeo, AICP, City Planning Division Manager
Subject: Supplemental Staff Report for Development Review Permit 16ENT-0034 to
allow a new four-story (36 feet), 59,319 square-foot mixed-use project
consisting of 47 residential units, 16,755 square feet of ground floor
commercial space, and 151 automobile parking spaces within a two -level
subterranean parking garage.
Address: 2903 Lincoln Boulevard
Applicant: Lina Lee, CIM Group
Executive Summary
In response to a Commissioner request, staff worked with the City Attorney’s office to
prepare this supplemental report to explain the applicability of the Housing Accountability
Act to the Planning Commission’s review of the proposed project.
The Housing Accountability Act (Government Code section 65589.5) ("the HAA") is a
state law that restricts the City's ability to deny, reduce the density of, or make infeasible
any housing development project that complies with objective general plan, zoning, and
subdivision standards and criteria (collectively, "Objective Standards"), in effect at the
time that the housing development's application is determined to be complete. The HAA
has been effect since 1982 and has undergone several amendments to further reinforce
the state legislature's intent to increase the supply of residential housing stock. The most
recent amendments went into effect on January 1, 2018.
In essence, the HAA precludes the Planning Commission from denying or imposing any
conditions upon any housing project (including residential units only or mixed -use projects
with at least two-thirds of square footage designated for residential use) unless specific
findings are made.
As explained in the body of the staff report for 16ENT-0034, staff has recommended
approval of the Project based upon its determination that the Project is consistent with
Objective Standards, subject to the applicant's compliance with all conditions in the draft
Statement of Official Action ("STOA"), which is attached to the staff report.
Therefore, if after consideration of all written and oral evidence presented to the Planning
Commission at the public hearing on 16ENT-0034, the Planning Commission desires to
either disapprove or impose a condition that the Project be developed at a lower density
or with any other conditions that would adversely impact feasibility of the proposed
project, the Planning Commission must:
1) Articulate the factual basis for making the following findings, as required by the
HAA, based upon the oral or written evidence presented at the public hearing:
“(A) The housing development project would have a
specific, adverse impact upon the public health or
safety unless the project is disapproved or approved
upon the condition that the project be developed at a
lower density. As used in this paragraph, a “specific,
adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable,
direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective,
identified written public health or safety standards,
policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the
application was deemed complete.
(B) There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or
avoid the adverse impact identified, other than the
disapproval of the housing development project or the
approval of the project upon the condition that it be
developed at a lower density.”
2) Direct staff to revise the STOA with the above referenced written findings and
factual basis in support thereof before disapproving or conditioning approval of the
Project.
Prepared by: Jing Yeo, Planning Manager
Public Resources Code 21155.1
If the legislative body finds, after conducting a public hearing, that a transit priority
project meets all of the requirements of subdivisions (a) and (b) and one of the
requirements of subdivision (c), the transit priority project is declared to be a sustainable
communities project and shall be exempt from this division.
(a) The transit priority project complies with all of the following environmental criteria:
(1) The transit priority project and other projects approved prior to the approval of the
transit priority project but not yet built can be adequately served by existing utilities, and
the transit priority project applicant has paid, or has committed to pay, all applicable in-
lieu or development fees.
(2)(A) The site of the transit priority project does not contain wetlands or riparian areas
and does not have significant value as a wildlife habitat, and the transit priority project
does not harm any species protected by the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973
( 16 U.S.C. Sec. 1531 et seq. ), the Native Plant Protection Act (Chapter 10
(commencing with Section 1900) of Division 2 of the Fish and Game Code ), or the
California Endangered Species Act (Chapter 1.5 (commencing with Section 2050) of
Division 3 of the Fish and Game Code ), and the project does not cause the destruction
or removal of any species protected by a local ordinance in effect at the time the
application for the project was deemed complete.
(B) For the purposes of this paragraph, “wetlands” has the same meaning as in the
United States Fish and Wildlife Service Manual, Part 660 FW 2 (June 21, 1993).
(C) For the purposes of this paragraph:
(i) “Riparian areas” means those areas transitional between terrestrial and aquatic
ecosystems and that are distinguished by gradients in biophysical conditions, ecological
processes, and biota. A riparian area is an area through which surface and subsurface
hydrology connect waterbodies with their adjacent uplands. A riparian area includes
those portions of terrestrial ecosystems that significantly influence exchanges of energy
and matter with aquatic ecosystems. A riparian area is adjacent to perennial,
intermittent, and ephemeral streams, lakes, and estuarine -marine shorelines.
(ii) “Wildlife habitat” means the ecological communities upon which wild animals, birds,
plants, fish, amphibians, and invertebrates depend for their conservation and protection.
(iii) Habitat of “significant value” includes wildlife habitat of national, statewide, regional,
or local importance; habitat for species protected by the federal Endangered Species
Act of 1973 ( 16 U.S.C. Sec. 1531, et seq. ), the California Endangered Species Act
(Chapter 1.5 (commencing with Section 2050) of Division 3 of the Fish and Game
Code ), or the Native Plant Protection Act (Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 1900)
of Division 2 of the Fish and Game Code ); habitat identified as candidate, fully
protected, sensitive, or species of special status by local, state, or federal agencies; or
habitat essential to the movement of resident or migratory wildlife.
(3) The site of the transit priority project is not included on any list of facilities and sites
compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code .
(4) The site of the transit priority project is subject to a preliminary endangerment
assessment prepared by anenvironmental assessor to determine the existence of any
release of a hazardous substance on the site and to determine the potential for
exposure of future occupants to significant health hazards from any nearby property or
activity.
(A) If a release of a hazardous substance is found to exist on the site, the release shall
be removed or any significant effects of the release shall be mitigated to a level of
insignificance in compliance with state and federal requirements.
(B) If a potential for exposure to significant hazards from surrounding properties or
activities is found to exist, the effects of the potential exposure shall be mitigated to a
level of insignificance in compliance with state and federal requirements.
(5) The transit priority project does not have a significant effect on historical resources
pursuant to Section 21084.1 .
(6) The transit priority project site is not subject to any of the following:
(A) A wildland fire hazard, as determined by the Department of Forestry and Fire
Protection, unless the applicable general plan or zoning ordinance contains provisions
to mitigate the risk of a wildland fire hazard.
(B) An unusually high risk of fire or explosion from materials stored or used on nearby
properties.
(C) Risk of a public health exposure at a level that would exceed the standards
established by any state or federal agency.
(D) Seismic risk as a result of being within a delineated earthquake fault zone, as
determined pursuant to Section 2622 , or a seismic hazard zone, as determined
pursuant to Section 2696 , unless the applicable general plan or zoning ordinance
contains provisions to mitigate the risk of an earthquake fault or seismic hazard zone.
(E) Landslide hazard, flood plain, flood way, or restriction zone, unless the applicable
general plan or zoning ordinance contains provisions to mitigate the risk of a landslide
or flood.
(7) The transit priority project site is not located on developed open space.
(A) For the purposes of this paragraph, “developed open space” means land that meets
all of the following criteria:
(i) Is publicly owned, or financed in whole or in part by public funds.
(ii) Is generally open to, and available for use by, the public.
(iii) Is predominantly lacking in structural development other than structures associated
with open spaces, including, but not limited to, playgrounds, swimming pools, ballfields,
enclosed child play areas, and picnic facilities.
(B) For the purposes of this paragraph, “developed open space” includes land that has
been designated for acquisition by a public agency for developed open space, but does
not include lands acquired with public funds dedicated to the acquisition of land for
housing purposes.
(8) The buildings in the transit priority project are 15 percent more energy efficient than
required by Chapter 6 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations and the buildings
and landscaping are designed to achieve 25 percent less water usage than the average
household use in the region.
(b) The transit priority project meets all of the following land use criteria:
(1) The site of the transit priority project is not more than eight acres in total area.
(2) The transit priority project does not contain more than 200 residential units.
(3) The transit priority project does not result in any net loss in the number of affordable
housing units within the project area.
(4) The transit priority project does not include any single level building that exceeds
75,000 square feet.
(5) Any applicable mitigation measures or performance standards or criteria set forth in
the prior environmental impact reports, and adopted in findings, have been or will be
incorporated into the transit priority project.
(6) The transit priority project is determined not to conflict with nearby operating
industrial uses.
(7) The transit priority project is located within one-half mile of a rail transit station or a
ferry terminal included in a regional transportation plan or within one-quarter mile of a
high-quality transit corridor included in a regional transportation plan.
(c) The transit priority project meets at least one of the following three criteria:
(1) The transit priority project meets both of the following:
(A) At least 20 percent of the housing will be sold to families of moderate income, or not
less than 10 percent of the housing will be rented to families of low income, or not less
than 5 percent of the housing is rented to families of very low income.
(B) The transit priority project developer provides sufficient legal commitments to the
appropriate local agency to ensure the continued availability and use of the housing
units for very low, low-, and moderate-income households at monthly housing costs with
an affordable housing cost or affordable rent, as defined in Section 50052.5 or 50053 of
the Health and Safety Code , respectively, for the period required by the applicable
financing. Rental units shall be affordable for at least 55 years. Ownership units shall
be subject to resale restrictions or equity sharing requirements for at least 30 years.
(2) The transit priority project developer has paid or will pay in -lieu fees pursuant to a
local ordinance in an amount sufficient to result in the development of an equivalent
number of units that would otherwise be required pursuant to paragraph (1).
(3) The transit priority project provides public open space equal to or greater than five
acres per 1,000 residents of the project.
1
Leah Kellen
From:janedempsey@earthlink.net
Sent:Sunday, April 22, 2018 10:14 PM
To:Ted Winterer; Gleam Davis; Tony Vazquez; Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Kevin
McKeown Fwd; Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; councilmtgitems
Subject:RE: April 24 agenda Item 6A
Attachments:Petition Page A.pdf; Petition Page B.pdf; Petition Page C.pdf; Petition Page D.pdf;
Petition Page E.pdf; Petition Page F.pdf; Petition Page G.pdf; Petition Page H.pdf;
Pettition Page I.pdf; Petition Page J.pdf; Petition Page K.pdf; Petition Page L.pdf;
Petition Page 2 photos.pdf; Petition Page 3 1991 Outlook article.pdf
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
Dear Mayor and City Council members,
April 22, 2018
RE: April 24, 2018 City Council Meeting Item 6A – 2903 Lincoln Blvd.
Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers,
A small neighborhood meeting a few weeks ago discussed that surrounding neighbors were not aware of the size and
effects of this project on our neighborhood. These neighbors came up with a petition regarding the size of the project
and a consensus of possible traffic mitigations. Next, neighbors started walking the three‐page petition on Wilson Place,
Ashland and 10th Street (our count was approximately 125 residential units) to see how others in the neighborhood
felt.
Explaining the project along with the history of past and future traffic mitigations took 20‐40 minutes each stop. The 14
visible vacant houses/apartments (11%) in our neighborhood surprised us. It was hard to contact many neighbors due
to locked security gates including 815 Ashland, a 45 unit locked building. We did manage to contact a few residents
walking who lived in the locked buildings.
So far, we have secured 59 signatures on the three‐page petition (53%). Only five of the residents/units we spoke to did
not want to sign, feeling that nothing would be accomplished if they signed (i.e., that the petition would have no effect
on the City Council). Other residents/units have not been home when petitioners were out.
Attached is page one of all the signed petitions (the actual petitions will be at City Hall on Monday, April 23). Each
petition is three pages long and stapled (page one is information and signatures, page two is photos and page three is a
Santa Monica Outlook article dated April 25, 1991).
Most, but not all of the Santa Monica Outlook article is correct information from 1991. I know this because I was very
involved in this appeal. This project is a case of déjà vu almost 30 years later except now we are dealing with a
commercial and mostly luxury apartment project twice the size. The Planning Commission approved a mixed‐use
project at the northeast corner of Lincoln/Ashland.
Contrary to rumors that I have heard/read lately, I know the appeal cited an Initial Environmental Study that studied the
wrong site, the commercial section of the project and the effects of traffic on sub‐standard streets. It was never about
the neighborhood not wanting low income/senior housing.
Item 6-A
4/24/18
1 of 113 Item 6-A
4/24/18
2
Ironically, the IES cited an additional 1,600 car trips in the neighborhood with HALF of the commercial square footage of
this project.
Councilmembers, the Planning Department and the appellants worked out an agreement where the appeal was
withdrawn if traffic mitigations were offered (at the time there was an important grant deadline for the low
income/senior housing).
Appellants held up their part of the agreement and got signatures from half of the neighborhood to agree to the
mitigations.
Sadly, City Hall did not abide by the rules and the timetable and then years later half of the mitigations disappeared.
Sincerely,
Jane Dempsey
Santa Monica resident since 1976 and Wilson Place resident since 1986.
Attachments: (The actual petitions will be taken to City Hall on Monday, April 23.)
Petition Pages A to L (All wording on petitions is identical and each petition is three pages but only page one with
signatures is attached as A – L).
Petition Page two is page two of the petition and is photos.
Petition Page three is page three of the petition and is a Santa Monica Outlook article from 1991.
Item 6-A
4/24/18
2 of 113 Item 6-A
4/24/18
Item 6-A
4/24/18
3 of 113 Item 6-A
4/24/18
FlfAV-Tpl
-AxYr
E1P€
s$
6<(o
;
E$s
$Et-' F.$.h
*rwn*
ilI
ta
F
Fl.!
li
m
= r..Frs.s
FHrrts=
3.st?ffi$Hffi$$$'[ffi$
{}ri$i[$rl[[
rrffiEr[$*arr
[*iig$E$[11
r39ill'.' {,rru3,*{*r{
a:5nE
sg-pir *'
irs
RS
$rBs
ffit
Iil
t*ttllI*I
ffi
l*t
HI
l$l
[tI
tslil
I tr I
[$$$rry[*l
r$ffiI $$gE
Ea!fl B 3 qi
$f$r $ fi 3g
:$5? $ r:B
Iri$ H IE$
$$Ei $ F e$ss${ *Bt*
*$sr B$EIg$E: E FTB
$x$3 $ $
sil4E A $
Ii[rrir[rfBYr ;fsl* s *.: f:5't*[f$ sEia
*r[.s sflfr
#$r tr$[iE$& i"il$*
[Er&]{$['
PiH**FEsF.
[*$t[r[[
$E ffi*g*
Item 6-A
4/24/18
4 of 113 Item 6-A
4/24/18
Petition Regarding Concerns of neighbors near 2903 Lincoln Blvd
We ask the Santa Monica City Council to consider the streets adjacent to the 2903 Lincoln Blvd project (artist rendering
attached) being appealed on Tuesday, April 24th. First off, we feel the project is too massive for this site and needs to
be scaled back. Making Ashland Ave the front yard and Wilson Place the back yard for some purposes but putting an
entrance on Lincoln Blvd is definitely gaming the system'
We understand that approving the project did not consider the already approved LiNC plans, which have a center
median on Lincoln Blvd, stretching from Pier Avenue to Ashland. This effectually blocks the entrance to 2903 Lincoln
going south on Lincoln Blvd. lt can only cause the circling of our residential streets both east and west of Lincoln Blvd in
order to enter or exit the 2903 Lincoln project (which will itself stretch an entire block, from Wilson Place to Ashland
Ave).
We propose that the City remove the traffic light at Lincoln and Ashland AND/OR move the traffic signal currently at
Ashland and Lincoln Blvd to the entrance and exit of the project at 2903 Lincoln Blvd, allowing cars to enter and exit the
project and possibly make U-turns. LiNC plans should change to allow the break at this light and continue the median
past Ashland Avenue going north. Along with this action, there are traffic mitigations for our area that were approved
years ago and need to be revisited.
Many residents were not in the area in the early 1990's when the City agreed to traffic mitigations connected with two
smaller mixed-use projects that were approved on the northeast corner of Lincoln and Ashland (see attached Outlook
article). Those mitigations were never completed, and some have been removed. We ask that the City complete the
closure of Wilson Place at Lincoln Blvd. We also ask that the City close Ashland Avenue just west of 10th Street. Both
Ashland Ave and Wilson Place are STEEP UPHILL substandard streets at a width of 29 feet, with parking on both sides.
By any measure, the streets are not wide enough to carry the current traffic, and any additional car trips will be
disastrous. Adding these mitigations would stop the circling of our streets (Ashland Avenue and Wilson Place between
Lincoln Blvd. and 11th Street, as well as the 2900 block of 10th Street), especially if the 2903 Lincoln project materializes.
The same holds true for our neighbors across Lincoln Blvd. in Ocean Park who would benefit by stopping some cut
through traffic.
We also see major parking problems coming to areas that already have parking problems. One street has already started
a request for preferential Parking. We ask that the City expedite a Preferential Parking zone around the area both east
and west of Lincoln (subject to City petitions and approval). We also request the placement of monies in a trust fund by
the developer to include two parking passes each year for each residence for 5 years, as many of our residents are low
income.
We hope the City will make the construction parking and clean-up mandated and clearly written out. And please keep in
mind the fact that there is no space for staging this project except for our public streets: narrow, steep Wilson Place and
Ashland Avenue and busy Lincoln Blvd, with a "bus-only( lane in the east-side parking lane in the morning.nlvll
)3 t/.fll-;z 4e/-
Name (print) [ Signatur{- - ,/ Street Address
XatruNpal^ m EIM
Au, tL tt {a{
t15//a$'> At,S
tDI .kdfr
Item 6-A
4/24/18
5 of 113 Item 6-A
4/24/18
Petition Regarding Concerns of neighbors n6ar 2903 Lincoln Blvd
We ask the Santa Monica City Council to consider the streets adjacent to the 2903 Lincoln Btvd project (artist rendering
attached) being appealed on Tuesday, April 24th. First off, we feel the project is too massive for this site and needs to
be scaled back. Making Ashland Ave the front yard and Wilson Place the back yard for some purposes but putting an
entrance on Lincoln Blvd is definitely gaming the system.
We understand that approving the project did not consider the already approved LiNC plans, which have a center
median on Lincoln Blvd, stretching from Pier Avenue to Ashland. This effectually blocks the entrance to 2903 Lincoln
going south on Lincoln Blvd. lt can only cause the circling of our residential streets both east and west of Lincoln Blvd in
order to enter or exit the 2903 Lincoln project (which will itself stretch an entire block, from Wilson Place to Ashland
Ave).
We propose that the City remove the traffic light at Lincoln and Ashland AND/OR move the traffic signal currently at
Ashland and Lincoln Blvd to the entrance and exit of the project at 2903 Lincoln Blvd, allowing cars to enter and exit the
project and possibly make U-turns. LiNC plans should change to allow the break at this light and continue the median
past Ashland Avenue going north. Along with this action, there are traffic mitigations for our area that were approved
years ago and need to be revisited.
Many residents were not in the area in the early 1990's when the City agreed to traffic mitigations connected with two
smaller mixed-use projects that were approved on the northeast corner of Lincoln and Ashland (see attached Outlook
article). Those mitigations were never completed, and some have been removed. We ask that the City complete the
closure of Wilson Place at Lincoln Blvd. We also ask that the City close Ashland Avenue just west of 10th Street. Both
Ashland Ave and Wilson place are STEEP UPHILL substandard streets at a width of 29 feet, with parking on both sides.
By any measure, the streets are not wide enough to carry the current traffic, and any additional car trips will be
disastrous. Adding these mitigations would stop the circling of our streets (Ashland Avenue and Wilson Place between
Lincoln Blvd. and 11th Street, as well as the 2900 block of 10th Street), especially if the 2903 Lincoln project materializes.
The same holds true for our neighbors across Lincoln Blvd. in Ocean Park who would benefit by stopping some cut
through traffic.
We also see major parking problems coming to areas that already have parking problems. One street has already started
a request for preferential parking. We ask that the City expedite a Preferential Parking zone around the area both east
and west of Lincoln (subject to City petitions and approval). We also request the placement of monies in a trust fund by
the developer to include two parking passes each year for each residence for 5 years, as many of our residents are low
income.
We hope the City will make the construction parking and clean-up mandated and clearly written out. And please keep in
mind the fact that there is no space for staging this project except for our public streets: narrow, steep Wilson Place and
Ashland Avenue and busy Lincoln Blvd, with a "bus-only" lane in the east-side parking lane in the morning.
Name (print)Street Address
s1Z//l/Z?tZ - //rt dr"
loba'3 @L /'l
(v'ua dfi,tltt)/\SU L1-1,,
Pl q Ll""*\ y'\,'o
rc^,Jon \ooi Ashhnt
Item 6-A
4/24/18
6 of 113 Item 6-A
4/24/18
Petition Regarding Goncerns of neighbors nbar 2903 Lincoln BIvd
We ask the Santa Monica City Council to consider the streets adjacent to the 2903 Lincoln Blvd project (artist rendering
attached) being appealed on Tuesday, April 24th. First off, we feel the project is too massive for this site and needs to
be scaled back. Making Ashland Ave the front yard and Wilson Place the back yard for some purposes but putting an
entrance on Lincoln Blvd is definitely gaming the system.
We understand that approving the project did not consider the already approved L|NC plans, which have a center
median on Lincoln Blvd, stretching from Pier Avenue to Ashland. This effectually blocks the entrance to 2903 Lincoln
going south on Lincoln Blvd. lt can only cause the circling of our residential streets both east and west of Lincoln Blvd in
order to enter or exit the 2903 Lincoln project (which will itself stretch an entire block, from Wilson Place to Ashland
Ave).
We propose that the City remove the traffic light at Lincoln and Ashland AND/OR move the traffic signal currently at
Ashland and Lincoln Blvd to the entrance and exit of the project at 2903 Lincoln Blvd, allowing cars to enter and exit the
project and possibly make U-turns. L|NC plans should change to allow the break at this light and continue the median
past Ashland Avenue going north. Along with this action, there are traffic mitigations for our area that were approved
years ago and need to be revisited.
Many residents were not in the area in the early 1990's when the City agreed to traffic mitigations connected with two
smaller mixed-use projects that were approved on the northeast corner of Lincoln and Ashland (see attached Outlook
article). Those mitigations were never completed, and some have been removed. We ask that the City complete the
closure of Wilson Place at Lincoln Blvd. We also ask that the City close Ashland Avenue just west of 10th Street. Both
Ashland Ave and Wilson Place are STEEP UPHILL substandard streets at a width of 29 feet, with parking on both sides.
By any measure, the streets are not wide enough to carry the current traffic, and any additional car trips will be
disastrous. Adding these mitigations would stop the circling of our streets (Ashland Avenue and Wilson Place between
Lincoln Blvd. and 1t-th Street, as well as the 2900 block of 10th Street), especially if the 2903 Lincoln project materializes.
The same holds true for our neighbors across Lincoln Blvd. in Ocean Park who would benefit by stopping some cut
through traffic.
We also see major parking problems coming to areas that already have parking problems. One street has already started
a requestfor preferentiat Parking. We askthatthe City expedite a Preferential Parking zone around the area both east
and west of Lincoln (subject to City petitions and approval). We also request the placement of monies in a trust fund by
the developer to include two parking passes each year for each residence for 5 years, as many of our residents are low
income.
We hope the City will make the construction parking and clean-up mandated and clearly written out. And please keep in
mind the fact that there is no space for staging this project except for our public streets: narrow, steep Wilson Place and
Ashland Avenue and busy Lincoln Blvd, with a "bus-only" lane in the east-side parking lane in the morning.
Name i(print)
rl ;" u.,*
SiSnatytu
L$, \ *,1u Lb X=L\"r'-'a D.' z
Street Address
tu,r/v/ l0rs
Item 6-A
4/24/18
7 of 113 Item 6-A
4/24/18
Petition Regarding Goncerns of neighbors n6ar 2903 Lincoln Blvd
We ask the Santa Monica City Council to consider the streets adjacent to the 2903 Lincoln Blvd project (artist rendering
attached) being appealed on Tuesday, April 24th. First off, we feel the project is too massive for this site and needs to
be scaled back. Making Ashland Ave the front yard and Wilson Place the back yard for some purposes but putting an
entrance on Lincoln Blvd is definitely gaming the system.
We understand that approving the project did not consider the already approved LiNC plans, which have a center
median on Lincoln Blvd, stretching from Pier Avenue to Ashland. This effectually blocks the entrance to 2903 Lincoln
going south on Lincoln Blvd. lt can only cause the circling of our residential streets both east and west of Lincoln Blvd in
order to enter or exit the 2903 Lincoln project (which will itself stretch an entire block, from Wilson Place to Ashland
Ave).
We propose that the City remove the traffic light at Lincoln and Ashland AND/OR move the traffic signal currently at
Ashland and Lincoln Blvd to the entrance and exit of the project at 2903 Lincoln Blvd, allowing cars to enter and exit the
project and possibly make U-turns. LiNC plans should change to allow the break at this light and continue the median
past Ashland Avenue going north. Along with this action, there are traffic mitigations for our area that were approved
years ago and need to be revisited.
Many residents were not in the area in the early 1990's when the City agreed to traffic mitigations connected with two
smaf ler mixed-use projects that were approved on the northeast corner of Lincoln and Ashland (see attached Outlook
arti&e). Those mitigations were never completed, and some have been removed. We ask that the City complete the
closure of Wilson place at Lincoln Blvd. We also ask that the City close Ashland Avenue just west of 10th Street. Both
Ashtand Ave and Wilson place are STEEP UPHILL substandard streets at a width of 29 feet, with parking on both sides.
By any measure, the streets are not wide enough to carry the current traffic, and any additional cartrips will be
disastrous. Adding these mitigations would stop the circling of our streets (Ashland Avenue and Wilson Place between
Lincoln Blvd. and 11th Street, as well as the 2900 block of 10th Street), especially if the 2903 Lincoln project materializes.
The same holds true for our neighbors across Lincoln Blvd. in Ocean Park who would benefit by stopping some cut
through traffic.
We also see major parking problems coming to areas that already have parking problems. One street has already started
a request for preferential Parking. We ask that the City expedite a Preferential Parking zone around the area both east
and west of Lincoln (subject to City petitions and approval). We also request the placement of monies in a trust fund by
the developer to include two parking passes each year for each residence for 5 years, as many of our residents are low
income.
We hope the City will make the construction parking and clean-up mandated and clearly written out. And please keep in
mind the fact that there is no space for staging this project except for our public streets: narrow, steep Wilson Place and
Ashland Avenue and busy Lincoln Blvd, with a "bus-only" lane in the east-side parking lane in the morning.
Name (print)Street Address
C,\a.z l/-5 J
7{ *rZz^r> d\^7 ,HT
3=< A:r{r.N}P ao-- +
ot-
Ashtand ad.
h\
U€',3 i
Ch ban
6S %ntqn4 Mc3f;$7--
Item 6-A
4/24/18
8 of 113 Item 6-A
4/24/18
Petition Regarding Goncerns of neighbors n"ear 2903 Lincoln Blvd
We ask the Santa Monica City Council to consider the streets adjacent to the 2903 Lincoln Blvd project (artist rendering
attached) being appealed on Tuesday, April 24th. First off, we feel the project is too massive for this site and needs to
be scaled back. Making Ashland Ave the front yard and Wilson Place the back yard for some purposes but putting an
entrance on Lincoln Blvd is definitely gaming the system.
We understand that approving the project did not consider the already approved LiNC plans, which have a center
median on Lincoln Blvd, stretching from Pier Avenue to Ashland. This effectually blocks the entrance to 2903 Lincoln
going south on Lincoln Blvd. lt can only cause the circling of our residential streets both east and west of Lincoln Blvd in
order to enter or exit the 2903 Lincoln project (which will itself stretch an entire block, from Wilson Place to Ashland
Ave).
We propose that the City remove the traffic light at Lincoln and Ashland AND/OR move the traffic signal currently at
Ashland and Lincoln Blvd to the entrance and exit of the project at 2903 Lincoln Blvd, allowing cars to enter and exit the
project and possibly make U-turns. LiNC plans should change to allow the break at this light and continue the median
past Ashland Avenue going north. Along with this action, there are traffic mitigations for our area that were approved
years ago and need to be revisited.
Many residents were not in the area in the early 1990's when the City agreed to traffic mitigations connected with two
smaller mixed-use projects that were approved on the northeast corner of Lincoln and Ashland (see attached Autlook
article). Those mitigations were never completed, and some have been removed. We ask that the City complete the
closure of Wilson place at Lincoln Blvd. We also ask that the City close Ashland Avenue just west of 10th Street. Both
Ashland Ave and Wilson place are STEEP UPHILL substandard streets at a width of 29 feet, with parking on both sides.
By any measure, the streets are not wide enough to carry the current traffic, and any additional car trips will be
disastrous. Adding these mitigations would stop the circling of our streets (Ashland Avenue and Wilson Place between
Lincoln Blvd. and 11th Street, as wellas the 2900 block of 10th Street), especially if the 2903 Lincoln project materializes.
The same holds true for our neighbors across Lincoln Blvd. in Ocean Park who would benefit by stopping some cut
through traffic.
We also see major parking problems coming to areas that already have parking problems. One street has already started
a request for preferential parking. We ask that the City expedite a Preferential Parking zone around the area both east
and west of Lincoln (subject to City petitions and approval). We also request the placement of monies in a trust fund by
the developer to include two parking passes each year for each residence for 5 years, as many of our residents are low
income.
We hope the City will make the construction parking and clean-up mandated and clearly written out. And please keep in
mind the fact that there is no space for staging this project except for our public streets: narrow, steep Wilson Place and
Ashland Avenue and busy Lincoln Blvd, with a "bus-only" lane in the east-side parking lane in the morning'
Name (print)
J nnn, , brte
Item 6-A
4/24/18
9 of 113 Item 6-A
4/24/18
Petition Regarding Concerns of neighbos near 2913 Lincoln Bhrd
We ask the Santa Monica City Council to consider the streets adjacent to the 2903 Lincoln Blvd project (artist rendering
attached) being appealed on Tuesday, April 24th. First ofi we feel the project is too massive for this site and needs to
be scaled back. Making Ashland Ave the front yard and Wilson Place the back yard for some purposes but putting an
entrance on Lincoln Blvd is definitely gaming the system.
We understand that approving the project did not consider the already approved LiNC plans, which have a center
median on Lincoln Blvd, stretching from Pier Avenue to Ashland. This effectually blocks the entrarce to 2903 Lincoln
going south on Lincoln Blvd. lt can only cause the circling of our residential streets both east and west of Lincoln Blvd in
order to enter or exit the 2903 Lincoln project (which will itself stretch an entire block, from Wilson Place to Ashland
Ave). 6
We propose that the City remove the traffic light at Lincoln and Ashland ANDIOR move the traffic signal currently at
Ashland and Lincoln Blvd to the entrance and exit of the project at 2903 Lincoln Blvd, allowing cars to enter and exit the
project and possibly make U-turns. LINC plans should change to allow the break at this light and continue the median
past Ashland Avenue going north, Along with this action, there are traffic mitigations for our area that were approved
years ago and need to be revisited.
Many residents were not in the area in the early 1990's when the City agreed to traffic mitigations connected with two
smaller mixed-use projects that were approved on the northeast corner of Lincoln and Ashland (see attached Outlook
article). Those mitigations were never completed, and some have been removed. We ask that the City complete the
closure of Wilson Place at Lincoln Blvd. We also ask that the City close Ashland Avenue just west of 10th Street. Both
Ashland Ave and Wilson Place are STEEP UPHILL substandard streets at a width of 29 feet with parking on both sides.
By any measure, the streets are not wide enough to carry the current traffic, and any additional car trips will be
disastrous. Adding these mitigations would stop the circling of our streets (Ashland Avenue and Wilson Place between
Lincoln Blvd. and L1th Street, as well as the 2900 block of 10th Street), especially if the 2903 Lincoln project materializes.
The same holds true for our neighbors across Lincoln Blvd. in Ocean Park who would benefit by stopping some cut
through traffic.
We also see major parking problems coming to areas that already have parking problems. One street has already started
a request for Preferential Parking. We ask that the City expedite a Preferential Parking zone around the area both east
and west of Lincoln (subject to City petitions and approval). We also reguest the placement of monies in a trust fund by
the developer to include two parking passes each year for each residence for 5 years, as many of our residents are low
income.
We hope the City will make the construction parking and clean-up mandated and clearly written out. And please keep in
mind the fact that there is no space for staging this project except for our public streets: narrow, steep Wilson Place and
Ashland Avenue and busy Lincoln Blvd, with a "bus-onlf lane in the east-side parking lane in the rnorning.
Name (print)Signature Street Address
={LRY? t o AtuSO
Kh (AJ,'iJ",t PL
Item 6-A
4/24/18
10 of 113 Item 6-A
4/24/18
Petition ReFardinF Coneerns of neighbors near 2903 Lincoln Flvd
We ask the Santa Monica City Council to consider the streets adjacent to the 2903 Lincoln Blvd projea (artist rendering
attached) being appealed on Tuesday, April 24s. First off, we feelthe project is too massive for this site and needs to
be scaled back. Making Ashland Ave the front yard and Wilson Place the back yard for some purposes but pufting an
entrance on Lincoln Blvd is definitely gaming the system.
We understand that approving the project did not consider the already approved LiNC plans, which have a center
median on Lincoln Blvd, stretching from Pier Avenue to ashhnii. This effectually blocks the entrance to 2903 Lincoln
going south on Lincoln Blvd. lt can only cause the circling of our residential streets both east and west of Lincoln Blvd in
order to enter or exit the 2903 Lincoln project (which will itself stretch an entire block, from Wilson Place to Ashland
Ave).
We propose that the City remove the traffic light at Lincoln and Ashland AND/OR move the traffie signal currently at
Ashland and Lincoln Blvd to the entrance and exit of the project at 2903 Lincoln Blvd, allowing cars to enter and exit the
project and possibly make U-turns. LiNC plans should change to allow the break at this light and continue the median
past Ashland Avenue going north. Along with this action, there are traffic mitigations for our area that were approved
years ago and need to be revisited.
Many residents were not in the area in the early 1990's when the City agreed to traffic mitigations connected with two
smaller mixed-use projects that were approved on the northeast corner of Lincoln and fuhland (see attached Outlook
article). Those mitigations were never completed, and some have been removed. We ask that the City complete the
closure of Wilson Place at Lincoln Blvd. We also ask that the City close Ashland Avenue just west of 10s Street. Both
Ashland Ave and Wilson Place are STEEP UPHILL substandard streets at a width of 29 feet, with parking on both sides.
By any measure, the streets are not wide enough to carry the current traffic, and any additional car trips will be
disastrous. Adding these mitigations would stop the circling of our streets (Ashland Avenue and Wilson Place between
Lincoln Blvd. and 11th Street, as wellas the 2900 block of l0th Street), especially if the 2903 Lincoln project materializes.
The same holds true for our neighbors across Lincoln Blvd. in Ocean Park who would benefit by stopping some cut
through traffic.
We also see major parking problems coming to areas that already have parking problems. One street has already started
a request for Preferential Parking. We ask that the City expedite a Preferential Parking zone around the area both east
and west of Lincoln (subject to City petitions and approval). We also request the placement of monies in a trust fund by
the developer to include two parking passes each year for each residence for 5 years, as many of our residents are low
income.
We hope the City will make the construction parking and clean-up mandated and clearly written out. And please keep in
mind the fact that there is no space for staging this project except for our public streets: narrow, steep Wilson Place and
Ashland Avenue and busy Lincoln Blvd, with a "bus-only'' lane in the east-side pa*ing lane in the morning.
Name (print)Street Address
Item 6-A
4/24/18
11 of 113 Item 6-A
4/24/18
, ' Petition Regarding Concems of neighbors near 2903 Lincoln BkJ\ .
tite *t*esal*a Monica CityCouncilto considerthe streets ad.iacer*to the 2903 Uncoln Blvd project (artist rendering
atta l ae*rg appealed on Tuesday, April 24s. First ofi we feel the project is too massive for this site and needs to
be sc*d B,Making Ashland Ave the front yard and Wilson Plae the back yard for sorne purposes but ptrning an
entrane.ul L&cotn Blvd b definitely gaming the svstem.
We uds:ihatl tirat aprovirg the project did not consider the already approved LiNC plans, rrhich have a center
m B.$dn stretching from Pier Avenue to gshla'&d. This effectually blocks the entrance to 2903 Lincoln
goilg Blvd. tt can only cause the drcling sf our residential strests both east and west of Lincoln Blvd in
o6O the 2903 Uncotn project (which will itself stretch an eltire block, from Wilson Place to Ashland
*6'':t"',':-, l,
We thatthe City rernove the traffic light at Uncoln and Ashland ANDIOR move the tr#fic signal currentfu at
Asti ln Bhrd to the entrance and exit of the project at 2903 Lincoln Blvd, allordng cars to enter and exit the
pro pssrbly make U-turns. LiNC plans should change to allow the break at this light and continuethe rnedian
paut***"C,Avenue going north. Along with this action, there are trafHc mitigations for our area that were approved
years,46,.atd needto be retisited
Mafiy were.not inthe area in the early 1l)90's when the City agreed to traffic mitigations connected with two
smalle-i'*txduse projects tliq,lwere approved on the northeast coroer of Uncoln and Ashland (see attached Audook
artidelTltssermitigationswer€,neverompleted, and some have been removed- We askthatthe Citycomplete the
closgiedffilson Place at Uncoln Bfud. We also ask that the Crty close Ashland Avenue just $rest of l0th Street. Botb
nshland eve and Wilson Place are SIEEP UPHlLl subs andard sreets at a width of 29 feet, with parking on both sides.
By any measure, the streets are not wide enough to carry the current traffic, and any additional car trips witt be
disastrous- eddingrhme mit'rgations would stop the circling of our streets {Ashland Avenue and Wilson Place between
LincolB$hd.and 1lth Street, as well asthe 2900 block of l0th Street), especially if the 2903 Lincoln project materializes.
The samC hsldstrue for our neighbors across Lincoln Blvd. in Ocean Park who would benefit bry stopping some cut
through traffic-
We also se major parking problems coming to areas that already have parking problems. One street has already started
a reqqest torrPreferential Parking- We ask that the City expedite a Preferential Parking zone around the area both east
and,rrestrof Lincoln (subiect to City petitions and approval). We also request the placement of monies in a tmst fund by
the devet3per to'include two parking passes each year fgr each residence for 5 years, as many of our residents are low
income-
We hope the Crtywill rnq.kethe construction parking and clean-up mandated and clearly written out. And please keep in
mind the fact,that,there,is no space for stagingthis project except for our public streets: narroq steep Wilson Place and
Ashland Av.enue and busy Uncoln Blvd, with a "bus-only'' lane in the east-side parking lane in tlie morning.
Item 6-A
4/24/18
12 of 113 Item 6-A
4/24/18
Petition ReFarding Concerns of neighbors near 2903 Lincoln Blvd
We ask the Santa Monica City Council to consider the streets adjacent to the 2903 Lincoln Blvd project (artist rendering
attached) being appealed on Tuesday, April 24th. First off, we feel the proiect is too massive for this site and needs to
be scaled back. Making Ashland Ave the front yard and Wilson Place the back yard for some purposes but putting an
entrance on Lincoln Blvd is definitely gaming the system.
we understand that approving the project did not consider the already approved LiNC plans, which have a center
median on Lincoln Blvd, stretching from Pier Avenue to Ashland. This effectually blocks the entrance to 2903 Lincoln
going south on Lincoln Blvd. lt can only cause the circling of our residential streets both east and west of Lincoln Blvd in
order to enter or exit the 2903 Lincoln project (which will itself stretch an entire block, from Wilson Place to Ashland
Ave).
We propose that the City remove the traffic light at Lincoln and Ashland AND/OR move the traffic signal currently at
Ashland and Lincoln Blvd to the entrance and exit of the project at 2903 Lincoln Blvd, allowing cars to enter and exit the
project and possibly make U-turns. L|NC plans should change to allow the break at this light and continue the median
past Ashland Avenue going north. Along with this action, there are traffic mitigations for our area that were approved
years ago and need to be revisited.
Many residents were not in the area in the early 1990's when the City agreed to traffic mitigations connected with two
smaller mixed-use projects that were approved on the northeast corner of Lincoln and Ashland (see attached Outlook
article). Those mitigations were never completed, and some have been removed. We ask that the City complete the
closure of Wilson place at Lincoln Blvd. We also ask that the City close Ashland Avenue just west of 10e Street- Both
Ashland Ave and Wilson place are STEEP UPHILL substandard streets at a width of 29 feet, with parking on both sides.
By any measure, the streets are not wide enough to carry the current traffic, and any additional car trips will be
disastrous. Adding these mitigations would stop the circling of our streets (Ashland Avenue and Wilson Place between
Lincoln Blvd. and 11th street, as well as the 2900 block of 10th street), especially if the 2903 Lincoln project materializes.
The same holds true for our neighbors across Lincoln Blvd. in Ocean Park who would benefit by stopping some cut
through traffic.
We also see major parking problems coming to areas that already have parking problems. One street has already started
a request for preferential parking. We ask that the City expedite a Preferential Parking zone around the area both east
and west of Lincoln (subjea to City petitions and approval). We also request the placement of monies in a trust fund by
the developer to include two parking passes each year for each residence for 5 years, as many of our residents are low
income.
We hope the City will make the construction parking and clean-up mandated and clearly written out. And please keep in
mind the fact that there is no space for staging this project except for our public streets: narrow, steep Wilson Place and
Ashland Avenue and busy Lincoln Blvd, with a "bus-only'' lane in the east-side parking lane in the morning.
Name (print)Street Address
Ce,*ee t4t6 Sf Sm fio?oY
A, Srrl ?0
o{^lJw
Sto.,-r ^<Lu
r l^,LAr(
0{0 5
Item 6-A
4/24/18
13 of 113 Item 6-A
4/24/18
we ask the Santa Monica City Council to consider the streets adjacent to the 2903 Lincoln Blvd project (artist rendering
attached) being appealed on Tuesday, April 24th. First off, we feel the pro.iect is too massive for this site and needs to
be scaled back. Making Ashland Ave the front yard and wilson Place the back yard for some purposes but putting an
entrance on Lincoln Blvd is definitely gaming the system'
We understand that approving the project did not consider the already approved LiNC plans, which have a center
median on Lincoln Blvd, stretching from pier Avenue to RshlafrU. This effectually blocks the entrance to 2903 Lincoln
going south on Lincoln Blvd. lt can only cause the circling of our residential streets both east and west of Lincoln Blvd in
order to enter or exit the 2903 Lincoln project (which will itself stretch an entire block, from Wilson Place to Ashland
Ave).
We propose that the City remove the traffic tight at Lincoln and Ashland AND/OR move the traffic signal currently at
Ashland and Lincoln Btvd to the entrance and exit of the project at 2903 Lincoln Blvd, allowing cars to enter and exit the
project and possibly make U-turns. LINC plans should change to allow the break at this light and continue the median
past Ashland Avenue going north. Along with this action, there are traffic rnitigations for our area that were approved
years ago and need to be revisited.
Many residents were not in the area in the early 1990's when the City agreed to traffic mitigations connected with two
smaller mixed-use projects that were approved on the northeast corner of Lincoln and Ashland (see attached Outlook
article). Tlrose mitigations were never completed, and some have been removed. We ask that the City complete the
closure of Wilson place at Lincoln Blvd. We also ask that the City close Ashland Avenue just west of 10'r'street- Both
Ashiand Ave and wilsorr place are srEEp upHlLL substandard streets at a width of 29 feet, with parking on both sides.
By any measure, the streets are not wide enough to carry the current traffic, and any additional car trips will be
disastrous. Adding these mitigations would stop the circling of our streets (Ashland Avenue and wilson Place between
l-incoln Blvd. ancj 11th Sileet, as well as the 2g00 block of 10th Street), especially if the 2903 Lincoln project nraterializes'
The sanre holds true for our neighbors across Lincoln Blvd. in Ocean Park who would benefit by stopping some cut
through traffic.
We also see major parking problems coming to areas that already have parking problems. One street has already started
a request for preferential parking. We ask that the City expedite a Preferential Parking zone around the area iroth east
and west of Lincoln (subject to City petitions and approval). We also request the placement of monies in a trust fund by
the developer to include two parking passes each year for each residence for 5 years, as many of our residents are low
incoine.
we lrope the City will make the construction parking and clean-up mandated and clearly written out. And please ker:p in
rnintl the fact that there is no space for staging this project except for our public streets: narrow, steep wilson Place and
Ashland Avenue and busy Lincoln Blvd, with a "bus-only" lane in the east-side parking lane in the morning'
Name (print)Signature Street Address
aq )qPg
?f,o1 toi[,$ JUS trl\ IDV'Y
dq^z to& fl$ atR"A
Item 6-A
4/24/18
14 of 113 Item 6-A
4/24/18
we ask the santa Monica City Council to consider the streets adiacent to the 2903 Lincolri Blvd proiect (artist rendering
attached) being appealed on Tuesday, April 24th. First off, we feel the project is too massive for this site and needs to
be scaled back. Making Ashland Ave the front yard and wilson Place the back yard for some purposes b.ut putting an
entrance on Lincoln Blvd is definitely gaming the system'
We understand that approving the project did not consider the already approved LiNC plans, whlch have a center
median on Lincoln Blvd, stretching from pier Avenue to Ashldhd. This effectually blocks the entrance to 2903 Lincoln
going south on Lincoln Blvd. lt can only cause the circling of our residential streets both east and west of Lincoln Blvd in
order to enter or.exit the 2903 Lincoln project (which will itself stretch an entire block, from Wilson Place to Ashland
Ave).
We propose that ihe City remove the traffic light at Lincoln and Ashland AND/O)move the traffic signal currently at
Ashland and Lincoln Blvd to the entrance and exit of the project at 2903 Lincoln Blvd, allowing cars to enter and exit the
project and possibly make U-turns. LiNC plans should change to allow the break at this light and continue the median
past Ashland Avenue going north. Along with this action, there are traffic mitigations for our area that were approved
years ago and need to be revisited.
Many residents were not in the area in the early 1990's when the City agreed to traffic mitigations connested with two
smaller mixed-use projects that were approved on the northeast corner of Lincoln and Ashland (see attached outlook
article). Those mitigations were never completed, and some have been removed. We ask that the City complete the
closure of wilson place at Lincoln Blvd. we also ask that the city close Ashland Avenue just west of 10th street. Both
Ashland Ave and witson place are sTEEp upHlLL substandard streets at a width of 29 feet, with parking on both sides.
By any measure, the streets are not wide enough to carry the current traffic, and any additional car trips will be
disastrous. Adding these mitigations would stop the circling of our streets (Ashland Avenue and wilson Place between
Lincoln Btvd. and 1lth street, as well as the 2900 block of 10th street), especially if the 2903 Lincoln project materializes.
The same holds true for our neighbors across Lincoln Blvd. in ocean Park who would benefit by stopping some cut
through traffic.
we also see major parking problems coming to areas that already have parking problems. one street has already started
a request for preferential parking. we ask that the city expedite a Preferential Parking zone around the area both east
anci west of Lincoln (subject to City petitions and approval). We also request the placement of monies in a trust fund by
the developer to include two parking passes each year for each residence for 5 years, as many of our residents are low
income.
we hope the City will make the construction parking and clean-up mandated and clearly written out. And please keep in
nrind ihe fact that there is no space for staging this project except for our public streets: narrow, steep wilson Place and
Ashland Avenue and busy Lincoln Blvd, with a "bus-only" lane in the east-side parking lane in the morning'
'1nt)
l)
Street Address
2q/0 tNJf
loqo5
Item 6-A
4/24/18
15 of 113 Item 6-A
4/24/18
We ask the Santa Monica City Council to consider the streets adjacent to the 2903 Lincoln Alvd iibiect (artist rendering
attached) being appealed on Tuesday, April 24th. First off, we feelthe project is too massive fof this needs to
be scaled back. Making Ashland Ave the front yard and Wilson Place the hackprd for some
entrance on Lincoln Blvd is definitely gaming the system. ==:=--
We understand that approving the project did not consider the already approved LiNi"a center
median on Lincoln Blvd, stretching from Pier Avenue to Ashlafid. This effectually block the to 2903 Lincoln
going south on Lincoln Blvd. lt can only cause the circling of our residential streets both east and Blvd in
order to enter or exit the 2903 Lincoln project (which will itself stretch an entire block, from Wilson Place to Ashland
Ave).
We propose that the City remove the traffic light at Lincoln and Ashland ANDIOR move the traffic signal currently at
Ashland and Lincoln Blvd to the entrance and exit of the project at 2903 Lincoln Blvd, allowing cars to enter and exit the
project and possibly make U-turns. LINC plans should change to allow the break at this light and continue the median
past Ashland Avenue going north. Along with this action, there are traffic mitigations for our area that were approved
years ago and need to be revisited.
Many residents were ilot in the area in the early 1990's when the City agreed to traffic mitigations connected with two
smaller mixed-use projects that were approved on the northeast corner of Lincoln and Ashland (see attached Outlook
article). Those mitigations were never completed, and some have been removed. We ask that the City complete the
closure of Wilson Place at Lincoln Blvd. We also ask that the City close Ashland Avenue just west of 10e Street. Both
Ashland Ave and Wilson Place are STEEP UPHILL substandard streets at a width of 29 feet, with parking on both sides.
By any measure, the streets are not wide enough to carry the current traffic, and any additional car trips will be
disastrous. Adding these mitigations would stop the circling of our streets (Ashland Avenue and Wilson Place between
Lincoln Blvd. and 11th Street, as well as the 2900 block of l0th Street), especially if the 2903 Lincoln project materializes.
The same holds true for our neighbors across Lincoln Blvd. in Ocean Park who would benefit by stopping some cut
through traffic.
We also see major parking problems coming to areas that already have parking problems. One street has already started
a request for Preferential Parking. We ask that the City expedite a Preferential Parking zone around the area both east
and west of Lincoln (subject to City petitions and approval). We also request the placement of monies in a trust fund by
the developer to include two parking passes each year for each residence for 5 years, as many of our residents are low
income.
We hope the City will make the construction parking and clean-up mandated and clearly written out. And please keep in
mind the fact that there is no space for staging this project except for our public streets: narrow, steep Wilson Place and
Ashland Avenue and busy Uncoln Blvd, with a "bus-onf lane in the east-side parking lane in the morning'
Name (print)Street Address
rl
arc
D2D
/w
Item 6-A
4/24/18
16 of 113 Item 6-A
4/24/18
1
Leah Kellen
From:zinajosephs@aol.com
Sent:Sunday, April 22, 2018 7:20 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:zinajosephs@aol.com
Subject:City Council 4/24/18 item 6-A -- 2903 Lincoln appeal -- Support
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
April 22, 2018
To: City Council
From: Board of Directors, Friends of Sunset Park
RE: 4/24/18 agenda item 6-A – Appeal of the 2903-2931 Lincoln Blvd. project -- Development
Review Permit 16ENT-0034
(April 24 agenda: https://www.smgov.net/departments/clerk/agendas.aspx)
The FOSP Board strongly supports the appeal of the 2903-2931 Lincoln Blvd. project.
1) Corner lots? -- The project should only be allowed 36 feet in height. But by calling a block-long
parcel combining 6 small parcels, and stretching from Ashland Avenue to Wilson Place, a “corner lot,” the
Planning Department is allowing the CIM Group to call steep Ashland Avenue the “front” of the project. This
seems absurd, since the entrances to all the commercial uses will be on Lincoln, and the address is 2903
Lincoln. (The project was initially described as “2903-2931 Lincoln.”)
Ashland has a 12.5% slope (see Page 3 of the staff report), so allowing CIM to calculate Segmented Average
Natural Grade (SANG) from the midpoint elevation of that steep Ashland sidewalk, rather than from the
Lincoln Blvd. sidewalk, results in a building that’s labeled 36 feet in height, but actually measures 45 feet 8
inches above the sidewalk on Lincoln Blvd.
Page 19 of the staff report talks about the “front yard elevation” as if this were a little house on the corner of
Lincoln and Ashland. It’s not a house, and there is no “front yard” – it’s a
45 foot 8 inch high mixed commercial and residential project taking up an entire block!
2) 36 feet? -- When the CIM Group did its first presentation to FOSP in 2016, the architect kept telling us
the building was 36 feet and 3 stories, even though the artist’s rendering of the Lincoln elevation clearly
showed 4 stories on the Ashland end of the building, and a height of more than 36 feet. Since the first floor
commercial space had to be 12 or 15 feet tall, to fit 3 floors of residential above that, in the remaining 21 or 24
Item 6-A
4/24/18
17 of 113 Item 6-A
4/24/18
2
feet, would have meant only 7 or 8 feet from floor to floor, which is impossible. We were put in a position of
either believing the CIM Group architect, or believing our own eyes.
3) What’s missing that’s required by the city?
a) Staff report: “Policy B25.9 encourages that new mixed-use buildings adjacent to residential districts are
contained within a prescribed building envelope that steps down toward the residential district to maintain
access to light and air.”
We don’t see step downs toward homes on Wilson Place.
b) Staff report: “LU 15.8 Building Articulation and LU 15.11 Building Façades and Step Backs: The
building’s articulation and façades provide additional setbacks and stepbacks on the upper floors and provides
a 5 foot average on the street facing façade on Lincoln consistent with SMMC 9.11.030.”
In looking at the artist rendering of the Lincoln elevation on Page 4 of the staff report, do you see any
setbacks or stepbacks on the upper floors? We don’t.
4) Complete plans? At the January hearing at the Planning Commission, the point was made by a
Commissioner that the project plans were incomplete. The Planning Commission approved the project anyway.
5) A traffic study was not required? And what about the median?
We can estimate that with 151 vehicle parking space and 28 motorcycle parking spaces
(see Page 3 of the staff report), the project may generate about 700 daily vehicle trips.
Because of the median that will be constructed in front of the project as part of the LiNC, a quarter of those trips
will probably involve southbound drivers on Lincoln who will have to make a U-turn around the median in
order drive north and turn right into the underground parking. Another quarter who are exiting the building will
probably have to turn north and then make a U-turn around the median in order to drive south on Lincoln.
Alternately, exiting drivers who want to drive south on Lincoln may turn east on substandard-width Ashland,
turn south on busy 11th, turn west on busy Marine Street, and then turn south on Lincoln Blvd.
In addition, the vehicle truck service area at the entrance to the subterranean parking will potentially
interfere with, and back up, residential and commercial car access onto Lincoln, crossing the dedicated
bus lane.
But no traffic study was required by the Planning staff to determine the safety of this plan or the impact
on nearby residential streets.
Item 6-A
4/24/18
18 of 113 Item 6-A
4/24/18
3
6) What about the “bus only” traffic lane in front of 2903-2931 Lincoln? According to the
staff report, the applicant is “aware of the peak house bus lanes on Lincoln.” In addition, “The applicant will be
required to indicate the location of staging of equipment, anticipated truck routes, number of trucks, and a
construction period parking plan, which shall not be permitted to use public streets.”
And yet we know, based on two years of CIM Group construction activity for 802 Ashland, as well as the
current construction activity for the 4-story apartment project on the south side of Pico between 11th and Euclid,
that construction equipment has been blocking traffic lanes, and that construction worker vehicles have been
taking up on-street parking.
If no one on City staff enforces compliance with these “requirements,” what good are they?
7) HAA precludes the Planning Commission or City Council from denying a housing
development that complies with the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance.
Here we come to the problem the City Council created for residents near Lincoln Blvd. from the freeway to the
south city limit when it insisted on zoning Lincoln Blvd. South as “General Commercial.”
This was done over the strong objections of the Lincoln Blvd. Task Force, which comprised representatives
from the Ocean Park Association, Friends of Sunset Park, and the Pico Neighborhood Association.
One of the Task Force members, architect Bob Taylor, drafted a 7-page memo, which the Task Force spent an
hour discussing with the consultant who had been hired to coordinate the drafting of the Zoning Ordinance
Update. We requested that the zoning designation be “Neighborhood Commercial” rather than “General
Commercial.” After all, senior planner Peter James was simultaneously coordinating the development of the
“Lincoln Neighborhood Corridor Plan (LiNC),” designed to make the boulevard more neighborhood
friendly.
All to no avail. The Planning Department, the Planning Commission, and the City Council all felt that they
knew better than the residents what was good for the three residential neighborhoods bordered by Lincoln Blvd.
(four, if you count the Borderline Neighborhood).
If the City Council had zoned Lincoln South “Neighborhood Commercial,” residents would probably not find
themselves in this position of appealing an inappropriately large project.
8) Housing Accountability Act -- from the Supplemental Staff Report that was posted at the last
minute before the January 20, 2018 Planning Commission hearing:
1) Articulate the factual basis for making the following findings, as required by the HAA, based upon the oral or written
evidence presented at the public hearing:
“(A) The housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety unless the
project is disapproved or approved upon the condition that the project be developed at a lower density. As used in this
paragraph, a “specific, adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on
objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the
application was deemed complete.
(B) There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact identified, other than the disapproval
of the housing development project or the approval of the project upon the condition that it be developed at a lower
density.”
Item 6-A
4/24/18
19 of 113 Item 6-A
4/24/18
4
2) Direct staff to revise the STOA with the above referenced written findings and factual basis in support thereof before
disapproving or conditioning approval of the Project.
If the city had done a traffic study, even though it’s not “required,” the potential safety impacts of this project
would have been revealed. Apparently, the city’s Traffic and Parking Manager was not even made aware of the
2903-2931 Lincoln Blvd. project by other Planning Department staff members before the Planning Commission
approved it.
Would this be an example of "silos" vs. 21st Century “cross-disciplinary teamwork and collaboration”?
Since the Traffic and Parking Manager is in the process, at the direction of City Council, of doing a traffic
management study for the Sunset Park neighborhood, it seems as though it would have been logical to have him
review this 2903-2931 Lincoln Blvd. project.
9) Conclusion -- The FOSP Board strongly supports the appeal of the 2903-2931 Lincoln Blvd
project. It’s just too big, it will create unsafe traffic conditions, and it is not compatible with the rest of
the neighborhood!
But it may become difficult for officials to come up with the “findings” required to disapprove, or approve upon
the condition that the project be developed at a lower density, as Planning staff has not provided complete
information to the Planning Commission or City Council.
Item 6-A
4/24/18
20 of 113 Item 6-A
4/24/18
1
Leah Kellen
From:KilleenC Pilon <killeencpilon@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, April 21, 2018 1:00 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Appeal 2903 Lincoln Boulevard for April 24, 2018
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
I am writing to object to the approval of Permit 16ENT-0034 by the Planning Commission to allow a new 4
story mixed use project (47 residential units, ground floor commercial space and 151 vehicle parking places in a
2 level subterranean parking garage which enters and exits on Lincoln Boulevard.
I live at 2807 Lincoln Boulevard, in Volunteers of America senior housing.
Lincoln Boulevard is one of the most congested streets in Santa Monica, Venice. and Los Angeles. My
relatives won't visit because it is so hard to get here from LA proper.
The developer for 2903 Lincoln has been building a 10- apartment building at 802 Ashland for more than 2
years. During that time, Ashland has been closed to residential traffic with regularity and/ or large trucks and
construction equipment has taken up space which might otherwise enable normal traffic. Construction workers,
gas and electric company workers, as well as city sewer and water workers, have parked their personal and
work vehicles on the street leaving less parking for current residents and their visitors.
It has been impossible to have 2 lanes of traffic on work days.
If ten units have impeded normal life for more than 2 years (so far) what will 47 units+ on Lincoln do?
2903 Lincoln on top of 802 Ashland development is too much development for the space of one city block
where there are 50,000 vehicles passing by daily, frequently bumper to bumper. The project should be no more
than 2 stories, half the number of units and parking and a third of the commercial space.
151 vehicles+ pulling onto Lincoln off and on from 2903 in the course of the day will further impact an already
impacted neighborhood.
The pollution from vehicle exhaust is terrible. I cannot walk on Lincoln without coughing. I see bicyclists and
walkers wearing masks. We will soon be like Beijing as regards to quality of air and no barrier to ozone.
There should be absolutely no more major development on city streets replete with vehicle traffic unless every
roof has carbon reducing plants none of which any of the proposed developments have in their project files.
Ashland and Hill Streets need to be converted to one way streets with permit parking on either side.
I saw no electrical charge stations for either of these buildings in the plans.
And what about water?
Are we committed to sustainability as a city or is it all fiction?
Item 6-A
4/24/18
21 of 113 Item 6-A
4/24/18
2
Killeen Pilon, #307
310 593 1572
Item 6-A
4/24/18
22 of 113 Item 6-A
4/24/18
1
Leah Kellen
From:Ann Maggio <annmaggio@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, April 23, 2018 11:31 AM
To:agendaitems@smgov.net; Council Mailbox; Sue Himmelrich; Tony Vazquez;
Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Clerk Mailbox
Subject:Agenda Item 6.A - Uphold the Appeal
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Completed
Dear City Council.
Please support the appeal. This project is too large. It exceeds our zoning code, requires U-Turns on our residential streets and is
a hazard to public safety.
Thank you,
Ann
& Sam
Thanawalla
"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth." - Albert Einstein
Item 6-A
4/24/18
23 of 113 Item 6-A
4/24/18
1
Leah Kellen
From:Gov Affairs <govaffairs@smchamber.com>
Sent:Friday, April 20, 2018 4:34 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:Michael Rocque
Subject:SM Chamber Support Letter for 2903 Lincoln Project
Attachments:2903 Lincoln.pdf
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
Hello,
Please see attached letter of support.
Thank you.
Gauri Brienda Ramnath - Brand Consultant
Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce
1234 6th Street, Suite 100
Santa Monica, CA 90401
310-393-9825 x116/ 917-627-7178 cell
www.smchamber.com
Item 6-A
4/24/18
24 of 113 Item 6-A
4/24/18
Chair
West Hooker-Poletti
Locanda del Lago
Past Chair
Yesenia Monsour
Kaiser Permanente
Chief Financial Officer
Dave Nelson
Tegner-Miller Insurance
Brokers
Vice Chairman
Richard Chacker
Perry’s at the Beach
Vice Chairman
Michael Gruning
Pence Hawthorn
Vice Chairman
Ellis O’Connor
MSD Hospitality Fairmont
Miramar Hotel & Bunga-
lows
Vice Chairman
Peter Trinh
Avery/The Craftsman Bar
and Kitchen
Vice Chairman
Brian Mac Mahon
Expert Dojo
Chair Elect
Jeff Klocke
Pacific Park on the Santa
Monica Pier
Board Members
Daniel Abramson
RAND Corporation
Matthew Allnatt
Jonathan Club
Alisha Auringer
LAcarGuy
Judi Barker
Barker Hanger
Barbara Bishop
BBPR, Inc.
Gauri Brienda
Gauri Brienda Consultancy
Kiersten Elliott
Santa Monica College
Board Members, Cont.
Colby Goff
Rustic Canyon Family
Mitchell Kraus
Capital Intelligence
Associates
Bob Kull
The Lobster Restaurant
Tim Kusserow
Carlthorp School
Leonard “Len” Lanzi
Los Angeles Venture Association
Richard Lawrence
Commercial Bank of California
Gary Loeb
Chezgal Merchandising Creations
John Loyacono
Bank of America
Sara Mailloux
Hulu
Jennifer McElyea
Watt Investment Partners
Laure McIver
ETC Hotels/ Casa Del Mar &
Shutters on the beach
Pat McRoskey
Water Garden
Greg Morena
The Albright Restaurant
Susan Gabriel Potter
Bob Gabriel Insurance
Evan Pozarny
Muselli Commercial Realtors
Dave Rand
Armbruster Goldsmith & Delvac
Scott Schonfeld
Linwood Ventures
Nat Trives
Coalition for Engaged Educations
John Warfel
Metropolitan Pacific Real Estate
David Woodbury
Arthur Murray Dance Studio.
April 23, 2018
Santa Monica City Council
Attention: City Clerk
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica CA 90401
Re: 2903 Lincoln Blvd
Dear City Councilmembers,
The Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce is proud to
support the mixed-use housing project proposed for
2903 Lincoln Blvd.
This project will replace an underutilized and unattrac-
tive block with forty-seven units of desperately needed
housing and will help realize our community's vision for
a more vibrant Lincoln Boulevard. A more attractive
Lincoln will support community serving retail, restau-
rants, and cafes. This will create new jobs, benefit the
environment, and improve the overall experience of
this important corridor.
This project is also in full compliance with the Munici-
pal Code, the development standards for projects in a
General Commercial Zone and is consistent with the
L.U.C.E and Lincoln Neighborhood Corridor Plan.
Importantly, this project also includes four affordable
units and over $1.3 million in community benefit fees.
We hope you will approve the DRP and adopt the
STOA, moving this important project forward tonight.
We trust you will uphold the DRP approval and
Statement of Official Action from the January 10th,
2018 Planning Commission Hearing, moving this
important project forward.
Thank you for your consideration.
Laurel Rosen
President/CEO
Santa Monica Chamber
Item 6-A
4/24/18
25 of 113 Item 6-A
4/24/18
1
Leah Kellen
From:Gov Affairs <govaffairs@smchamber.com>
Sent:Friday, April 20, 2018 5:20 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:Michael Rocque
Subject:2903 Lincoln- Letter of Support
Attachments:2903 Lincoln.pdf
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
Hello,
See revised letter of support with digital signature.
Thank you.
Gauri Brienda Ramnath - Brand Consultant
Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce
1234 6th Street, Suite 100
Santa Monica, CA 90401
310-393-9825 x116/ 917-627-7178 cell
www.smchamber.com
Item 6-A
4/24/18
26 of 113 Item 6-A
4/24/18
I
t
e
m
6
-
A
4
/
2
4
/
1
8
2
7
o
f
1
1
3
I
t
e
m
6
-
A
4
/
2
4
/
1
8
1
Leah Kellen
From:Alex Brough <alex.brough@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, April 23, 2018 3:03 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox
Subject:Support The Repeal of Development Review Permit (16ENT-0034)
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Completed
To whom it may concern,
Please support the appeal. Requiring 2 U-turns on residential side streets is not what sustainable and progressive cities do. This
will cause a traffic nightmare on our streets. Lincoln is terrible and now 11th street is almost as bad. This will make it even
worse.
Regarding the water neutrality ordinance you recently passed,
how is a 60,000 sq ft building going to use the same amount of water as 1 small auto repair shop? This makes no sense.
I support many projects in this city but this one is overdoing it.
Thank you,
Alex
--
Alex Brough
Santa Monica Resident
310-403-4302
Item 6-A
4/24/18
28 of 113 Item 6-A
4/24/18
2
Leah Kellen
From:Stacy Dalgleish <sdalgleish@mac.com>
Sent:Monday, April 23, 2018 2:37 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:4-24-2018 Agenda item 6-A, 2901 Lincoln appeal
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Completed
Dear City Council,
I support housing. I support housing along the boulevards. I acknowledge the state-wide and regional need for
both.
I do not support the way in which the height and mass calculations for this project were manipulated to allow
for more height/density/traffic in an already highly traffic-impacted area.
For what it's worth, I support the appeal of the 2901 Lincoln Blvd project.
As always, thank you for your service to our wonderful city.
Sincerely,
Stacy
Stacy Dalgleish
1437 24th Street
Santa Monica CA 90404
Item 6-A
4/24/18
29 of 113 Item 6-A
4/24/18
3
Leah Kellen
From:Andrea Morgan <mchun@aol.com>
Sent:Monday, April 23, 2018 1:21 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox
Subject:April 24 Agenda Item 6A - Uphold the Appeal of 2903 Lincoln
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Completed
Please support the appeal of the 60,000 sq ft project proposed at 2903 Lincoln Blvd (corner of Ashland).
It will require U‐turns on Ashland and Marine for drivers to get in and out of the 150 car underground garage. Already
the City has acted shamefully regarding Marine St by increasing the speeding limit “in the dead of night” without any
residential feedback from 25mph, as befits a residential street, to 30mph and by refusing to put in a stop sign and
crosswalk where there’s a handicap sidewalk cut by the tennis courts and by refusing to enforce the City’s own limits on
park activities, gathering size and hours.
Requiring 2 U‐turns on residential side streets is not what sustainable and progressive cities do.
Regarding the water neutrality ordinance you recently passed, how is a 60,000 sq ft building going to use the same
amount of water as 1 small auto repair shop?
Regards,
Andrea Morgan
Sent from my iPhone
Item 6-A
4/24/18
30 of 113 Item 6-A
4/24/18
4
Leah Kellen
From:pad45@mac.com
Sent:Monday, April 23, 2018 1:06 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:CC Meeting 4/24/18, Item 6-A
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Completed
Dear Council,
I SUPPORT the The Appeal to 2903 Development Proposal. This project needs to be completely rethought and
scaled appropriately for the neighborhood.
Peter Donald
310 871-4862
pad45@mac.com
Item 6-A
4/24/18
31 of 113 Item 6-A
4/24/18
5
Leah Kellen
From:Kevin Flick <kevinvflick@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, April 23, 2018 10:50 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox
Subject:Re: April 24 Agenda Item 6A - Uphold the Appeal of 2903 Lincoln
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Completed
From: Kevin Flick, 2021 Ocean Ave,
Please support the appeal.
Requiring 2 U-turns on residential side streets is not what sustainable and progressive cities do.
Regarding the water neutrality ordinance you recently passed,
how is a 60,000 sq ft building going to use the same amount of water as 1 small auto repair shop?
Please let me know.
Kevin
Item 6-A
4/24/18
32 of 113 Item 6-A
4/24/18
6
Leah Kellen
From:Mark Ulrich <mulrich@pomsassoc.com>
Sent:Monday, April 23, 2018 10:32 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:2903 Lincoln appeal
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Completed
Council, With all due respect, if what I read from Zina is accurate you should be ashamed of yourself or at least move the
kickback money to one of the nonprofits in Santa Monica that works with kids. The facts of this case do not look good for
your council and your lack of attention to pertinent details is appalling.
Respectfully,
Mark Ulrich
Item 6-A
4/24/18
33 of 113 Item 6-A
4/24/18
7
Leah Kellen
From:Ellen Hannan <elhasm@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, April 23, 2018 10:25 AM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Tony Vazquez;
Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer; Sue Himmelrich; Gleam Davis; Pam OConnor
Subject:City Council 4/24/2018 item 6A 2903 Lincoln Blvd appeal -SUPPORT
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Completed
4/23/2018
I support the appeal based on the requirements that 808 Wilshire followed in the past. The actual front of 808
Wilshire is Lincoln Blvd. They were allowed to to use the Wilshire address as the front due to the value of the
name recognition.
However the Wilshire parcel was allowed to be 4 stories followed by 3 stories, and then 2 stories along
Lincoln. There is also a setback in the alley for landscaping boarding the residential alley.
There need to be space for trucks to load and unload to this building. Lincoln Blvd cannot handle the double
parking and the 2 side streets which are hills are unsafe to unload trucks.
There needs to be consist City Planning with neighborhood needs and concerns consider as valuable. Short term
value to one developer is not an excuse to disrupt all of the Lincoln Blvd Plan.
I agree with the Friends of Sunset Park letter. This project need to go back to the drawing board for the safety
of our City.
Thank you
Ellen Hannan
1219 th St #6
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Item 6-A
4/24/18
34 of 113 Item 6-A
4/24/18
8
Leah Kellen
From:TIM TUNKS <tim.tunks@aol.com>
Sent:Monday, April 23, 2018 9:43 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:tim.tunks@aol.com
Subject:April 24 item 16 ENT-0034 / 2903 Lincoln Appeal Hearing
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Completed
Dear Clerk,
This pdf is my letter to the council for reproduction and distribution with your other materials.
My contact info is:
<tim.tunks@aol.com>
Tim Tunks (310) 396-1400
750 1/2 Pier Ave.
Santa Monica 90405.
I will be presenting a Power Point slide stack during my speaking time during public comments.
I have it here to email you but I fear it may be too large a file.
I will phone you to see if you can receive documents from WeTansfer.
Thanks
Item 6-A
4/24/18
35 of 113 Item 6-A
4/24/18
9
Leah Kellen
From:Taffy Patton <taffypatton1@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, April 23, 2018 9:22 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis; Sue Himmelrich;
Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer; Rick Cole
Cc:David Martin; Home; Mario Fonda-Bonardi; Jennifer Kennedy; richard mckinnon
Subject:City Council 4/24/18. Item 6-A. Support Appeal 2903 Lincoln.
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Completed
Appeal of 2903‐2931 Lincoln
Dear City Council, City Manager and Staff:
According to Santa Monica regulations, policies and appropriate planning, 2903‐
2931 Lincoln, must only be allowed a height of 36 feet.
All commercial uses will be on Lincoln.
The address of record is 2903 Lincoln.
The project was initially described as “2903‐2931 Lincoln.”
CIM Group’s project combines 6‐parcels. Those parcels would measure 45 feet 8
inches above the sidewalk on Lincoln Blvd. Changing the name to a “corner lot”
does not magically change steep Ashland to an appropriate grade or neighborhood
for a massive mixed use project.
CIM Group’s plans lack steps downs toward the homes on Wilson Place and 5‐foot
upper floor setbacks / stepbacks on Lincoln, as required by SMMC.
This project would generate ~700 daily vehicle trips, many of which would require
U‐turns to exit the project and /or the LiNC median, interfering with traffic on
Lincoln Blvd., crossing the dedicated bus lane and impacting nearby residential
streets.
Why was no traffic study required by the Planning staff to determine the
safety or impact of this plan?
Did Staff value relations with the developer or development fees more than
good planning?
Item 6-A
4/24/18
36 of 113 Item 6-A
4/24/18
10
2903‐2931 Lincoln Blvd project would create unsafe traffic conditions. It is almost
10 feet too tall. It looms over adjacent homes and over Lincoln. It is not compatible
with the rest of the neighborhood.
Please support the appeal of the 2903‐2931 Lincoln Blvd. project.
Thank you.
Taffy
Taffy Patton
Chair Residents Coalition
Item 6-A
4/24/18
37 of 113 Item 6-A
4/24/18
11
Leah Kellen
From:Karen Wise <kwise2@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, April 23, 2018 7:37 AM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Subject:City Council 4/24/18 item 6-A -- 2903 Lincoln
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Completed
Dear City Council Members:
I write in support of the housing project at 2903 Lincoln.
It’s time for us to get real about housing in Santa Monica and stop opposing every project. We need more
housing, we need more of it to be affordable, and we need to make it possible for developers to build decent
projects. Lincoln Blvd is not some pristine residential neighborhood - it’s redevelopment into a street that is
less of an eyesore, is safer and includes more housing of all kinds needs to continue.
Thank you very much.
Sincerely yours, Karen Wise
Karen Wise
2443 25th St
Santa Monica, CA 90405
kwise2@gmail.com
Item 6-A
4/24/18
38 of 113 Item 6-A
4/24/18
12
Leah Kellen
From:Faustino Garza <Faustino_Garza@msn.com>
Sent:Monday, April 23, 2018 7:02 AM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Subject:2903 Lincoln Appeal
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Completed
I and my family have owned a home and resided in Santa Monica for 30 years.
We strongly object to the proposed project on Lincoln. There is no room for this large
development or its traffic at this location. It would significantly impact the chance of an
accident at this important crossing intersection. It would significantly increase the misery
index for the neighborhood residents.
We are tired and angry with the Commission's and Council's steady approvals of oversized
apartment and commercial developments that add to traffic congestion, air and noise
pollution, accident risks and strain our city's resources (water and budget in particular).
Please start listening to the people that you are supposed to represent.
Faustino Garza
1351 Pacific Street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Item 6-A
4/24/18
39 of 113 Item 6-A
4/24/18
1
Leah Kellen
From:SUZANNE ESCOFFIER <escoffiers@mac.com>
Sent:Friday, April 20, 2018 6:11 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Appeal 2903 Lincoln Boulevard
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
Dear Planning Commission:
I am writing to voice my concern regarding project 16ENT‐0034.
Placing two large residential units on a block of Lincoln that previously had only small businesses and open hillside will
hide the natural contours of this portion of Lincoln. The buildings on the neighboring sloped blocks to the north and
south of 2903 Lincoln do not obscure the buildings as they rise up the hillside, so the proposed 4‐story development will
feel too large for the neighborhood. When I walk down Ashland to Lincoln, I will feel boxed in by the height of a 4‐story
building at the end of the street. In addition, the housing on the frying pan lot will be hidden from view behind this new
enormous development, making the other project that is still under construction far less desirable to live in. It seems a
shame to destroy what was a lovely hillside with one large development only to box it in with another large
development. I thought dense housing on Lincoln was restricted to the area near the Metro station north of the 10
freeway, according to the Lincoln plan.
I am also concerned by the density of parking planned for this single block of Lincoln Blvd. The portion of Lincoln
between Ocean Park and Ashland has had two recent pedestrian fatalities and many near misses. Increasing the number
of cars turning on and off of Lincoln will only increase the likelihood that there will be more accidents. Residents turning
right as they approach and leave their homes will take advantage of the ability to “turn right on red” and increase the
likelihood of my being hit by a car when I am crossing Ashland and Lincoln, something I do regularly.
Sincerely,
Suzanne Escoffier
714 Raymond Ave
Item 6-A
4/24/18
40 of 113 Item 6-A
4/24/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Monday, April 23, 2018 5:30 PM
To:Ted Winterer; Gleam Davis; Pam OConnor; Sue Himmelrich; Terry O’Day;
Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Tony Vazquez
Cc:Rick Cole; Katie E. Lichtig; Anuj Gupta; David Martin; councilmtgitems
Subject:FW: \ FOSP: City Council 4/24/18 item 6-A -- 2903 Lincoln appeal -- Support
Council‐
Please see the email below regarding the 2903 Lincoln Blvd. appeal.
Thank you,
Stephanie
From: Moore, Richard W [mailto:richard.moore@csun.edu]
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2018 10:00 AM
To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>
Subject: \ FOSP: City Council 4/24/18 item 6‐A ‐‐ 2903 Lincoln appeal ‐‐ Support
Dear Council Members:
I have lived in Santa Monica as both a renter and homeowner since 1979. As a resident of Sunset Park, I am
writing to endorse the analysis of the project at 2903-2931 Lincoln BLVD, from FOSP (see below). This
project is not the vision we had for "protecting neighborhoods" in the LUCE. I hope you will support the
appeal on this project.
Richard W. Moore
1723 Robson Ave.
Santa Monica, CA 90405
April 22, 2018
To: City Council
From: Board of Directors, Friends of Sunset Park
RE: 4/24/18 agenda item 6-A – Appeal of the 2903-2931 Lincoln Blvd. project -- Development
Review Permit 16ENT-0034
(April 24 agenda: https://www.smgov.net/departments/clerk/agendas.aspx)
Item 6-A
4/24/18
41 of 113 Item 6-A
4/24/18
2
The FOSP Board strongly supports the appeal of the 2903-2931 Lincoln Blvd. project.
1) Corner lots? -- The project should only be allowed 36 feet in height. But by calling a block-
long parcel combining 6 small parcels, and stretching from Ashland Avenue to Wilson Place, a
“corner lot,” the Planning Department is allowing the CIM Group to call steep Ashland Avenue the
“front” of the project. This seems absurd, since the entrances to all the commercial uses will be on
Lincoln, and the address is 2903 Lincoln. (The project was initially described as “2903-2931 Lincoln.”)
Ashland has a 12.5% slope (see Page 3 of the staff report), so allowing CIM to calculate Segmented
Average Natural Grade (SANG) from the midpoint elevation of that steep Ashland sidewalk, rather
than from the Lincoln Blvd. sidewalk, results in a building that’s labeled 36 feet in height, but actually
measures 45 feet 8 inches above the sidewalk on Lincoln Blvd.
Page 19 of the staff report talks about the “front yard elevation” as if this were a little house on the
corner of Lincoln and Ashland. It’s not a house, and there is no “front yard” – it’s a
45 foot 8 inch high mixed commercial and residential project taking up an entire block!
2) 36 feet? -- When the CIM Group did its first presentation to FOSP in 2016, the architect kept
telling us the building was 36 feet and 3 stories, even though the artist’s rendering of the Lincoln
elevation clearly showed 4 stories on the Ashland end of the building, and a height of more than 36 feet.
Since the first floor commercial space had to be 12 or 15 feet tall, to fit 3 floors of residential above
that, in the remaining 21 or 24 feet, would have meant only 7 or 8 feet from floor to floor, which is
impossible. We were put in a position of either believing the CIM Group architect, or believing
our own eyes.
3) What’s missing that’s required by the city?
a) Staff report: “Policy B25.9 encourages that new mixed-use buildings adjacent to residential
districts are contained within a prescribed building envelope that steps down toward the residential
district to maintain access to light and air.”
We don’t see step downs toward homes on Wilson Place.
b) Staff report: “LU 15.8 Building Articulation and LU 15.11 Building Façades and Step Backs: The
building’s articulation and façades provide additional setbacks and stepbacks on the upper floors and
provides a 5 foot average on the street facing façade on Lincoln consistent with SMMC 9.11.030.”
In looking at the artist rendering of the Lincoln elevation on Page 4 of the staff report, do you see
any setbacks or stepbacks on the upper floors? We don’t.
Item 6-A
4/24/18
42 of 113 Item 6-A
4/24/18
3
4) Complete plans? At the January hearing at the Planning Commission, the point was made by
a Commissioner that the project plans were incomplete. The Planning Commission approved the project
anyway.
5) A traffic study was not required? And what about the median?
We can estimate that with 151 vehicle parking space and 28 motorcycle parking spaces
(see Page 3 of the staff report), the project may generate about 700 daily vehicle trips.
Because of the median that will be constructed in front of the project as part of the LiNC, a quarter of
those trips will probably involve southbound drivers on Lincoln who will have to make a U-turn
around the median in order drive north and turn right into the underground parking. Another quarter
who are exiting the building will probably have to turn north and then make a U-turn around the
median in order to drive south on Lincoln.
Alternately, exiting drivers who want to drive south on Lincoln may turn east on substandard-width
Ashland, turn south on busy 11th, turn west on busy Marine Street, and then turn south on Lincoln Blvd.
In addition, the vehicle truck service area at the entrance to the subterranean parking will
potentially interfere with, and back up, residential and commercial car access onto Lincoln,
crossing the dedicated bus lane.
But no traffic study was required by the Planning staff to determine the safety of this plan or the
impact on nearby residential streets.
6) What about the “bus only” traffic lane in front of 2903-2931
Lincoln? According to the staff report, the applicant is “aware of the peak house bus lanes on
Lincoln.” In addition, “The applicant will be required to indicate the location of staging of equipment,
anticipated truck routes, number of trucks, and a construction period parking plan, which shall not be
permitted to use public streets.”
And yet we know, based on two years of CIM Group construction activity for 802 Ashland, as well as
the current construction activity for the 4-story apartment project on the south side of Pico between
11th and Euclid, that construction equipment has been blocking traffic lanes, and that construction
worker vehicles have been taking up on-street parking.
If no one on City staff enforces compliance with these “requirements,” what good are they?
7) HAA precludes the Planning Commission or City Council from denying a
housing development that complies with the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance.
Here we come to the problem the City Council created for residents near Lincoln Blvd. from the
freeway to the south city limit when it insisted on zoning Lincoln Blvd. South as “General
Commercial.”
Item 6-A
4/24/18
43 of 113 Item 6-A
4/24/18
4
This was done over the strong objections of the Lincoln Blvd. Task Force, which comprised
representatives from the Ocean Park Association, Friends of Sunset Park, and the Pico Neighborhood
Association.
One of the Task Force members, architect Bob Taylor, drafted a 7-page memo, which the Task Force
spent an hour discussing with the consultant who had been hired to coordinate the drafting of the
Zoning Ordinance Update. We requested that the zoning designation be “Neighborhood Commercial”
rather than “General Commercial.” After all, senior planner Peter James was simultaneously
coordinating the development of the “Lincoln Neighborhood Corridor Plan (LiNC),”designed to
make the boulevard more neighborhood friendly.
All to no avail. The Planning Department, the Planning Commission, and the City Council all felt
that they knew better than the residents what was good for the three residential neighborhoods bordered
by Lincoln Blvd. (four, if you count the Borderline Neighborhood).
If the City Council had zoned Lincoln South “Neighborhood Commercial,” residents would probably
not find themselves in this position of appealing an inappropriately large project.
8) Housing Accountability Act -- from the Supplemental Staff Report that was posted at
the last minute before the January 20, 2018 Planning Commission hearing:
1) Articulate the factual basis for making the following findings, as required by the HAA, based upon the oral or
written evidence presented at the public hearing:
“(A) The housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety
unless the project is disapproved or approved upon the condition that the project be developed at a lower
density. As used in this paragraph, a “specific, adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and
unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or
conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete.
(B) There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact identified, other than the
disapproval of the housing development project or the approval of the project upon the condition that it be
developed at a lower density.”
2) Direct staff to revise the STOA with the above referenced written findings and factual basis in support thereof
before disapproving or conditioning approval of the Project.
If the city had done a traffic study, even though it’s not “required,” the potential safety impacts of this
project would have been revealed. Apparently, the city’s Traffic and Parking Manager was not even
made aware of the 2903-2931 Lincoln Blvd. project by other Planning Department staff members
before the Planning Commission approved it.
Would this be an example of "silos" vs. 21st Century “cross-disciplinary teamwork and collaboration”?
Since the Traffic and Parking Manager is in the process, at the direction of City Council, of doing a
traffic management study for the Sunset Park neighborhood, it seems as though it would have been
logical to have him review this 2903-2931 Lincoln Blvd. project.
9) Conclusion -- The FOSP Board strongly supports the appeal of the 2903-2931 Lincoln
Blvd project. It’s just too big, it will create unsafe traffic conditions, and it is not compatible with
the rest of the neighborhood!
Item 6-A
4/24/18
44 of 113 Item 6-A
4/24/18
5
But it may become difficult for officials to come up with the “findings” required to disapprove, or
approve upon the condition that the project be developed at a lower density,as Planning staff has not
provided complete information to the Planning Commission or City Council.
Item 6-A
4/24/18
45 of 113 Item 6-A
4/24/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:mark.gorman@yahoo.com
Sent:Monday, April 23, 2018 5:59 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:April 24 Item 6A 2903 Lincoln - A Great Project for Lincoln and the Neighborhood
Exactly the kind of development we need for Lincoln.
Project will shield neighbors from Lincoln.
Preferential parking on nearby streets should be approved.
Mark Gorman
2642 2nd St
Santa Monica CA 90405
Item 6-A
4/24/18
46 of 113 Item 6-A
4/24/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Monday, April 23, 2018 6:03 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:FW: Subject: Appeal of 2903-2931 Lincoln Blvd. 16ENT-0034
From: Noma Boardmember [mailto:nomaboard@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2018 12:52 PM
To: Terry O’Day <Terry.Oday@smgov.net>; Ted Winterer <Ted.Winterer@SMGOV.NET>; Tony Vazquez
<Tony.Vazquez@SMGOV.NET>; Sue Himmelrich <Sue.Himmelrich@SMGOV.NET>; Kevin McKeown Fwd
<kevin@mckeown.net>; Pam OConnor <Pam.OConnor@SMGOV.NET>; Gleam Davis <Gleam.Davis@SMGOV.NET>; Rick
Cole <Rick.Cole@SMGOV.NET>; David Martin <David.Martin@SMGOV.NET>; Council Mailbox
<Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>
Subject: Subject: Appeal of 2903‐2931 Lincoln Blvd. 16ENT‐0034
April 23, 2018
RE: 4/24/18 agenda item 6-A – Appeal of the 2903-2931 Lincoln Blvd. project -- Development
Review Permit 16ENT-0034
The height and configuration of the project unnecessarily and damagingly impinge on the neighboring
residential homes.
The NOMA Board supports the appeal of the 2903-2931 Lincoln Blvd project. The appeal
should be granted and the project returned to Planning for adjustment that protects these homes.
The NOMA Board
smnoma.org
NOMAboard@gmail.com
Item 6-A
4/24/18
47 of 113 Item 6-A
4/24/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Monday, April 23, 2018 6:03 PM
To:Ted Winterer; Gleam Davis; Pam OConnor; Sue Himmelrich; Terry O’Day;
Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Tony Vazquez
Cc:councilmtgitems; Rick Cole; Katie E. Lichtig; Anuj Gupta; David Martin
Subject:FW: 4/24/18 item 6-A -- Visit the site and Support the Appeal for 2903 Lincoln
Council‐
Please see the email below regarding the 2903 Lincoln appeal.
Thank you,
Stephanie
From: Ann Maggio [mailto:annmaggio@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2018 12:15 PM
To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>
Subject: 4/24/18 item 6‐A ‐‐ Visit the site and Support the Appeal for 2903 Lincoln
Dear City Council,
The public would be shocked to hear that even one of you failed to visit this site before you vote on
this appeal tomorrow evening. Your vote should always include PUBLIC SAFETY before profits. This
is one of those instances where a vote to support the appeal is a vote to safeguard the public.
For those of you who think Right on Reds in the downtown is dangerous, this project that will
require u-turns on Lincoln is a death trap in the making. Go, go, go and see it for yourself. We'll
watching to see which of you took a good look at the project from all angles, studied the comments
of the FOSP, and voted for a safer public option.
Thank you,
Ann Maggio Thanawalla
"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth." - Albert Einstein
Item 6-A
4/24/18
48 of 113 Item 6-A
4/24/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Monday, April 23, 2018 6:03 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:FW: Agenda Item 6.A - Uphold the Appeal
From: Ann Maggio [mailto:annmaggio@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2018 11:31 AM
To: agendaitems@smgov.net; Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Sue Himmelrich
<Sue.Himmelrich@SMGOV.NET>; Tony Vazquez <Tony.Vazquez@SMGOV.NET>; Councilmember Kevin McKeown
<Kevin.McKeown@SMGOV.NET>; Terry O’Day <Terry.Oday@smgov.net>; Ted Winterer <Ted.Winterer@SMGOV.NET>
Cc: Clerk Mailbox <Clerk.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>
Subject: Agenda Item 6.A ‐ Uphold the Appeal
Dear City Council.
Please support the appeal. This project is too large. It exceeds our zoning code, requires U-Turns on our residential streets and is
a hazard to public safety.
Thank you,
Ann
& Sam
Thanawalla
"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth." - Albert Einstein
Item 6-A
4/24/18
49 of 113 Item 6-A
4/24/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Monday, April 23, 2018 6:06 PM
To:Ted Winterer; Gleam Davis; Pam OConnor; Sue Himmelrich; Terry O’Day;
Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Tony Vazquez
Cc:councilmtgitems; Rick Cole; Katie E. Lichtig; Anuj Gupta; David Martin
Subject:FW: once again into the breach
Council‐
Please see the email below regarding the 2903 Lincoln appeal.
Thank you,
Stephanie
From: Mike Bone [mailto:mikebone9@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2018 2:18 PM
To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>
Cc: Mike Bone <mikebone9@gmail.com>
Subject: once again into the breach
I am writing about the proposed CIM project on Lincoln just south of Ashland.
Can we at least finish one project before we start on another one???
This new project is going to be BIG. Really BIG.
How on earth will this be constructed without blocking traffic on Lincoln??? Ashland is a narrow street….too
narrow to take local traffic AND construction traffic.
There is going to be A LOT off digging that has to happen. Traffic around my home is already bad, but with
this project it will be BAD to WORSE.
How will traffic from the building be able to go south on Lincoln??
Don’t get me wrong, I want CIM to build on this lot, but does it have to be this BIG??? Have a little concern
for the current residents.
I see this project as having a MAJOR impact on my neighborhood from construction to when it is inhabited.
The residents of Ocean Park and Sunset Park are going to get screwed. Just make sure CIM kisses us, please.
Mike Bone
mikebone9@gmail.com
310 795 3231 mobile
Item 6-A
4/24/18
50 of 113 Item 6-A
4/24/18
2
“If we appear to seek the unattainable, then let it be known that we do so to avoid the unimaginable.” T. Hayden
Item 6-A
4/24/18
51 of 113 Item 6-A
4/24/18
Gerald & Anne Saldo
1004 Wilson Pl
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Re: Item 6a/2903 Lincoln Bl, 4/24/2018
Honorable Members of the Santa Monica City Council:
The Sunset Park neighborhood applauds redevelopment of Lincoln Bl - but not as currently proposed by
CIM for 2903 Lincoln Bl. The dilemma is that an existing Sunset Park neighborhood of Low-Density and
Single Family Housing sits right up against the redeveloping Lincoln Bl Transit Corridor - two opposite
ends of the development spectrum. The two districts have cooperatively co-existed here for more than
70 years because the commercial buildings on Lincoln were sparse, widely spaced, and separated from
the housing by a steep slope. The proposed 2903 Lincoln Bl project is a radical change.
We urge you NOT to approve the 2903 Lincoln Bl project as currently planned. There is no transition
between the single family homes and the new development, and there already are already traffic,
parking, and access issues in the neighborhood. Ashland Ave, 10th St, and Wilson Pl do not have alleys.
Wilson Pl and 10th St do not have parkways. All of 10th St and 1/3 of Wilson Pl are without sidewalk.
Currently, the under-construction 802 Ashland project is tightly tucked between single family homes on
Ashland Ave, 10th St, and Wilson Pl. It remains to be seen what impact that flag-lot structure will have
upon the neighborhood when it is inhabited. 2903 Lincoln is slated to be built directly abutting 802
Ashland. 2903 Lincoln is too dense to be built on the western boundary of two steep, narrow residential
streets without consideration of a buffer zone, traffic mitigation, and parking solutions.
We request that the City Council and Planning Department work with the Sunset Park neighbors and the
Developers, following the LUCE guidelines, to come up with a mutually beneficial plan for 2903 Lincoln
Bl. Sunset Park neighbors have requested that:
(1) Ashland Ave and Wilson Pl be closed east of Lincoln Bl (as previously approved in 1991),
(2) the traffic signal at Ashland Ave and Lincoln be relocated to the entrance of 2903 Lincoln, to
facilitate building ingress/egress as well as Lincoln Bl traffic flow, and
(3) Ashland Ave, 10th St, and Wilson Pl be granted 5 years of developer-funded preferential
parking (preferential parking has been previously approved for Wilson Pl).
PLEASE CONSIDER THESE POINTS BELOW FROM LUCE while reviewing the 2903 Lincoln Bl project. We
urge all parties to consider the big picture here and to work together to achieve mutually beneficial
solutions. We understand that the City absolutely must build more housing, especially on or near transit
corridors. We request that the City also uphold its promise to protect the quality of life in this
established Sunset Park neighborhood.
Thank you for your kind and thoughtful consideration.
Item 6-A
4/24/18
52 of 113 Item 6-A
4/24/18
Gerald & Anne Saldo Item 6a/2903 Lincoln Bl 4/24/18
2
Santa Monica Land Use and Circulation Element
Maintaining the character of Santa Monica while enhancing the lifestyle of all who live here.
LU1: Neighborhood Conservation. Protect, conserve and enhance the City’s diverse residential
neighborhoods to promote and maintain a high quality of life for all residents. Establish a program of
incentives and restraints to redirect intensive residential investment pressure away from existing
neighborhoods and control residential investment pressure within neighborhoods.
LU1.3 Quality of Life. Preserve neighborhood quality of life and protect neighborhoods against potential
impacts related to development, traffic, noise, air quality and encroachment of commercial activities
and establish standards that transition down the building envelope of commercial buildings adjacent to
residential properties
LU1.5 Design Compatibility. Require that new infill development be compatible with the existing scale,
mass and character of the residential neighborhood. New buildings should transition in size, height and
scale toward adjacent residential structures.
LU10.4 Discretionary Review. Require a discretionary review process with community input for projects
above the base height except for 100 percent affordable housing projects. Inclusion of community
benefits and specific findings will be required for conditional approval above the base height and
density.
LU11.1 Neighborhood Housing. Continue to support healthy, diverse neighborhoods that provide a
range of housing choices to meet the needs of the residents.
LU13: Preserve Community Identity – Preserve and enhance the City’s unique character and identity,
and support the diversity of neighborhoods, boulevards, and districts within the City
LU15: Enhance Santa Monica’s Urban Form – Encourage well-developed design that is compatible with
the neighborhoods, responds to the surrounding context, and creates a comfortable pedestrian
environment.
LU15.2 Respect Existing Residential Scale. New commercial or mixed-use buildings adjacent to
residential districts shall be contained within a prescribed building envelope designed to maintain access
to light and air and to preserve the residential character.
LU15.3 Context-Sensitive Design. Require site and building design that is context sensitive and
contributes to the City’s rich urban character.
LU15.15 Preserve Light, Air and Privacy between Commercial and Residential Properties. Buildings
that share a property line with a residentially-designated property are required to be setback at least 10
feet from the abutting residential property line. Further, to assure privacy and access to sunlight and air
for the adjacent residential use, all new buildings and additions to existing buildings shall not project,
except for permitted projections, beyond a building envelope commencing at 25 feet in height above
the property line abutting the residential property or where there is an alley abutting the residentially-
Item 6-A
4/24/18
53 of 113 Item 6-A
4/24/18
Gerald & Anne Saldo Item 6a/2903 Lincoln Bl 4/24/18
3
designated property, the centerline of the alley, and from that point, extending at a 45-degree angle
from vertical towards the interior of the site.
In 22.2 of LUCE, key issues identified in city-wide neighborhood strategy to protect and preserve the
existing neighborhood may be compromised by the currently-planned 2903 Lincoln Bl project. To wit:
Inappropriate and piecemeal development that is eroding the unique character and quality of
life in the neighborhoods
The size, scale, intensity and price of new infill development is inconsistent with surrounding
neighborhood patterns ƒ
Need for new housing to be high quality, to be compatible with existing neighborhood
development patterns, and to provide appropriate transitions in scale and height ƒ
Need for respectful transitions between commercial corridors and adjacent neighborhoods
Desire for better management of the existing parking supply and for alternative parking
solutions in residential areas with shortages ƒ
Need to reduce cut-through traffic and congestion
N1.4 Preserve and protect existing neighborhoods against potential impacts related to development:
traffic, noise, air quality and encroachment of commercial activities.
N1.6 Manage the parking system to better balance the number of vehicles in the neighborhood with
existing parking resources, including limiting the impact of visitor and employee parking from nearby
commercial areas, and using pricing policies and limiting permits to increase parking supply.
N1.7 Make new development projects of compatible scale and character with the existing
neighborhoods, providing respectful transitions to existing homes, including ground level open spaces
and appropriate building setbacks and upper-floor step backs along neighborhood streets.
N3.2 Allow small-scale retail uses in neighborhoods with a land use designation of Low-Density
Residential, Medium-Density Residential or High-Density Housing.
N3.3 Create direct and safe pedestrian and bicycle connections between residential areas and nearby
boulevards through the provision of improved walkways, greenways, plazas, bicycle trails and open
space.
N4.1 Design new development to be compatible with the existing scale, mass and character of the
residential neighborhood. New buildings should transition in size, height and scale toward adjacent
residential structures.
N4.4 Design new development or redeveloped structures in such a manner as to minimize impacts on or
disruptions to neighbors.
N4.7 Buffer residential uses, particularly those at the edges of a neighborhood from non-residential
development located along boulevards and in districts by requiring such development to step down in
size and scale toward the neighborhood.
Item 6-A
4/24/18
54 of 113 Item 6-A
4/24/18
Gerald & Anne Saldo Item 6a/2903 Lincoln Bl 4/24/18
4
N6: Ensure adequate parking availability for residents on residential streets at all times of the day.
N6.2 Prioritize neighborhoods with the greatest on-street parking scarcity for implementation of
expanded parking management options.
Sunset Park Neighborhood Vision
Sunset Park maintains its semi-suburban character and continues to provide distinct single and multi-
family housing opportunities. New or rehabilitated development, particularly on the adjacent
boulevards is sensitive to the scale and mass of existing structures and with the surrounding
neighborhood context. Character-defining features, like mature street trees, are preserved to
perpetuate the quality of Sunset Park’s outdoor environment.
SUNSET PARK NEIGHBORHOOD GOALS AND POLICIES In addition to the citywide neighborhood goals
and policies identified earlier in this section, the following goals and policies apply to the Sunset Park
neighborhood.
N13: Protect, preserve and enhance the Sunset Park residential neighborhood and ensure compatible
design.
N13.1 Develop a program to encourage the protection of existing single family and multi-family
residential properties in the Sunset Park neighborhood.
N14 Ensure adequate parking availability for residents on residential streets at all times of day.
N14.2 Expand management options for the residential parking permit district in order to increase on-
street parking availability for Sunset Park residents, as detailed in the Circulation Element. Specific
options that should be explored in Sunset Park include: ƒ Excluding new residential buildings that
provide their own parking from participating in existing residential permit programs ƒ Eliminating the
one or two hours of free parking allowed, and instead creating mechanisms for residents to easily
purchase guest permits ƒ
N15: Reduce the impacts of through traffic on residential streets.
N15.1 Strive to reduce the impacts on residential streets in Sunset Park by managing the major
boulevards and avenues so that they provide shorter travel times than parallel avenues or neighborhood
streets. Options that could be explored include: ƒ Prioritizing traffic calming treatments on residential
streets with high traffic speeds and/ or high volumes of through traffic
H5: Maintain and preserve the character and scale of the City’s existing residential neighborhoods,
including single family and multi-family areas.
H5.1 Ensure that new housing on commercial boulevards is designed to transition to adjacent existing
residential neighborhoods in a way that reflects the scale of existing adjacent residential structures.
Item 6-A
4/24/18
55 of 113 Item 6-A
4/24/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Alex Novakovich <alexnovak@verizon.net>
Sent:Monday, April 23, 2018 9:28 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Subject:Item 6-A - 2903-2931 Lincoln Blvd. appeal - Support
Dear Santa Monica City Councilmember,
The proposed building at 2903 Lincoln was approved by the planning commission without a traffic study, without
complete plans by a developer with a history of putting profits over people. There are many questionable elements of
this project that deserve a review.
I strongly urge you to support the appeal of the 2903‐2931 Lincoln Blvd. project.
Sincerely,
Alex Novakovich
2607 26th St.
Item 6-A
4/24/18
56 of 113 Item 6-A
4/24/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:T GROSSMAN <tina.grossman@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, April 23, 2018 11:55 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Subject:City Council 4/24/18 item 6-A -- 2903 Lincoln appeal
Hello Council,
I am writing to ask for the appeal of the project 2903-2931 Lincoln Blvd. I agree with each point
brought to your attention by the Board of FOSP. I am quite concerned the development as currently
conceived will significantly impact the bus lane and flow of traffic on Lincoln as well as create a
logjam backing up Ashland. Please do the right thing and direct the developer to scale back this
project.
Sincerely,
Tina Grossman
Ashland Ave 90405
Item 6-A
4/24/18
57 of 113 Item 6-A
4/24/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Esparza, Vincent <Vincent.Esparza@arnoldporter.com>
Sent:Tuesday, April 24, 2018 10:03 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Item 6A 2903 Lincoln
Importance:High
Council, I write in support of the appeal in the subject matter at hand. This project is way too for big for the
area. Calling Ashland the FRONT of the project is ridiculous. Parking and traffic is already a mess. I have to put signs on
the light post asking folks to park properly and leave room for others to park. This will be a disruption to the quality of
life in this neighborhood.
Please don’t let this project continue, sustain the appeal.
Vincent Esparza
1028 Ashland Ave.
This communication may contain information that is legally privileged, confidential or exempt from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, please note that
any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. Anyone who receives this message in error should notify the sender
immediately by telephone or by return e-mail and delete it from his or her computer.
___________________________________________
For more information about Arnold & Porter, click here:
http://www.arnoldporter.com
Item 6-A
4/24/18
58 of 113 Item 6-A
4/24/18
The Problem with 2903 Lincoln
My gripe with this project is that a stupid design flaw became irreparable imbedded—a flaw that
will injure people until the building is eventually replaced with something that makes sense for a
modern city. The City staff said they’re powerless to correct it or mitigate the damage with any
re-configurations of Lincoln control lights or crosswalks.
“HAA and Zoning made us do it this way.” is the planner’s side of the story. They weren’t allowed
to get involved, they say.
“HAA and Zoning let us do it this way.” is the developer’s side of the story. They’re very happy
they’re allowed to do avoid interference from the City in making some of their choices and
compromises.
How about writing a new story? A story line about figuring out where we’d want a blank slate to
build the housing density we’ll need. We can be working on general parameters in the
meantime. We already have pretty good lists for transportation, parks, schools, entertainment,
etc.
Good minds and good efforts generated LUCE and LiNC and other visions, but Santa Monica’s
present growth projections are above those predicted a decade or more ago. As sad as it is to
throw out good work, it is time to invent our future as we want it.
We have brainpower and imagination, along with the richest of natural resources. Tonight is an
opportunity to halt our drift into flat development. If we build the housing capacity we need with
more tightly crammed low rise sprawl, it will be a tragic error. Santa Monica is far too attractive
to keep more businesses and people from coming. We couldn’t bear being so horrible they
wouldn’t want to come.
If we thoughtfully plan out what makes sense for our future city we’ll waste fewer resources to
build things that will only be in the way of what we’ll want to build as soon as we figure it out.
2903 will not only be in the way when that time comes, it will inflict injury each day people live or
visit there. Adding only 47 apartments is not enough mitigation for the harm it will generate.
Item 6-A
4/24/18
59 of 113 Item 6-A
4/24/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Ann Maggio <annmaggio@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, April 24, 2018 11:55 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:4/24/18 item 6-A -- Visit the site and Support the Appeal for 2903 Lincoln
Dear City Council,
The public would be shocked to hear that even one of you failed to visit this site before you vote on this appeal tomorrow
evening. Your vote should always include PUBLIC SAFETY before profits. This is one of those instances where a vote to
support the appeal is a vote to safeguard the public.
For those of you who think Right on Reds in the downtown is dangerous, this project that will require u-turns on Lincoln is a
death trap in the making. Go, go, go and see it for yourself. We'll watching to see which of you took a good look
at the project from all angles, studied the comments of the FOSP, and voted for a safer public option.
Thank you,
Ann Maggio Thanawalla
"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth." - Albert Einstein
Item 6-A
4/24/18
60 of 113 Item 6-A
4/24/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Nikki Kolhoff <nhkolhoff@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, April 24, 2018 12:00 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Subject:Fw: FOSP: City Council 4/24/18 item 6-A -- 2903 Lincoln appeal -- Support
Dear City Council -
I support the appeal of 2903-2931 Lincoln Blvd. project for the reasons set forth by the Board of
FOSP below and incorporate their comments herein in their entirety.
In addition, I would like to ask:
1. Why is Planning Director, David Martin, allowed to work on this project and the related 801
Ashland project when he worked at CIM? Both of these projects are extremely unpopular with
residents and require significant deviations from our Code to the detriment of residents and the
benefit of the development. The appearance of special treatment here matters.
2. I have heard nothing but opposition from the community to this project, both because it is too large
and also because it is dangerous. I do not see this community opposition accurately reflected in the
Staff Report, which is a recurring problem. Staff has stated on the record that they do not include
information in Staff reports that does not support Staff's conclusion. That is very important in an item
such as this where specific findings must be made both for approval and appeal. Staff is limiting the
option of residents to review and present information at public hearings. This is not OK.
Please grant the appeal and reject the project.
Thanks,
Nikki Kolhoff
Santa Monica Resident
From: zinajosephs@aol.com
To: Council@smgov.net, CouncilMtgItems@smgov.net, kevin@mckeown.net, tony.vazquez@
smgov.net, gleam.davis@smgov.net, sue.himmelrich@smgov.net, pam.oconnor@smgov.net,
terry.oday@smgov.net, ted.winterer@smgov.net
Sent: 4/22/2018 7:19:55 PM Pacific Standard Time
Subject: City Council 4/24/18 item 6-A -- 2903 Lincoln appeal -- Support
April 22, 2018
To: City Council
From: Board of Directors, Friends of Sunset Park
Item 6-A
4/24/18
61 of 113 Item 6-A
4/24/18
2
RE: 4/24/18 agenda item 6-A – Appeal of the 2903-2931 Lincoln Blvd. project -- Development
Review Permit 16ENT-0034
(April 24 agenda: https://www.smgov.net/departments/clerk/agendas.aspx)
The FOSP Board strongly supports the appeal of the 2903-2931 Lincoln Blvd. project.
1) Corner lots? -- The project should only be allowed 36 feet in height. But by calling a block-
long parcel combining 6 small parcels, and stretching from Ashland Avenue to Wilson Place, a
“corner lot,” the Planning Department is allowing the CIM Group to call steep Ashland Avenue the
“front” of the project. This seems absurd, since the entrances to all the commercial uses will be on
Lincoln, and the address is 2903 Lincoln. (The project was initially described as “2903-2931 Lincoln.”)
Ashland has a 12.5% slope (see Page 3 of the staff report), so allowing CIM to calculate Segmented
Average Natural Grade (SANG) from the midpoint elevation of that steep Ashland sidewalk, rather
than from the Lincoln Blvd. sidewalk, results in a building that’s labeled 36 feet in height, but actually
measures 45 feet 8 inches above the sidewalk on Lincoln Blvd.
Page 19 of the staff report talks about the “front yard elevation” as if this were a little house on the
corner of Lincoln and Ashland. It’s not a house, and there is no “front yard” – it’s a
45 foot 8 inch high mixed commercial and residential project taking up an entire block!
2) 36 feet? -- When the CIM Group did its first presentation to FOSP in 2016, the architect kept
telling us the building was 36 feet and 3 stories, even though the artist’s rendering of the Lincoln
elevation clearly showed 4 stories on the Ashland end of the building, and a height of more than 36 feet.
Since the first floor commercial space had to be 12 or 15 feet tall, to fit 3 floors of residential above
that, in the remaining 21 or 24 feet, would have meant only 7 or 8 feet from floor to floor, which is
impossible. We were put in a position of either believing the CIM Group architect, or believing
our own eyes.
3) What’s missing that’s required by the city?
a) Staff report: “Policy B25.9 encourages that new mixed-use buildings adjacent to residential
districts are contained within a prescribed building envelope that steps down toward the residential
district to maintain access to light and air.”
We don’t see step downs toward homes on Wilson Place.
b) Staff report: “LU 15.8 Building Articulation and LU 15.11 Building Façades and Step Backs: The
building’s articulation and façades provide additional setbacks and stepbacks on the upper floors and
provides a 5 foot average on the street facing façade on Lincoln consistent with SMMC 9.11.030.”
Item 6-A
4/24/18
62 of 113 Item 6-A
4/24/18
3
In looking at the artist rendering of the Lincoln elevation on Page 4 of the staff report, do you see
any setbacks or stepbacks on the upper floors? We don’t.
4) Complete plans? At the January hearing at the Planning Commission, the point was made by
a Commissioner that the project plans were incomplete. The Planning Commission approved the project
anyway.
5) A traffic study was not required? And what about the median?
We can estimate that with 151 vehicle parking space and 28 motorcycle parking spaces
(see Page 3 of the staff report), the project may generate about 700 daily vehicle trips.
Because of the median that will be constructed in front of the project as part of the LiNC, a quarter of
those trips will probably involve southbound drivers on Lincoln who will have to make a U-turn
around the median in order drive north and turn right into the underground parking. Another quarter
who are exiting the building will probably have to turn north and then make a U-turn around the
median in order to drive south on Lincoln.
Alternately, exiting drivers who want to drive south on Lincoln may turn east on substandard-width
Ashland, turn south on busy 11th, turn west on busy Marine Street, and then turn south on Lincoln Blvd.
In addition, the vehicle truck service area at the entrance to the subterranean parking will
potentially interfere with, and back up, residential and commercial car access onto Lincoln,
crossing the dedicated bus lane.
But no traffic study was required by the Planning staff to determine the safety of this plan or the
impact on nearby residential streets.
6) What about the “bus only” traffic lane in front of 2903-2931
Lincoln? According to the staff report, the applicant is “aware of the peak house bus lanes on
Lincoln.” In addition, “The applicant will be required to indicate the location of staging of equipment,
anticipated truck routes, number of trucks, and a construction period parking plan, which shall not be
permitted to use public streets.”
And yet we know, based on two years of CIM Group construction activity for 802 Ashland, as well as
the current construction activity for the 4-story apartment project on the south side of Pico between
11th and Euclid, that construction equipment has been blocking traffic lanes, and that construction
worker vehicles have been taking up on-street parking.
If no one on City staff enforces compliance with these “requirements,” what good are they?
7) HAA precludes the Planning Commission or City Council from denying a
housing development that complies with the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance.
Item 6-A
4/24/18
63 of 113 Item 6-A
4/24/18
4
Here we come to the problem the City Council created for residents near Lincoln Blvd. from the
freeway to the south city limit when it insisted on zoning Lincoln Blvd. South as “General
Commercial.”
This was done over the strong objections of the Lincoln Blvd. Task Force, which comprised
representatives from the Ocean Park Association, Friends of Sunset Park, and the Pico Neighborhood
Association.
One of the Task Force members, architect Bob Taylor, drafted a 7-page memo, which the Task Force
spent an hour discussing with the consultant who had been hired to coordinate the drafting of the
Zoning Ordinance Update. We requested that the zoning designation be “Neighborhood Commercial”
rather than “General Commercial.” After all, senior planner Peter James was simultaneously
coordinating the development of the “Lincoln Neighborhood Corridor Plan (LiNC),”designed to
make the boulevard more neighborhood friendly.
All to no avail. The Planning Department, the Planning Commission, and the City Council all felt
that they knew better than the residents what was good for the three residential neighborhoods bordered
by Lincoln Blvd. (four, if you count the Borderline Neighborhood).
If the City Council had zoned Lincoln South “Neighborhood Commercial,” residents would probably
not find themselves in this position of appealing an inappropriately large project.
8) Housing Accountability Act -- from the Supplemental Staff Report that was posted at
the last minute before the January 20, 2018 Planning Commission hearing:
1) Articulate the factual basis for making the following findings, as required by the HAA, based upon the oral or
written evidence presented at the public hearing:
“(A) The housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety
unless the project is disapproved or approved upon the condition that the project be developed at a lower
density. As used in this paragraph, a “specific, adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and
unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or
conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete.
(B) There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact identified, other than the
disapproval of the housing development project or the approval of the project upon the condition that it be
developed at a lower density.”
2) Direct staff to revise the STOA with the above referenced written findings and factual basis in support thereof
before disapproving or conditioning approval of the Project.
If the city had done a traffic study, even though it’s not “required,” the potential safety impacts of this
project would have been revealed. Apparently, the city’s Traffic and Parking Manager was not even
made aware of the 2903-2931 Lincoln Blvd. project by other Planning Department staff members
before the Planning Commission approved it.
Would this be an example of "silos" vs. 21st Century “cross-disciplinary teamwork and collaboration”?
Since the Traffic and Parking Manager is in the process, at the direction of City Council, of doing a
traffic management study for the Sunset Park neighborhood, it seems as though it would have been
logical to have him review this 2903-2931 Lincoln Blvd. project.
Item 6-A
4/24/18
64 of 113 Item 6-A
4/24/18
5
9) Conclusion -- The FOSP Board strongly supports the appeal of the 2903-2931 Lincoln
Blvd project. It’s just too big, it will create unsafe traffic conditions, and it is not compatible with
the rest of the neighborhood!
But it may become difficult for officials to come up with the “findings” required to disapprove, or
approve upon the condition that the project be developed at a lower density,as Planning staff has not
provided complete information to the Planning Commission or City Council.
Item 6-A
4/24/18
65 of 113 Item 6-A
4/24/18
Item 6-A
4/24/18
66 of 113 Item 6-A
4/24/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Kerry Riddle <kerry@riddleinc.com>
Sent:Tuesday, April 24, 2018 12:38 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Item 6A, 04/24/2018, Appeal of 2903 Lincoln Blvd
Say NO to this project.
Please protect our quality of life in Santa Monica.
The project is oversized and will do great harm to the neighborhood.
The picture below is the result of the approval of their adjacent project.
Kerry Riddle
819 Wilson Place
Santa Monica, CA 90405
310 721‐5126
Item 6-A
4/24/18
67 of 113 Item 6-A
4/24/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Ted Kahan <tkahan@alagemcapital.com>
Sent:Tuesday, April 24, 2018 1:40 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:April 24, 2018 Council Agenda Item 6A - 2903 Lincoln Blvd
Honorable Council Members and Staff:
I am writing in support of the proposed project located at 2903 Lincoln Boulevard. As a 25‐year resident of
Sunset Park, I am well aware of the condition and needs of Lincoln Boulevard. This has long been a subject of
discussion in our community.
The proposed project meets all the objective marks. As the Planning Commission noted in its approval of the
project, the project is consistent with LUCE, it is consistent with the Lincoln Blvd. Specific Plan, it is consistent
with the City’s updated Zoning ordinance and importantly provides critically needed affordable housing units
and pedestrian retail uses to our neighborhood. In short, the applicant has fully addressed all of the City’s
requirements and standards. So much so that pursuant to the State’s Housing Accountability Act, the project
should be approved without delay.
This is exactly the kind of investment we should be encouraging on Lincoln Boulevard. My wife Amy joins me
in urging you to approve this project as soon as possible.
Thank you.
Ted Kahan
1129 Maple Street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Item 6-A
4/24/18
68 of 113 Item 6-A
4/24/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Elizabeth Van Denburgh <emvandenburgh@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, April 24, 2018 1:40 PM
To:Ted Winterer; Gleam Davis; Pam OConnor; Sue Himmelrich; Tony Vazquez;
Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Terry O’Day; councilmtgitems
Cc:Deborah Roetman; Jim Pickrell; Kate Bransfield; betzi richardson; Rosemary Sostarich;
John C Smith; Reinhard Kargl; Edward; Laurence Eubank
Subject:City Council Meeting April 24, 2018 -- Item 6A -- 2903 Lincoln Appeal - SUPPORT
April 24, 2018
To: Mayor Winterer and City Council Members
From: Wilmont Board of Directors
RE: 4/24/18 agenda item 6‐A – Appeal of the 2903‐2931 Lincoln Blvd. project ‐‐ Development Review Permit
16ENT‐0034
The Wilmont Board strongly supports the appeal of the 2903 Lincoln Blvd. project due to concerns about
massing and traffic safety.
The project should only be allowed to be 36 feet in height.
By calling a block‐long parcel combining 6 small parcels, and stretching from Ashland Avenue
to Wilson Place, a “corner lot,” the Planning Department is allowing the CIM Group to call steep
Ashland Avenue the “front” of the project. This seems absurd, since the entrances to all the
commercial uses will be on Lincoln, and the address is 2903 Lincoln. (The project was initially
described as “2903‐2931 Lincoln.”)
Ashland has a 12.5% slope (see Page 3 of the staff report), so allowing CIM to calculate
Segmented Average Natural Grade (SANG) from the midpoint elevation of that steep Ashland
sidewalk, rather than from the Lincoln Blvd. sidewalk, results in a building that’s labeled 36 feet in
height, but actually measures 45 feet 8 inches above the sidewalk on Lincoln Blvd.
Page 19 of the staff report talks about the “front yard elevation” as if this were a little house
on the corner of Lincoln and Ashland. It’s not a house, and there is no “front yard” – it’s a 45 foot 8
inch high mixed commercial and residential project taking up an entire block.
What’s missing that’s required by the city?
Staff report: “Policy B25.9 encourages that new mixed‐use buildings adjacent to residential
districts are contained within a prescribed building envelope that steps down towards the
residential district to maintain access to light and air.” There is no step down towards homes on
Wilson Place.
Staff report: “LU 15.8 Building Articulation and LU 15.11 Building Façades and Step Backs: The
building’s articulation and façades provide additional setbacks and step backs on the upper floors
and provides a 5 foot average on the street facing façade on Lincoln consistent with SMMC
9.11.030.” In looking at the artist rendering of the Lincoln elevation on Page 4 of the staff report, we
don’t see any setbacks or step backs on the upper floors.
At the January hearing at the Planning Commission, the point was made by a Commissioner that
the project plans were incomplete. The Planning Commission approved the project anyway.
Item 6-A
4/24/18
69 of 113 Item 6-A
4/24/18
2
A traffic study was not required? And what about the median? It has been estimated that with
151 vehicle parking space and 28 motorcycle parking spaces (see Page 3 of the staff report), the
project may generate about 700 daily vehicle trips. Because of the median that will be constructed
in front of the project as part of LiNC, a quarter of those trips will probably involve southbound
drivers on Lincoln who will have to make a U‐turn around the median in order drive north and turn
right into the underground parking. Another quarter who are exiting the building will probably have
to turn north and then make a U‐turn around the median in order to drive south on
Lincoln. Alternately, exiting drivers who want to drive south on Lincoln may turn east on
substandard‐width Ashland, turn south on busy 11th, turn west on busy Marine Street, and then
turn south on Lincoln Blvd. In addition, the vehicle truck service area at the entrance to the
subterranean parking will potentially interfere with, and back up, residential and commercial car
access onto Lincoln, crossing the dedicated bus lane. No traffic study was required by the Planning
staff to determine the safety of this plan or the impact on nearby residential streets.
What about the “bus only” traffic lane in front of 2903‐2931 Lincoln? According to the staff
report, the applicant is “aware of the peak house bus lanes on Lincoln.” In addition, “The applicant
will be required to indicate the location of staging of equipment, anticipated truck routes, number of
trucks, and a construction period parking plan, which shall not be permitted to use public
streets.” Based on two years of CIM Group construction activity for 802 Ashland, Friends of Sunset
Park have reported that the current construction activity for the 4‐story apartment project on the
south side of Pico between 11th and Euclid, has had construction equipment blocking traffic lanes,
and construction worker vehicles have been taking up on‐street parking.
Issue Caused by Zoning Lincoln Boulevard South as General Commercial instead of Neighborhood Commercial
A significant issue was created for residents near Lincoln Blvd. from the freeway to the south city
limit when the City zoned Lincoln Blvd. South as “General Commercial.” This was done over the strong
objections of the Lincoln Blvd. Task Force, which comprised representatives from the Ocean Park
Association, Friends of Sunset Park, and the Pico Neighborhood Association.
o One of the Task Force members, architect Bob Taylor, drafted a 7‐page memo, which the
Task Force spent an hour discussing with the consultant who had been hired to coordinate the
drafting of the Zoning Ordinance Update. We requested that the zoning designation be
“Neighborhood Commercial” rather than “General Commercial.” After all, senior planner Peter
James was simultaneously coordinating the development of the “Lincoln Neighborhood
Corridor Plan (LiNC),”designed to make the boulevard more neighborhood friendly. This did not
happen when the City zoned Lincoln South General Commercial. The three neighborhoods
bordered by Lincoln (Pico, FOSP and OPA) were denied the Neighborhood Commercial zoning.
Proposed Next Steps
Direct staff to revise the STOA with the above written findings and factual basis in support thereof
before disapproving or conditioning approval of the Project which in our opinion have “specific,
adverse impact” on public safety, conditions and health. Or delay a decision on project until the City
has completed its traffic study to quantify the potential safety impacts of this project. The city’s Traffic
and Parking Manager was not even made aware of the 2903‐2931 Lincoln Blvd. project by other
Planning Department staff members before the Planning Commission approved it.
o Since the Traffic and Parking Manager is in the process, at the direction of City Council, of
doing a traffic management study for the Sunset Park neighborhood, it seems as though it
would have been logical to have him review this 2903‐2931 Lincoln Blvd. project.
The Wilmont Board strongly supports the appeal of the 2903‐2931 Lincoln Blvd project. April 22, 2018
Item 6-A
4/24/18
70 of 113 Item 6-A
4/24/18
3
To: Mayor Winterer and City Council Members
From: Wilmont Board of Directors
RE: 4/24/18 agenda item 6‐A – Appeal of the 2903‐2931 Lincoln Blvd. project ‐‐ Development Review Permit
16ENT‐0034
The Wilmont Board strongly supports the appeal of the 2903‐2931 Lincoln Blvd. project.
The project should only be allowed to be 36 feet in height.
By calling a block‐long parcel combining 6 small parcels, and stretching from Ashland Avenue
to Wilson Place, a “corner lot,” the Planning Department is allowing the CIM Group to call steep
Ashland Avenue the “front” of the project. This seems absurd, since the entrances to all the
commercial uses will be on Lincoln, and the address is 2903 Lincoln. (The project was initially
described as “2903‐2931 Lincoln.”)
Ashland has a 12.5% slope (see Page 3 of the staff report), so allowing CIM to calculate
Segmented Average Natural Grade (SANG) from the midpoint elevation of that steep Ashland
sidewalk, rather than from the Lincoln Blvd. sidewalk, results in a building that’s labeled 36 feet in
height, but actually measures 45 feet 8 inches above the sidewalk on Lincoln Blvd.
Page 19 of the staff report talks about the “front yard elevation” as if this were a little house
on the corner of Lincoln and Ashland. It’s not a house, and there is no “front yard” – it’s a 45 foot 8
inch high mixed commercial and residential project taking up an entire block.
What’s missing that’s required by the city?
Staff report: “Policy B25.9 encourages that new mixed‐use buildings adjacent to residential
districts are contained within a prescribed building envelope that steps down towards the
residential district to maintain access to light and air.” There is no step down towards homes on
Wilson Place.
Staff report: “LU 15.8 Building Articulation and LU 15.11 Building Façades and Step Backs: The
building’s articulation and façades provide additional setbacks and step backs on the upper floors
and provides a 5 foot average on the street facing façade on Lincoln consistent with SMMC
9.11.030.” In looking at the artist rendering of the Lincoln elevation on Page 4 of the staff report, we
don’t see any setbacks or step backs on the upper floors.
At the January hearing at the Planning Commission, the point was made by a Commissioner that
the project plans were incomplete. The Planning Commission approved the project anyway.
A traffic study was not required? And what about the median? It has been estimated that with
151 vehicle parking space and 28 motorcycle parking spaces (see Page 3 of the staff report), the
project may generate about 700 daily vehicle trips. Because of the median that will be constructed
in front of the project as part of LiNC, a quarter of those trips will probably involve southbound
drivers on Lincoln who will have to make a U‐turn around the median in order drive north and turn
right into the underground parking. Another quarter who are exiting the building will probably have
to turn north and then make a U‐turn around the median in order to drive south on
Lincoln. Alternately, exiting drivers who want to drive south on Lincoln may turn east on
substandard‐width Ashland, turn south on busy 11th, turn west on busy Marine Street, and then
turn south on Lincoln Blvd. In addition, the vehicle truck service area at the entrance to the
subterranean parking will potentially interfere with, and back up, residential and commercial car
access onto Lincoln, crossing the dedicated bus lane. No traffic study was required by the Planning
staff to determine the safety of this plan or the impact on nearby residential streets.
Item 6-A
4/24/18
71 of 113 Item 6-A
4/24/18
4
What about the “bus only” traffic lane in front of 2903‐2931 Lincoln? According to the staff
report, the applicant is “aware of the peak house bus lanes on Lincoln.” In addition, “The applicant
will be required to indicate the location of staging of equipment, anticipated truck routes, number of
trucks, and a construction period parking plan, which shall not be permitted to use public
streets.” Based on two years of CIM Group construction activity for 802 Ashland, Friends of Sunset
Park have reported that the current construction activity for the 4‐story apartment project on the
south side of Pico between 11th and Euclid, has had construction equipment blocking traffic lanes,
and construction worker vehicles have been taking up on‐street parking.
Issue Caused by Zoning Lincoln Boulevard South as General Commercial instead of Neighborhood Commercial
A significant issue was created for residents near Lincoln Blvd. from the freeway to the south city
limit when the City zoned Lincoln Blvd. South as “General Commercial.” This was done over the strong
objections of the Lincoln Blvd. Task Force, which comprised representatives from the Ocean Park
Association, Friends of Sunset Park, and the Pico Neighborhood Association.
o One of the Task Force members, architect Bob Taylor, drafted a 7‐page memo, which the
Task Force spent an hour discussing with the consultant who had been hired to coordinate the
drafting of the Zoning Ordinance Update. We requested that the zoning designation be
“Neighborhood Commercial” rather than “General Commercial.” After all, senior planner Peter
James was simultaneously coordinating the development of the “Lincoln Neighborhood
Corridor Plan (LiNC),”designed to make the boulevard more neighborhood friendly. This did not
happen when the City zoned Lincoln South General Commercial. The three neighborhoods
bordered by Lincoln (Pico, FOSP and OPA) were denied the Neighborhood Commercial zoning.
Proposed Next Steps
Direct staff to revise the STOA with the above written findings and factual basis in support thereof
before disapproving or conditioning approval of the Project which in our opinion have “specific,
adverse impact” on public safety, conditions and health. Or delay a decision on project until the City
has completed its traffic study to quantify the potential safety impacts of this project. The city’s Traffic
and Parking Manager was not even made aware of the 2903‐2931 Lincoln Blvd. project by other
Planning Department staff members before the Planning Commission approved it.
o Since the Traffic and Parking Manager is in the process, at the direction of City Council, of
doing a traffic management study for the Sunset Park neighborhood, it seems as though it
would have been logical to have him review this 2903‐2931 Lincoln Blvd. project.
The Wilmont Board strongly supports the appeal of the 2903‐2931 Lincoln Blvd project. It’s just too big, it will
create unsafe traffic conditions, and it is not compatible with the rest of the neighborhood!
It’s just too big, it will create unsafe traffic conditions, and it is not compatible with the neighborhood!
Item 6-A
4/24/18
72 of 113 Item 6-A
4/24/18
Appeal of Development Review Permit No. 16ENT-0034
Rachel Kelley, Appellant
April 22, 2018
The approval of 2903 Lincoln Blvd in its present design would have a devastating
impact in perpetuity on the southwest corner of the Sunset Park neighborhood.
Its impacts will also affect the Ocean Park neighborhood, and every commuter that
relies on Lincoln Blvd.
There may be no infill site in the city of Santa Monica that requires a more carefully
considered spot-zoning approach than the collection of parcels between Ashland Ave
and Wilson Place and fronting on Lincoln Blvd, collectively referred to here as 2903
Lincoln Blvd, 2903, or the project site. Situated between two of the steepest,
narrowest sub-standard-width streets in the city (Wilson Place presently access-
restricted off Lincoln, Ashland Ave formerly restricted westbound to Lincoln), the
project site as seen from its commercial frontage on Lincoln Blvd is over 300’ wide and
shallow in depth. There is no alley.
The historical usage since 1932 has been a few small one-story independent businesses
that typically served only several customers at a time with onsite street level parking.
All the businesses are built at the same grade as the sidewalk on Lincoln Blvd.
During the 2903 Lincoln Blvd. Development Review Permit hearing on January 10,
2018, the city attorney instructed the Planning Commission that the recent
amendment to SB 167 - Housing Accountability Act (HAA) imposed strict limitations on
the denial of a project that provides affordable housing, and that complies with local
objective zoning standards/general plan.
Regarding 2903 Lincoln Blvd, HAA doesn’t apply. The City Council can
deny/condition the project WITHOUT making the HAA findings.
Why doesn’t HAA apply? Because 2903 Lincoln Blvd does not meet objective
standards for the GC/Lincoln zoning district.
Santa Monica municipal code 9.40.050 Required Findings states that the …City Council
on appeal, shall approve or conditionally approve a Development Review Permit
application in whole or in part if all the following findings of fact can be made in an
affirmative manner:
Item 6-A
4/24/18
73 of 113 Item 6-A
4/24/18
A. The physical location, size, massing, setbacks, pedestrian orientation, and placement
of proposed structures on the site and the location of proposed uses within the project are
consistent with applicable standards and are both compatible and relate harmoniously to
surrounding sites and neighborhoods;
B. The rights-of-way can accommodate autos, bicycles, pedestrians, and multi-modal
transportation methods, including adequate parking and access;
C. The health and safety services (police, fire etc.) and public infrastructure (e.g., utilities)
are sufficient to accommodate the new development;
D. The project is generally consistent with the Municipal Code, General Plan, and any
applicable Specific Plan;
E. Based on environmental review, the proposed project has no potentially significant
environmental impacts or any potentially significant environmental impacts have been
reduced to less than significant levels because of mitigation measures incorporated in the
project or a Statement of Overriding Considerations has been adopted;
F. The project promotes the general welfare of the community;
G. The project has no unacceptable adverse effects on public health or safety…
I urge the City Council to deny this project due to non-compliance with objective
standards of our Municipal Code, namely:
1. Minimum Upper-Story step backs (5 ft.) are required above maximum first story
street wall height. The façade of 2903 Lincoln Blvd does not step back on any of
its three street frontages. The vertical planes of the structure’s street-facing
facades are maintained from ground level to the to the top of the building.
2. Tier II maximum building height, General Commercial = 36’.
2903 Lincoln Blvd is 45’8” which is nearly 10’ higher than permitted.
This project is deceptively described as “having a maximum height of 36’” in
both the Planning Report, and the STOA. At no place in the Planning
Commission Report text of January 10th, 2018 is the 45’8” height noted, nor is
there an explanation for the allowance. General Commercial Zone/Lincoln Blvd
already provides building height and FAR bonus increases to developers
providing affordable housing. Not even 100% affordable housing is permitted
over 40’ in the (Lincoln Blvd) General Commercial zone. Modifications in our
zoning ordinance do not allow anything near 10’ in additional height.
Item 6-A
4/24/18
74 of 113 Item 6-A
4/24/18
The planning department and the developer justify the height by referencing the
100% affordable/senior apartment buildings nearby (2807 Lincoln Blvd, and 815
Ashland Ave). They say that 2903 Lincoln Blvd is “consistent” with other
development in the area: a false premise. 2903 Lincoln Blvd offers only four
affordable units by comparison and therefore qualifies for no more than 36’ in
height.
3. Sloped parcel calculations are also used to justify the building’s excessive
height, but slope calculations were improperly used on the site. The staff report
acknowledges the east/west slope is 12.5%. 9.04.050 Measuring Height in our
code requires that the steep side yard (east/west) slope (greater than 10% than
the front to rear yard slope) should factor in the grade calculations; but the
survey data provided with the plans is incomplete. The elevations are missing
for the center property which would prove the steep east/west side yard slope
(see plan Survey, pg. A3). Our development standards work when they are
properly applied. Instead of the slope naturally allowing the building to follow
the form of the hillside by stepping down along it to a maximum height of 36’ at
the street frontage, it has been used to hide the 45’8” total building height on
the northeast corner.
Fig. 1- As represented in plans.
Item 6-A
4/24/18
75 of 113 Item 6-A
4/24/18
The rear northeast corner of the building appears to be built atop the sloping
grade on page 19 of the plans document which shows an above grade height of
30’5”, but an additional 15’ is obscured by the slope.
Fig. 2-What is not shown in the plans.
The 2903 commercial ground floor maintains its sidewalk level going east from
Lincoln and Ashland, effectively burying the building into the hillside. This
creates yet an additional density bonus for the developer.
4. 9.04.050 Measuring Height - Height shall be the vertical distance from the
highest point of any structure to the ground level directly below….
5. 9.21.110 Projections into Required Setbacks – The loading pier is partially
constructed in the east side yard setback. It is not one of the allowed
encroachments and is not a parking access exception.
6. Driveway- 9.28.070 Location of Parking: …Entrances to off-street parking and
loading should be located on a non-primary façade, except as described below.
Where a parcel contains more than 1 street frontage, the parking entrance
should be located on the secondary street or alley. All efforts should be made to
eliminate the impacts of parking entrances on main thoroughfares and transit-
oriented streets. With no traffic study for the project, staff can not make a
claim of having made “all efforts….”.
Item 6-A
4/24/18
76 of 113 Item 6-A
4/24/18
7. 9.21.060 Height Exceptions/Aggregate Coverage - 36+ rooftop mechanical units
serving the entire development exceed 25% roof coverage and are all located in
front of an R1 single-family residence on Wilson Place.
8. A large transformer is relegated to street frontage (Wilson Pl.) which places the
nuisance of proximity to mechanical/utility on the same R1 single-family
residence (see item 5.).
9. Solar - All new (…) buildings are required to install a solar electric photovoltaic
(PV) system. The required installation of the PV system shall be implemented by
installing a solar PV system with a minimum total wattage 2.0 times the square
footage of the building footprint (2.0 watts per square foot).
The project proposal fails again by only suggesting compliance with local law.
Writing “area for future solar” on building plans does not infer conformity.
Perhaps the developer is reluctant to show the permitted additional height this
will add to the building making it over 50’ tall as measured from the ground level
street frontage.
I urge the City Council to deny this project due to profoundly unavoidable and
unacceptable adverse effects on public health/safety, namely:
Commercial traffic through residential neighborhoods, infrastructure, access -
Ashland Ave is 28’ wide. It presently serves as the de facto “rear entrance” and
free parking for SMC most weekdays. A letter (see attachment) that I sent to
then traffic engineer Sam Morrissey in 2014 has never been acknowledged much
less addressed by city staff. It describes the street in detail outlining the hazards
and conditions.
Once the approved medians are implemented per the LiNC, entrance into 2903
Lincoln Blvd for all southbound Lincoln commercial and residential traffic will be
faced with either a difficult U-turn or be forced through our neighborhood
streets to access the site. Any deliveries, supply trucks, service vehicles, etc.
needing to turn left from the building for southbound Lincoln will be faced with
the same dilemma. With the increasing log jam that is Lincoln at peak hours, it’s
Item 6-A
4/24/18
77 of 113 Item 6-A
4/24/18
easy to see which route will seem to provide the least resistance, i.e., using
neighborhood residential streets.
a. During the architectural review of 2919 Lincoln/802 Ashland in 2014, the
ARB board members repeatedly expressed concerns about the
conditions present on little, steep Ashland Ave.
b. During the Development Review Permit hearing for 2903 in January 2018,
Planning Commissioners almost unanimously expressed concerns about
the impacts the 2903 Lincoln Blvd. project bring to Ashland, Wilson Pl.,
and 11th Street. They wanted to condition the project to protect
neighbors but were told it was not within their purview. It is within the
purview of our traffic engineer, Henry Servin; but his expertise and
determinations are absent from this proposal. There is no traffic study
for this project.
c. There is a preponderance of evidence in the public record regarding the
unsafe and difficult conditions on Ashland Ave. and Wilson Pl. since at
least 1991. Both were subject to an earlier settlement with the City and
neighbors to restrict access to cut-through traffic. While Wilson retained
partial restriction, Ashland, unfortunately, had its restriction removed.
d. Legal precedent exists regarding neighborhood traffic and the relevance of
testimonial evidence from the residents who live there. The California
Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 3 ruled that a project’s falling
below a threshold of significance “does not relieve a public agency of the
duty to consider the evidence under the fair argument standard.” In this
case, that evidence included testimony from residents regarding conflicts
between motorists, [….] and pedestrians:
“In light of the public comments and absent more careful consideration
of city engineers and planners, the evidence supports a fair argument…”
-Mejia v. City of Los Angeles (2005) 130 Cal. App. 4th 322.
Item 6-A
4/24/18
78 of 113 Item 6-A
4/24/18
• Traffic on Lincoln - HAA conditions do not require consideration of plans that are
not realized (such as the LiNC) at the time of a proposed development’s permit
application/approval. The problems here are legion:
• The vehicle truck service area at the entrance to the subterranean
parking will potentially interfere with and backup residential and
commercial car access onto Lincoln, crossing the dedicated bus lane.
• 3+ lost years of northbound “bus only” lanes due to construction.
• Traffic flow clogging U-turns on Lincoln Blvd. due to LiNC median blockage
of southbound ingress/egress to 2903.
The City Council recently voted to restrict the size and lot coverage of new
construction in the R1 zoning district. The General Commercial zone could use the
same diet. In the face of these recent restrictions imposed on single-family residences,
the permissiveness being shown the CIM Group appears to be a double standard.
At the January 10th, 2018 hearing, one Planning Commissioner noted that the
Commission was not used to developers appearing before them with incomplete
plans. How can staff guarantee a project’s safety or appropriateness to the
surrounding residential neighborhoods with incomplete plans? I’ll spare you the
lecture of why we have laws. Surely our city staff doesn’t intend to enforce them
arbitrarily?
Conclusion
I have shown how 2903 Lincoln Blvd exceeds the restrictions of our local zoning and
places an extraordinary burden on our neighborhood. After enduring almost two years
of construction impacts from the CIM Group’s adjacent 802 Ashland/2919 Lincoln
project, why wouldn’t the planning staff work to protect the neighborhood from an
excessive and unnecessary additional construction burden created by not enforcing
development standards?
Approving this project is a slippery slope because of the precedent it sets for future
developments throughout the city. It telegraphs to developers that our zoning
ordinance doesn’t really apply to them; and to residents that their well-being and
safety don’t matter. Approving this project that has been untethered by local law,
sketchy and incomplete on detail, deceptive in scale and inadequately studied for
traffic is untenable. The residents of Santa Monica deserve better accountability from
the Planning Department and Planning Commission appointees.
Item 6-A
4/24/18
79 of 113 Item 6-A
4/24/18
Thank you for your thoughtful consideration,
Rachel Kelley
Item 6-A
4/24/18
80 of 113 Item 6-A
4/24/18
Stepbacks
Ask anyone in Santa Monica who has remodeled or rebuilt their home what a
“stepback” is and the answer will invariably contain the words “wedding-cake” as
a descriptor. A review of various papers, publications, architects, cities, and
municipal codes online agree that stepbacks articulate upper stories back from
the story below like steps.
TABLE 9.11.030: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS—Commercial and MIXED-USE CORRIDOR DISTRICTS
Standard MUBL MUB
GC
(Santa
Monica
Blvd)
GC
(Lincoln
& Pico
Blvds)
NC
NC
(Main
Street)
NC
(Ocean
Park
Blvd &
Montana
Ave)
Additional Regulations
Minimum Upper-Story Stepbacks (ft.)—Required Above Maximum First Story Street Wall
Height
Street-Facing
Façades 5′ average 5′ average 5′ average 5′ average 5′ average 5′ average 5′ average
Why is a necessary definition missing from our terms and definitions page?
Article 9 PLANNING AND ZONING
Division 5: General Terms
Chapter 9.52 TERMS AND DEFINITIONS
Item 6-A
4/24/18
81 of 113 Item 6-A
4/24/18
“Required Stepbacks”, is the Santa Monica “wedding cake” zoning ordinance. As
a design element, its purpose is to reduce visual mass on facades, and to allow
more light and air circulation below. Figures 1-4 following are definitions and
examples of stepbacks.
Fig. 1
Excerpt from:
Understanding Tall Buildings: A Theory of Placemaking, By Kheir Al-Kodmany
Publisher: New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Geroup, 2017
Item 6-A
4/24/18
82 of 113 Item 6-A
4/24/18
Fig. 2
San Francisco, Santa Barbara, New York City and Jersey City agree that the progressive reduction of floor
area in subsequent stories is a stepback.
-Photograph: Luis Villa del Campo, a.k.a. luisvilla
Setback/Step-back (architecture)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is about step-like recessions in walls. For minimum distances between buildings
and the lot line, see Setback (land use).
A setback, sometimes called step-back, is a step-like recession in a wall. Setbacks were initially
used for structural reasons, but now are often mandated by land use codes, or are used for
aesthetical reasons. In densely built-up areas, setbacks also help get more daylight and fresh air
to the street level. Importantly, a setback helps lower the building's center of mass, making it
more stable. (see fig. 3).
Item 6-A
4/24/18
83 of 113 Item 6-A
4/24/18
Fig. 3
New York Daily News Building featuring a number of setbacks (step-backs). It was designed by
architect Raymond Hood, 1929. The 1916 Zoning Resolution of New York led to many soaring,
setbacked towers.
Designing Successful Neighborhood Squares, Part 7. Facades, setbacks and stepbacks
-By Suzanne H. Crowhurst Lennard
Stepbacks:
If buildings are taller [….], they should step back [….] to reduce scale and increase
light in the square. This [….] is helpful for two reasons: keeping the tops of the
buildings within normal sight lines for someone in the middle of the square; and
allowing sunlight on the square.
Excerpt from:
https://www.livablecities.org/blog/designing-successful-neighborhood-squares-part-7-facades-setbacks-
and-stepbacks
Item 6-A
4/24/18
84 of 113 Item 6-A
4/24/18
Fig. 4
Item 6-A
4/24/18
85 of 113 Item 6-A
4/24/18
Fig. 5
All the stories of 2903 Lincoln Blvd exist on the same vertical plane as the street
level facades. There are no stepbacks to reduce mass, etc.
The 2903 Lincoln Blvd. building does not adhere to the
objective standard “stepbacks- minimum 5’” of the Santa
Monica Municipal Code for General Commercial/Lincoln Blvd.
Item 6-A
4/24/18
86 of 113 Item 6-A
4/24/18
The Slope at 2919 Lincoln Blvd
Item 6-A
4/24/18
87 of 113 Item 6-A
4/24/18
…. there has always been a steep slope.
Item 6-A
4/24/18
88 of 113 Item 6-A
4/24/18
The Survey for the Project Site
Item 6-A
4/24/18
89 of 113 Item 6-A
4/24/18
February 2008 (from Lincoln Blvd)
Item 6-A
4/24/18
90 of 113 Item 6-A
4/24/18
October 2008 (from Ashland Ave)
Item 6-A
4/24/18
91 of 113 Item 6-A
4/24/18
March 2014 (from Ashland Ave)
Item 6-A
4/24/18
92 of 113 Item 6-A
4/24/18
August 2014 (from Lincoln Blvd)
Item 6-A
4/24/18
93 of 113 Item 6-A
4/24/18
August 2014 (from Ashland Ave)
Item 6-A
4/24/18
94 of 113 Item 6-A
4/24/18
August 2015 (from Lincoln Blvd)
Item 6-A
4/24/18
95 of 113 Item 6-A
4/24/18
January 2017, deconstruction of the slope.
Item 6-A
4/24/18
96 of 113 Item 6-A
4/24/18
January 2017, deconstruction of the slope.
Item 6-A
4/24/18
97 of 113 Item 6-A
4/24/18
December 2017, what remains of the slope, which has been removed.
Item 6-A
4/24/18
98 of 113 Item 6-A
4/24/18
2015 Overhead Lincoln Pipe and the subject sites of this appeal.
Item 6-A
4/24/18
99 of 113 Item 6-A
4/24/18
Not a Part of this survey? Isn’t this also the location for the “proposed driveway”. It will be hard to build this
project if a central lot stands outside of review.
Item 6-A
4/24/18
100 of 113 Item 6-A
4/24/18
• In 2014, the CIM Group changed the name of the 802 Ashland project to 2919 Lincoln. I knew that the
change had “significance”, but I couldn’t quite figure it out at the time.
• 2919 Lincoln was simply the County Assessor’s mailing address to send the tax bill for the vacant hillside
behind the collective 2903 Lincoln Blvd sites to the former property owner, Jackie Levine at Lincoln Pipe
(2919 Lincoln Blvd). The County Assessor does not list an address even today for the vacant lot currently
under construction behind the subject property (see map below).
• The “real” 2919 property is not a part of the construction in progress behind the subject property.
• By renaming the 802 Ashland project “2919 Lincoln”, they are excluding the slope data from the calculations
for the 2903 Lincoln project. The survey provided was done prior to construction on 802 Ashland/2919
Lincoln.
• The 802 Ashland/2919 Lincoln project was permitted by the Planning Commission in April 2015. It was
formed from two lots: 802 Ashland and the large undeveloped rear lot which had no address.
• How can the 2903 Lincoln Blvd project be approved without evaluating one of the property sites on which it
will be built?
• How can they submit plans that include a site, but exclude that site from review?
Item 6-A
4/24/18
101 of 113 Item 6-A
4/24/18
The survey showing pre-2016 812 Ashland Ave encroachments (in red) which proves this survey was conducted
before construction on 802 Ashland/2919 Lincoln. The slope data exists. It will show the same slope as
evidenced by the sidewalks at Ashland Ave and Wilson Place.
Item 6-A
4/24/18
102 of 113 Item 6-A
4/24/18
2919 Lincoln is a part of the current project up for review, 2903 Lincoln Blvd.
Item 6-A
4/24/18
103 of 113 Item 6-A
4/24/18
• This project does not qualify for protections under the SB 167, HAA.
• This project cannot be reviewed as submitted.
• This project does not meet objective standards as outlined in the SMMC.
• Deny this project.
Item 6-A
4/24/18
104 of 113 Item 6-A
4/24/18
Verizon Message Center
T uesday, May 27 at 4:15 PM
From:rachelkelley@verizon.net
To:sam.morrissey@smgov.net
Subject:802 Ashland Ave proposed 10-unit MF development
Dear Mr. Morrissey,
I am writing you concerning the proposed Multi-Family development project known as 802 Ashland
Ave which features a 10-unit building with 20 parking spaces provided for tenants. This project is
currently scheduled for a 3rd review by the A.R.B. at the June 2nd meeting.
A group of concerned neighbors has repeatedly spoken out and/or emailed the city about the
additional burden to traffic and parking a development of this size will bring to our already congested
neighborhood. We do not feel the city is listening.
As a 19 year resident of 10th and Ashland, who daily experiences the increasingly difficult matter of
getting in and out of my neighborhood, I feel I am especially qualified to voice these very real and
reasonable concerns.
I would like to know what studies have been done by the city (cameras, trip metering, etc.) to satisfy
the City's ministerial claim that there will be no significant impact imposed on our neighborhood by
this development. It will add at minimum 20 additional cars/residents, and their subsequent visitors to
a substandard street that has been seemingly designated as an appropriate east/westbound route for
cars and bikes by the traffic light on Lincoln, and the recently added sharrows. Oddly, Hill St north of
Ashland is much wider, and could more readily manage two-way traffic as well as bike lanes, yet it is
relatively unused, as well as unmarked.
Some facts of the project as it relates to traffic and Ashland Ave are the following:
The proposed driveway for 802 Ashland is only feet away from Lincoln Blvd, a major arterial highway.
Ashland Ave is a substandard street -only 29-feet-wide at the 802 driveway access.
The driveway for 802 Ashland will be the only ingress/egress to the property for bikes, pedestrians and
for the 20 cars that the 10 unit development provides parking spaces for.
The 802 Ashland driveway is almost directly across the street from parking access to the 45-unit CCSM
building which houses some 90 residents.
There is a shortage of parking in the area.
There is parking on both sides of Ashland with no restrictions other than street cleaning.
Ashland has become a parking lot for Santa Monica College during the week as well, with daytime
parking on both sides consistently present up to 16th street.
There is a steep grade up from Lincoln to 10th St., and again from Glenn Ave to 14th St.
There are two blind hills on Ashland: one west of 10th, and another double-blind at Euclid Ave. Many
people (especially the SMC students) "fly" over these hills. Exiting 10th Street is often hazardous.
Verizon | MyVerizon 2.0 | Verizon Message Center - 802 Ashland Ave pro...https://mail.verizon.com/webmail/public/print.jsp?wid=vz_widget_Mail...
1 of 3 5/31/2014 3:40 PM
Item 6-A
4/24/18
105 of 113 Item 6-A
4/24/18
Ashland is essentially only wide enough for one-way traffic from Lincoln up to 16th Street where it
w idens. Cars typically must pull over and stop in one direction for the other direction to pass. Some
people just "play chicken" and zoom recklessly ahead. (I have had my collapsible mirror hit on several
occasions by larger vehicles that don't slow down to safely pass).
Ashland has furthermore been designated as a bikeway with "sharrows". There is no dedicated bike
lane, which is complicated by the steep grade, narrow width, and blind hills. Slow-climbing bicyclists
cannot be seen in some instances until the last minute.
When 2 to 3 or more cars are waiting on the light on east Ashland at the intersection of Lincoln, a log jam
is created because people trying to go east are unable to pass the westbound vehicles. The light is long,
and people turning left from Lincoln southbound may not realize that there is no way for them to go up
Ashland until the light changes. All this as the northbound Lincoln traffic rushes forward.
The city at one time (in the early 1990s) erected temporary barriers at Lincoln and Ashland to make it
one-way westbound. Similar temporary barriers at Wilson Place and Lincoln were finally made
permanent a few years ago, but Ashland was allowed to revert to 2-way traffic, and now is further
complicated with sharrows.
At peak traffic times, 11th St becomes an alternative north/south route for Lincoln, and traffic can
sometimes be jammed from Marine to Pico. (I won't leave my house, and I hope to never need
emergency services at these times).
One last item, Planning originally maintained a ministerial CEQA exemption of 15332 from Article
19. However, section 15332(d) regarding infill projects (which this project qualifies as)
requires that “Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating
to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality.” After we the concerned neighbors expressed
grave reservations about traffic flow and safety, the city abandoned that exemption for CEQA
#15061 (b) 3, but one should also read #2:
15061. REVIEW FOR EXEMPTION
(a)Once a lead agency has determined that an activity is a project subject to CEQA, a lead
agency shall determine whether the project is exempt from CEQA
(b) A project is exempt from CEQA if:
(2) The project is exempt pursuant to a categorical exemption (see Article 19,
commencing with Section 15300) and the application of that categorical exemption is
not barred by one of the exceptions set forth in Section 15300.2.*
(3) The activity is covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects
which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it
can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may
have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA
*15300.2 states:
If the project is truly ministerial, and no traffic issues are evident, why would the city
abandon the original exemption 15332?
Verizon | MyVerizon 2.0 | Verizon Message Center - 802 Ashland Ave pro...https://mail.verizon.com/webmail/public/print.jsp?wid=vz_widget_Mail...
2 of 3 5/31/2014 3:40 PM
Item 6-A
4/24/18
106 of 113 Item 6-A
4/24/18
Additionally, under the current 15061 exemption, the 45-unit CCSM building with its
high-density population as well as the numerous other multi-unit buildings nearby that
rely on Ashland call to question the cumulative impact of similar projects on our little
street.
Thank you for your time,
Rachel Kelley
Verizon | MyVerizon 2.0 | Verizon Message Center - 802 Ashland Ave pro...https://mail.verizon.com/webmail/public/print.jsp?wid=vz_widget_Mail...
3 of 3 5/31/2014 3:40 PM
Item 6-A
4/24/18
107 of 113 Item 6-A
4/24/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Tuesday, April 24, 2018 3:19 PM
To:Ted Winterer; Gleam Davis; Pam OConnor; Sue Himmelrich; Terry O’Day;
Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Tony Vazquez
Cc:councilmtgitems; Rick Cole; Katie E. Lichtig; Anuj Gupta; David Martin
Subject:FW: Item 6a/2903 Lincoln - Deny Project Application
Council‐
Please see the email below regarding the 2903 Lincoln appeal.
Thank you,
Stephanie
From: douglaspfay@aol.com [mailto:douglaspfay@aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2018 9:20 AM
To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>
Subject: Item 6a/2903 Lincoln ‐ Deny Project Application
Dear Santa Monica City Council and Interested Parties,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important concern. I am unable to attend this important hearing. My
father and I were born in Santa Monica, CA. My family and I have lived on Ashland Ave. since 2010. I am opposing this
development as proposed.
I have reviewed the proposed development. As proposed, the project will significantly impact our quality of life in a
negative way.
Traffic - The traffic impacts have not been adequately presented and/or mitigated. It is already completely unsafe to make
a left turn from Ashland Ave. onto northbound Lincoln Blvd. Without requiring installing a traffic signal for needed vehicle
and pedestrian safety, this project should not be approved. Requiring the installation of a traffic signal will significantly
impact the commute times and the stress levels of commuters on the already LOS F conditions on Lincoln Blvd. You
cannot mitigate further degrading the quality of life for the existing residents and commuters.
Under current conditions Ashland Ave. between Lincoln Blvd and Main Street is unsafe due to speeding commuters and
the absence of speed bumps and/or other applicable safety measures. We live in the middle of the block on Ashland Ave.
Between Highland and 7th Street. Due to the fact that this street is a straight shot between Main Street and Lincoln Blvd.,
commuter traffic and speeds have already significantly increased. From stop sign to stop sign drivers frequently
accelerate at unsafe rates of speed to unsafe speeds beyond the posted speed limit. There several children and seniors
living with and adjacent to our family. Our neighbors cat was killed by a hit and run driver who did not stop.
Installing a speed hump/bump at this location, and possibly others on Ashland Ave., should be discussed and considered
regards of project modifications or approval.
Given the size of the proposed development, the current proposed mixed residential/ retail entrance, exit, and loading
access areas are problematic. The developer appears to be maximizing profits and minimizing safety and quality of life
concerns. It is too much for this location, between the 10 Freeway and commuters in adjacent areas to the South on
Lincoln Blvd./Highway 1, which is already significantly impacted by too many vehicle trips.
Traffic impacts have not been adequately addressed. Overriding considerations do not apply and absolutely should not be
accepted and approved.
Housing - It is absolutely wrong to build residential units on a major roadway, which Lincoln Blvd./Highway 1 is. Studies
have shown that the air quality and noise impacts negatively impact the health of individuals residing at the highest levels.
Published in The Argonaut newspaper was an article on this proposed development that suggested the developer has a
history of building projects where the outcome was not consistent with what was promised when approved. Is this true?
Item 6-A
4/24/18
108 of 113 Item 6-A
4/24/18
2
What safeguards will the City Council require that absolutely guarantee the residential and retail units in the proposed will
meet or exceed the affordability needs of the existing community?
Do the local neighborhood organizations unanimously endorse or oppose this development?
We currently have a homeless crisis in Los Angeles County. Due to the fact that this problem is related to past and
present development approvals by the City Council, it is not unreasonable to require requirements for affordable units that
exceed what is currently required by law. The developer should, in good faith, agree to meet the needs of the existing
community.
It's my understanding that the developer intends on selling the project. It is unfortunate that a controversial development
proposal has made it this far into the approval process. Greed does not make communities strong, kindness and
understanding of our needs does. Please reply that you have received this email opposing this flawed development
proposal.
Respectfully submitted,
Douglas, Junalyn, Paul, and Isabella Fay
644 Ashland Ave Apt A
Santa Monica, CA 90405
email: douglaspfay@aol.com
Item 6-A
4/24/18
109 of 113 Item 6-A
4/24/18
Item 6-A
4/24/18
110 of 113 Item 6-A
4/24/18
Item 6-A
4/24/18
111 of 113 Item 6-A
4/24/18
Item 6-A
4/24/18
112 of 113 Item 6-A
4/24/18
I
t
e
m
6
-
A
4
/
2
4
/
1
8
1
1
3
o
f
1
1
3
I
t
e
m
6
-
A
4
/
2
4
/
1
8
Appeal of Planning Commission’s Approval of
Development Review Permit (16ENT-0034)
2903 Lincoln Boulevard
April 24, 2018
City Council Hearing
2903 Lincoln Boulevard
•East side of Lincoln between Ashland and Wilson
•GC (General Commercial)
•32,277SF Lot size
•Vacant auto repair buildings and a plumbing
supply store totaling approximately 7,810SF of
floor area
General Commercial Zone (GC)
•North: GC & R2 (Multi-Family Residential)
•East: R2 & R1 (Multi-Family and Single Family)
•South: GC (Restaurant)
•West: GC (Retail and Restaurant)
2903 Lincoln Boulevard
Appeal of Planning Commission Decision (16ENT-0034)
Introduction
Aerial Photo (2014)
2903 Lincoln Boulevard
Appeal of Planning Commission Decision (16ENT-0034)
Project Description
Project Information:
•4-stories (36’feet)
•59,319 total sf
•1.81 FA R
•47 residential units
–4 Units Affordable @ 30% AMI
•16,755sf ground floor commercial
•151 automobile spaces in a 2-level
subterranean garage and 82-L/T & 12-S/T
Bike Spaces
Development Review Permit required for any
project that exceeds the Tier 1 height (32) and
FA R (1.5) limits of GC district.
Project Rendering (Lincoln Boulevard elevation)
Project Site Plan
DR Permit review is De Novo and the
follow ing findings need to be made in the
affirmative
Key Findings:
•Location, size, massing, and placement of the proposed
structure on the site is appropriate and compatible with
the surrounding neighborhood;
•Location of the proposed uses within the project are
appropriate and compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood;
•Public benefits of proposed siting and design outweigh
any impacts; and
•Consistency with the Municipal Code and General Plan.
Housing Accountability Act (HAA)
•HAA restricts the City's ability to deny, reduce the density
of, or make infeasible any housing development project
that complies with the City’s Municipal Code objective
standards and criteria.
2903 Lincoln Boulevard
Appeal of Planning Commission Decision (16ENT-0034)
Standards of Review
Proposed Project Scale and Massing
November 2016
Architectural Review Board Concept
Review:
•Revise building massing and
modulation to provide visual breaks in
the building volume
•Improved pedestrian orientation along
Lincoln Boulevard
•Introduction or more materiality and
better granularity
2903 Lincoln Boulevard
Appeal of Planning Commission Decision (16ENT-0034)
Background
Streetscape Perspective-Lincoln Boulevard
Project determined to meet required
findings.
•Project consistent with the vision of the
LUCE and Zoning Ordinance for housing
projects located on Commercial
Boulevard corridors while protecting
neighborhood character
•Adds critical uses to the site and housing
is of appropriate size and scale.
Specific Design Conditions for ARB
review:
•Visual breaks in building volume
•Improved pedestrian orientation
•Improved Granularity
•Differentiation-Commercial vs.
Residential
•Revise planting areas
•Improve upper level circulation
2903 Lincoln Boulevard
Appeal of Planning Commission Decision (16ENT-0034)
Planning Commission Action –Development Review Permit
Project Rendering –Lincoln Boulevard/Wilson Place
Project Rendering-South Elevation (Wilson Place)
2903 Lincoln Boulevard
Appeal of Planning Commission Decision (16ENT-0034)
Appeal Summary
Timely appeal filed on January 24, 2018
Summary of Appeal Statement:
1)Concerns about public comment and hearing process
2)Consistency with the LUCE
3)Compliance with the Zoning Ordinance
4)Application of the Housing Accountability Act
5)Compliance with CEQA
6)Tr affic Impacts
7)Construction Impacts
8)Concerns about CIM Group
2903 Lincoln Boulevard
Appeal of Planning Commission Decision (16ENT-0034)
Appeal Analysis
#1 Public Hearing Process
•Agenda for the January 10, 2018 PC meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
•Planning Commission approved the DRP based on the required findings as well as public testimony
•Project applicant affirmed they presented the project to Neighborhood Groups:
•Friends of Sunset Park-September 15, 2016 and July 10, 2017
•Ocean Park Association-November 11, 2016 and June 12, 2017
•Received Public correspondence was after notices were sent
#2 Consistency with LUCE
•Project complies with all of the LUCE goals and policies listed by the appellant
•Staff has identified additional LUCE goals and policies in which the project is consistent and complies with
Project Rendering –Ashland Avenue
2903 Lincoln Boulevard
Appeal of Planning Commission Decision (16ENT-0034)
Appeal Analysis
Proposed Project Model –East (5th Street) Elevation
#3 Compliance with Zoning Ordinance
•Project complies with all Development Standards listed under SMMC 9.11.030 and staff has revised all
typographical errors mentioned in the appeal form as well as clarified how the zoning ordinance and standards
are interpreted and applied.
•Supplemental staff report was provided for clarification purposes and does not change any of the analysis of a
DR permit, design conditions and staff recommendation
#4 Application of the Housing Accountability Act (HAA)
•HAA is state law and precludes both the PC and Councils ability to deny, reduce the density of, or make
infeasible any housing development project that complies with the City’s Municipal Code standards and
criteria.
•Project was approved based upon its determination that it met the required findings and was consistent with
zoning and general plan standards
Project Rendering –Ashland Avenue
2903 Lincoln Boulevard
Appeal of Planning Commission Decision (16ENT-0034)
Appeal Analysis
Proposed Project Model –East (5th Street) Elevation
#5 Compliance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
•Project meets the applicable requirements of a “transit priority project” (TPP) under PRC 21155.1 and is
exempt from CEQA
•The statutory exemption for a TPP project is absolute and therefore a traffic study is not required
#6 Tr affic Impacts
•Project was fully reviewed for potential traffic impacts and will coordinate and comply with the proposed LiNC
plans
•Circulation and ingress/egress from the site
•Proposed site access off of Lincoln will help off-load traffic and minimize the impacts to both Ashland and
Wilson restricted streetscapes.
Project Rendering –Ashland Avenue
2903 Lincoln Boulevard
Appeal of Planning Commission Decision (16ENT-0034)
Appeal Analysis
Proposed Project Model –East (5th Street) Elevation
#7 Construction Impacts
•Construction Mitigation plan will be required and will provide the following:
•Equipment staging area
•Anticipated truck routes
•Number of trucks and equipment
•Construction period parking plan
•Use of Lincoln Boulevard will be prohibited
#8 Concerns about CIM Group
•Any current city employees have not worked with CIM Group in nearly 10 years and there is no financial
interest in CIM Group
•Concerns about other construction projects by the appellant are taken seriously, however, are not the subject
of this appeal. All complaints and rule violations are handled by the City’s Building and Safety Division
Project Rendering –Ashland Avenue
2903 Lincoln Boulevard
Appeal of Planning Commission Decision (16ENT-0034)
Staff Re commendation
Staff Recommendation
Approve Development Review Permit (16ENT-0034)based on the findings
and subject to the conditions described in the Draft Statement of Official
Action.
Streetscape Perspective-Lincoln Boulevard
Comments /Questions
2903 Lincoln Boulevard
Appeal of Planning Commission Decision (16ENT-0034)
2903 Lincoln Boulevard
Appeal of Planning Commission Decision (16ENT-0034)
Streetscape Perspective-Lincoln Boulevard
Ad ded Condition
Prior to the issuance of a building permit,applicant shall record an agreement
to develop the project parcels as a single building site per SMMC 9.21.030(E)
SMMC 9.28.070(B)(1):
2903 Lincoln Boulevard
Appeal of Planning Commission Decision (16ENT-0034)
2903 Lincoln Boulevard
Appeal of Planning Commission Decision (16ENT-0034)
2903 Lincoln Boulevard
Appeal of Planning Commission Decision (16ENT-0034)
2903 Lincoln Boulevard
Appeal of Planning Commission Decision (16ENT-0034)