|
By Anita Varghese
Staff Writer
July 20 -- The Santa
Monica Planning Commission declined
to take action Wednesday on
a 125-unit condominium project
after several members charged
that the Environmental Impact
Report (EIR), economic feasibility
and traffic studies, and circulation
plans were poorly drafted.
The project proposed by developer
Craig Jones -- who has built
hundreds of residential rental
units in Downtown Santa Monica
over the past decade -- would
likely be the largest condo
development in the beachside
city.
“I am not going to vote
for a six-story building,”
said Commissioner Julia Lopez
Dad. “If it were really
well-designed, maybe I could.
This one isn’t and makes
other projects we rejected but
the City Council approved look
good.
“We need to get to a
place where we have a project
the community will support,”
Dad said.
The proposed five-story mixed-use
building at 525 Broadway --
which abides by the current
zoning code -- includes 125
market rate condominiums and
8,311 square feet of commercial
space, most of it slated for
a restaurant. Four levels of
subterranean parking would provide
355 spaces.
The building would be 60 feet
high with projections for required
parapets, elevator towers, and
stairwell enclosures extending
to 63 feet above average natural
grade, according to the proposal.
Vehicular site access, currently
from Sixth Street, would be
rerouted to Fifth Court Alley,
a one-way alley. The proposed
project would include the construction
of two driveways from the alley
-- one exclusively used by residents
and their guests, the other
by businesses.
The condominiums include 65
two-bedroom units, 56 one-bedroom
units and four efficiency units.
All the residential units would
have pedestrian access from
Sixth Street with walk-up townhomes
at the northern end of the site.
Two private elevated courtyards
facing Broadway and Sixth Street
would be exclusively used by
tenants.
“We are replacing an
unattractive auto-oriented commercial
building with what we think
is an exciting pedestrian-friendly,
mixed-use building,” said
PRU/JSM representative Allen
Freeman.
Staff worked with the developer
to improve the initial design,
planning officials said.
“Staff has done a great
deal of work with the applicant
and once felt the project had
more of an institutional design,”
said Eileen Fogarty, director
of Santa Monica Planning and
Community Development.
“There was an emphasis
on creating pedestrian orientation,
breaking up the massing and
the scale,” she said.
However, the Planning Commission
voted to continue discussion
and hold off accepting staff
recommendations to adopt a draft
resolution certifying an EIR,
a draft resolution approving
a Statement of Overriding Considerations
and a Mitigation Monitoring
Program.
Commissioners Jay Johnson and
Hank Koning, an architect, criticized
the project’s traffic
study had harsh words for the
project’s traffic study,
circulation plan and economic
feasibility study. They predicted
that the proposed development
would generate more traffic
than calculated and that the
units would fetch higher prices.
Kaku Associates, the traffic
consultant for the City, studied
19 intersections and concluded
significant impacts at eight
of them: Fourth Street at Broadway,
Colorado Avenue, the I-10 Westbound
off-ramp and the I-10 Eastbound
on-ramp; Fifth Street and Colorado,
and Lincoln Boulevard at Santa
Monica Boulevard, the I-10 Westbound
on-ramp and the I-10 Eastbound
on-ramp.
Johnson was dismayed that Kaku
did not analyze the impacts
the development -- which is
expected to generate approximately
1,484 net new vehicle trips
a day -- would have on left
or right turns from Santa Monica
Boulevard into Fifth Court Alley.
He said had a significant concern
because the EIR found that the
proposed project would.
A Kaku representative present
at Wednesday’s meeting
said “alleys are typically
not specifically included in
traffic studies,” because
alleys are considered to be
extensions of development project
driveways.
“We do not have a response
about the traffic, but would
like to reiterate the fact that
we met with the City’s
transportation department on
three occasions to discuss traffic
issues,” Freeman said.
Johnson also questioned the
economic feasibility study,
which analyzed whether the developer
could build a complex with fewer
units. The analysis was based
on the price of units averaging
843 square feet, though some
of the units at 525 Broadway
are larger or smaller.
“Did we look at pricing
per unit to come up with an
economic feasibility to justify
a 94-unit or 63-unit project?”
Johnson asked staff.
No, Yeo said.
“Anyone in the business
-- lenders, banks, developers
-- knows not to price these
numbers based on an 843 average
square feet,” said Johnson,
who owns several apartment buildings
in Santa Monica. “Look
at a per unit price analysis
based on location, size, orientation
and amenities.”
Koning had problems with the
circulation plan, taking issue
with a design he said forced
residents and restaurant guests
to enter and leave the complex
at driveways and lobbies too
close together.
“The restaurant is on
Broadway,” Koning said.
“For anybody driving up
to that, they would have to
loop around to get to the alley.
Once they park their cars below,
they would have to walk up or
take the elevator to the residential
lobby and then walk down some
stairs, out to Fifth Street
and around the corner to the
front.”
Architect Jonathan Watts, from
Cuningham Group Architecture,
P.A., admitted this circulation
plan is complicated and he would
address Koning’s concerns
with the developer.
The Planning Commission did
not wish to give specific direction
to staff or the developer on
how to proceed with the project.
Commissioners said that City
staff, Freeman and Watts heard
the entire commission discussion
and should know which aspects
of the project need to be reviewed
more closely.
| 
