Attachment B July 14, 2022
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING
BEFORE THE SANTA MONICA CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: 13DEV-004 (Development Agreement); 18ENT-0385 (Environmental Impact Report); 20ENT-0303 (Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan Amendment) 101 Santa Monica Boulevard, 129 Santa Monica Boulevard, 1327 Ocean Avenue, 1333 Ocean Avenue, and 1337 Ocean Avenue
APPLICANT & PROPERTY OWNER: M. David Paul Associates/Worthe Real Estate Group A public hearing will be held by the City Council to consider the following: applications for a Development Agreement and amendment to the 1992 Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan for a mixed-use project (“Ocean Avenue Project”) with the following components: a 120-room full-service hotel, 100 residential apartments (including 25 deed-restricted affordable units, 11 rent-controlled units, and 64 market-rate units), an approx. 35,500 SF Cultural Uses Campus, approx. 36,100 SF of restaurants/retail, open space including a publicly-accessible rooftop observation deck, and 285 subterranean parking spaces.
The Project proposes a total of approximately 316,750 SF (of which 243,630 SF is above grade, 4,940 SF is outdoor dining, and 68,180 SF is below grade). The Project would have a Floor Area Ratio of 2.95.
Building heights vary between 58’ and a maximum of 130’. The project includes on-site repositioning and rehabilitation of two City-designated Landmarks that would be a part of the new Cultural Uses Campus.
The Project also includes re-routing of a portion of 1st Court through the Project Site to allow for a Pedestrian Mall on the southern portion of 1st Court adjacent to Santa Monica Boulevard. The Project was analyzed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and this analysis is contained in the Project’s Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) (SCH No. 2018121060).
It is recommended that the City Council 1) Certify the FEIR for the Project; 2) Adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program in accordance with CEQA; 3) Amend the 1992 Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan for consistency with 2010 General Plan and 2017 Downtown Community Plan parameters applicable to the Project Site; and 4) Adopt an ordinance approving the Development Agreement.
DATE/TIME: THURSDAY, JULY 14, 2022 AT 6:00 PM
LOCATION: City Council Chamber, Second Floor, Santa Monica City Hall, 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, California
HOW TO COMMENT:
The City of Santa Monica encourages public comment. Members of the public unable to attend a meeting but wishing to comment on this item may submit written comments prior to the public hearing via email to [email protected] or via mail to City Clerk, 1685 Main Street, Room 102, Santa Monica, California 90401. Written public comment submitted before 12:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting will be available for online viewing. All written comments shall be made part of the public record. You may also comment in person at the City Council hearing. Please check the agenda for more detailed instructions on how to comment in person.
Address your comments to: City Clerk
Re: Ocean Avenue Project
VIA EMAIL: [email protected]
VIA MAIL: 1685 Main Street, Room 102
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Attachment B July 14, 2022 MORE INFORMATION: If you want more information about this project, please contact Roxanne Tanemori at (310) 458-2200 ext 8202, or by e-mail at [email protected]. For disability-related accommodations, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at (310) 458-8211 or (310) 917-6626 TDD at least 72 hours in advance. Every attempt will be made to provide the requested accommodation. All written materials are available in alternate format upon request. Santa Monica Big Blue Bus Lines serve City Hall and the Civic Center area. The Expo Line terminus is located at Colorado Avenue and Fourth Street, and is a short walk to City Hall. Public parking is available in front of City Hall, on Olympic Drive, and in the Civic Center Parking Structure (validation free).
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65009(b), if this matter is subsequently challenged in Court, the challenge may be limited to only those issues raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Santa Monica at, or prior to, the public hearing.
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) 458-2275.
Link to May 18, 2022 Planning Commission Public Correspondence for the Project:
https://www.smgov.net/departments/pcd/agendas/PlanningCommission/2022/20220518/s20220518-09Ax.pdf Summary of Preliminary Concept Discussions for the Project Held in 2018 Architectural Review Board – Preliminary Concept Discussion The Architectural Review Board held its second preliminary concept discussion on February 20, 2018. In summary, the Board members strongly support the preliminary project design. In particular, the Board identified several notable aspects of the project including:
• The creation of an interconnected set of open spaces; • The three-dimensional quality of the project;
• Livability of the residential units;
• The lightness of the implied color and materials;
• The separation of vehicular and pedestrian traffic;
• The relocation of the Landmark Victorian home appropriately creates and open court with the Spanish Colonial Revival Landmark building; • Reconfiguration of the corner of Santa Monica Boulevard and Ocean Avenue with a new building; and
• The general massing of the project, in particular, the way the massing is broken into separate buildings and the additional massing placed along the street.
Board members made several recommendations for development of the project:
Attachment B July 14, 2022 • In regard to the two designated Landmark buildings, there should be little or no elements added to the Ocean Avenue frontage, and that any additional elements or connections be reversible;
• Consideration of whether the museum building should be a quiet element in relation to the Landmark buildings or make a stronger architectural statement; • The corner at Santa Monica Boulevard and Ocean Avenue should be stronger; • The open spaces and First Court should remain open and activated; • The landscape design for the project should have a strong identity, with sufficient soil depth included in the project and structural design; • The residential buildings fronting the street should be more fully developed, perhaps with a stronger architectural identity;
• Consideration of an idea for signage throughout the site that is fully integrated; • Pedestrian scale should be further developed throughout the design process; • Consideration of the views at the terminus of the open spaces; • Development of additional open space connections;
• Consideration of wind and solar orientation in the open spaces and around the project; and
• Consideration of location for bicycle lockers and storage at grade.
The Board also challenged the design team to consider the design of the central building to express an ascension skyward, and to design a project that will prove to be a landmark of the 21st Century.
Landmarks Commission – Preliminary Concept Discussion
The Landmarks Commission held its preliminary concept discussion on March 12, 2018.
The following provides a summary of the feedback from individual Commissioners:
• There is an opportunity to carefully and appropriately integrate the Landmark properties and treat them in a manner that would “breathe new life” into the buildings, with a priority on providing public access to the buildings. • The museum campus should include appropriate, reversible, and imaginative treatment of the Landmark buildings so that their identity as historic buildings is retained. The massing and configuration of the site is appropriate and an improvement from the previous iteration, and the massing and height variations of the proposal integrate nicely with the scale and massing of the Landmark buildings. • The unique capabilities of the architect in handling the Landmarks are a welcome component of the project. There should be expressive design elements integrated into the treatment plan for the Landmark buildings. There should also be special attention paid to glare and reflectivity as the design moves forward. • The project’s open spaces will be a beneficial element of the project. Confidence was also expressed that the Applicant will integrate the well-documented Attachment B July 14, 2022 framework for treatment of cultural resources, including the means and methods for appropriately moving and restoring historic buildings, into the project. • Maintaining the integrity of the Landmark structures and ensuring that their identity not be lost or consumed with this project should be a priority. Concern was expressed regarding the timing of the demolition permit review process for the 101 Santa Monica Boulevard building due to the potential consequences of that process. It was also noted that due to the fact that the project may require formal Landmarks Commission review in the future, comments provided at this point are necessarily preliminary in nature.
• The project should be implemented in a manner that maintains design harmony as envisioned in the project renderings. The two Landmark buildings should stand on their own and be rehabilitated. Support was expressed for the open space and paseos and the tower element because it fits in well with the project. Researching the original plantings and design associated with the Landmark buildings would be informative and could be the basis for the future landscape design. Pedestrian and vehicular access was also noted as elements of importance for the project design. • The two Landmark buildings should be integrated into the museum campus as freestanding buildings, rather than connected to the museum. The area around the Landmarks and museum should be a park-like space. While the massing of the museum appears appropriate, if the Landmark buildings are connected to the new structure, they may appear as an afterthought. The onsite relocation of the two Landmarks should not be problematic though it is important that both buildings be placed at or near the elevation of the sidewalk. The two Landmark buildings’ exteriors must be rehabilitated in accordance with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.
Planning Commission – Preliminary Concept Discussion
The Planning Commission held its preliminary concept discussion on May 2, 2018. After posing a series of questions to the Applicant team and a lengthy discussion, the Commission unanimously approved a motion (7-0) to recommend the Council authorize staff to initiate negotiations for the Ocean Avenue Project, with consideration given to the Planning Commission’s comments. The following provides a summary of comments from individual Commissioners, organized by theme:
Downtown Community Plan & Project Concept
• The DCP established a framework for Established Large Sites already; the project needs to conform. The City has the ability to reject the development agreement if it does not comply with City’s policy direction.
• The overall project must be a place for people of all ages (programming, site planning, cultural campus, residential component, mix of uses, etc.).
Attachment B July 14, 2022 • The revised project concept and site plan is thoughtful and visually intriguing; positive changes include the updated open space plan, subterranean ballroom to reduce building mass above grade, and the overall design and integration of the replacement rent-controlled units into the project.
Urban Design & Architectural Design Concept
• All Commissioners agreed that the updated concept proposes a beautiful and thoughtful project design at this beginning stage of the City review process. • The project site is unique along Ocean Avenue and at the end of Route 66. The site demands the best and the project must be a legacy to the City and stellar in all respects.
• The project cannot just create background buildings to the two Landmark structures. The design still needs to evolve and continue to development on the ideas of fluidity and spontaneity.
• The project design is successful despite the restrictive 130’ height limitation. • The corner of Ocean Avenue/Santa Monica feature must be exemplary and a welcoming area for all visitors to project – both in terms of design and programming.
• The applicant has presented a thoughtful design; the only issue is its maximum 130’ height. While 130’ might be useful for the proposed observation deck, that is perhaps not appropriate for other projects that were grouped together with the same maximum allowable height.
• Palisades Park and the bluffs are some of the best Landmark features in the city.
The project changes the city skyline and diminishes the experience of the park and the visual character of the park and bluffs as viewed from the beach.
Site Planning & Open Space
• The updated open space plan provides an opportunity to make these spaces a true gathering place for the community and not just visitors. • The pedestrian experience is vital this project. Continue to develop the plan for pedestrians along Santa Monica Boulevard and Second Street. The overall site must feel like a space and project for the community instead of just hotel. • It is beneficial that site planning and project design are still a “work in progress” and subject to more study.
• The east/west paseo between the hotel and restaurants needs more consideration; it appears to be the back side of the restaurants and driven by retail program. The use of the space seems wasteful and not fully conceived yet.
Attachment B July 14, 2022 • The courtyard south of the museum campus that leads to ballroom doesn’t serve a purpose or create a place of interest.
Mobility/Circulation
• Mobility questions are important and require additional consideration and input from the City in terms of functionality and City policies/goals. How will vehicles get to/from the project? Think about flows for all modes and impacts to circulation in the surrounding area and specifically along Second Street. • The First Court paseo is a positive component of the project – it will increase pedestrian safety.
• Breaking up the alley network with the closure and redirection of First Court may create the feeling of a superblock even with site porosity created by paseos.
Museum Campus & Treatment of Historic Features
• It is hard to imagine the proposed museum as background building; it needs to have its own identity.
• The museum is a 60-foot tall building behind 30-foot tall Landmark structures; it will be quite visible.
• While the museum campus concept will continue to be refined, the ideas/aspirations of the courtyard are not clear and defined enough yet. • The design of the museum building should be simple and elegant but still special. • The museum courtyard could be a fun space for community members to explore and enjoy - and it could be heart of the project. Consider expanding this space further and consider connecting to the observation deck entrance.
Sustainability
• Sustainability will be an important component of the project. It is correct that the LEED certification framework is not the only metric. The Applicant hasn’t addressed yet how the project will generate its own power and accommodate the practical necessity of developing a resilient building.
Community Benefits
• The art museum/cultural institution is a much-needed community benefit. • The proposed affordable housing is a good balance for the hotel use. • The DCP community benefit priorities are relevant – also see DCP Table 2A3 for a more detailed community benefit categories.
Attachment B July 14, 2022 • The project should provide more affordable housing – although it is understandable why the replacement rent-controlled units are separated from the overall unit count for the purposes of calculating the baseline percentage of affordable units. o Replacement rent-controlled units should be included in the calculation of total units: aim for 30% of all units as affordable.
o Consider the income targeting as set forth in the DCP but provide more lower-income category units.
• The project will need a robust Transportation Demand Management Program with a program to incentivize non-SOV trips to the museum and hotel. • Refer to the local hiring framework that has been defined in recently-approved development agreements, including hiring disadvantaged individuals.
Community Members’ Comments at Planning Commission, May 2, 2018 Several speakers expressed support for the project:
• Project will be an asset to the community.
• The open space concept is a unique and important characteristic of the project design and it will successfully engage pedestrians.
• The speaker did not support the Downtown Community Plan; however, the rules are now established by the adopted plan. The revised project should be supported for the following reasons:
o Project incorporates only 65% of the maximum allowable FAR permitted by the DCP for the site.
o The design incorporates thoughtful building articulation, shaping, and internal circulation; the tower element has a minimal footprint; and the average height is lower than what could be proposed.
o The project design would be less successful with a building height at 84’ which would result in a boxy, spread-out project.
o Appreciates that Mr. Gehry is considering his work and legacy for the Santa Monica community.
o Based on working with Mr. Worthe on the Bergamot Arts Center advisory committee, the speaker believe he is trustworthy and will develop a high quality project as indicated.
• Project will be an attribute to the Downtown and should address sustainability in a substantive manner:
o Durability of construction within the context of climate change; consider energy use in construction and operations; include adequate EV charging stations including fast chargers (available to public).
Attachment B July 14, 2022 Several speakers stated their objection to the project:
• The project will cut off air and light on Second Street; it is oversized and a ‘monstrosity’; and the buildings will add weight and destabilize the bluffs. • Project is too large and dwarfs surrounding buildings and is excessive for the coastline.
Comments provided about project features and community benefits:
• The affordable housing component should be geared towards two- and threebedroom units with free access to museum provided with the affordable units. • It may be beneficial to require a higher percentage of two- and three-bedrooms units (affordable and market rate) to encourage family housing. • Consider data sources like Wellbeing Index, Open Data, and other data indices as basis for community benefit negotiations: o Include services for affordable units o Consider how community benefits can address social service needs; this discussion should be data-driven to identify emerging and flexible need. • Concern was expressed about the long-term viability of the museum; the development agreement should require a covenant to maintain the museum in perpetuity.