title
CC - Appeal of the Planning Commission’s Decision on The Culver Studios Comprehensive Plan Conformance Review, Determining that the Revised Plans for Building Y and the Van Buren Parking Structure Provide Additional Visual Enhancements and Minimize Potential Impacts to Adjacent Residential Uses in Conformance with Condition No. 106 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 2015-R098.
body
Meeting Date: July 25, 2016
Contact Person/Dept: Thomas Gorham, Planning Manager and Susan Yun, Senior Planner/ Community Development Department
Phone Number: (310) 253-5755
Fiscal Impact: Yes [] No [x] General Fund: Yes [] No [x]
Public Hearing: [] Action Item: [x] Attachments: [x]
Commission Action Required: Yes [x] No [] Date: June 8, 2016
Commission: Planning Commission.
Public Notification: On July 12, 2016, a notice was mailed to all the property owners and occupants within an extended 500 foot radius of the project site, emailed to recipients of Planning Commission notices/GovDelivery and posted on the City’s website. (E-Mail) Meetings and Agendas - City Council (07/19/16).
Department Approval: Sol Blumenfeld, Community Development Director (7/15/16)
_____________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council consider the Appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision on The Culver Studios Comprehensive Plan Conformance Review and either:
1. (Staff Recommendation) Deny the Appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s decision (A) determining that the revised plans for Building Y and the Van Buren Parking Garage provide additional visual enhancements and minimize potential impacts to adjacent residential uses in conformance with Condition No. 106 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 2015-R098; and (B) requiring the first line of parking on the 6th floor level of the Van Buren Parking Garage (Van Buren side) be setback, subject to Fire Department approval (collectively, “Planning Commission’s Decision”). (City Council action on the Appeal will be recorded by motion in the approved minutes of the July 25, 2016 meeting.)
OR
2. Grant the Appeal, overturn the Planning Commission’s Decision, in full or in part, and direct The Culver Studios to make further plan revisions to Building Y and/or the Van Buren Parking Garage, in order to satisfy Condition No. 106. (City Council action on the Appeal will be recorded by motion in the approved minutes of the July 25, 2016).
BACKGROUND
On December 14, 2015, the City Council adopted a Resolution approving the Comprehensive Plan Major Modification, P2015-0069-CP/MAM, and Historic Preservation Program Certificate of Appropriateness, P2015-0069-HPCA, subject to mitigation measures included in an adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and project conditions of approval, for The Culver Studios Comprehensive Plan Amendment No. 6 (CPA 6) (collectively, “Project Approvals”). These Project Approvals are final and are not within the purview of the subject Appeal.
Condition No. 106 of the Project Approvals, as set forth in Planning Commission Resolution No. 2015-R098 (Attachment No. 1), required the Culver Studios to revise the design of Building Y and the Van Buren Parking Garage to provide additional visual enhancements and minimize potential impacts to adjacent residential uses through the use of additional measures such as building setbacks and step backs and landscaping. This is a condition that must be deemed by the Planning Commission to be satisfied, prior to building permit issuance.
On June 8, 2016, the Planning Commission conducted a Conformance Review to determine whether Condition No. 106 had been satisfied. The Conformance Review is limited in scope and is intended to focus only upon the issue of neighborhood compatibility relative to the design of these buildings. Zoning and/or environmental issues raised in the current Appeal were originally addressed at Planning Commission and City Council hearings on CPA 6 on November 18, 2015 and December 14, 2015, respectively.
The proposed design revisions to Building Y and Van Buren Parking Structure are detailed in the Planning Commission staff report and summarized below and on Attachment No. 2. Additional design revisions to the structures, made in accordance with the Planning Commission’s Decision, are intended to address concerns expressed by nearby residents.
Building Y: The revised plans presented to the Planning Commission reflect reduced building massing, and a larger setback and step back to address visual and operational impacts to the abutting residential uses. Key revisions to building design are as follows:
• Relocation of Building Y five feet from the Studio property line through a ground level setback;
• Elimination of the basement level;
• Redesign of stairways and core functions at the east and west ends of the floorplate on each floor;
• Creation of a new roof line which "wraps" the building and covers the exterior stairways, shielding neighbors from any possible noise/light spill. This roof line is further angled toward the east to allow additional light and views of the sky from the adjacent properties to the west;
• Full enclosure of the 2nd level with a wall at the building edge, extending up to the height of the 3rd floor level;
• Setback of the usable areas of the upper floor exterior decks from the building edge through the use of planters to preclude sight lines into adjacent properties;
• Additional tree planting along the westerly property line, north of Building Y, where existing Building Z will be removed, to limit sight lines beyond the Studio property.
Van Buren Parking Structure: The revised plans presented to the Planning Commission reflect reduced building mass along Van Buren Place, protection of the existing street trees by eliminating the subterranean parking level which formerly extended to the property line, and reduced shade and shadow impacts to the abutting residential property to the north. Key revisions to building design are as follows:
• Set back the 6th level deck of the parking structure along the north edge to limit the shade/shadow impacts (resulting in a loss of 9 spaces);
• Set back the subterranean parking levels 15 feet from the property line along Van Buren Place to protect the existing street trees (resulting in a loss of 46 spaces). The applicant has submitted an arborist report (Attachment No. 9) with tree protection recommendations/construction guidelines and specifications to ensure minimal impacts to the existing street trees which staff will implement as part of the building permit process;
• Enhance the Van Buren Place facade with a series of "pop-outs", constructed of aluminum louver-like panels projecting 36” and laid out in a diagonal pattern to break up the scale of the façade. The “pop-outs” will include returns to create a continuous screen that minimizes light spill to the street;
• Aluminum panel colors similar to the colors of the existing street trees to help camouflage the panels;
• 6th floor level screen, of a light color palette, to help camouflage that level, as it is above the canopy of the existing street trees;
• Relocation of the existing mature trees within the Van Buren Parking Garage site to the parkway and/or to the 18' setback along the south side.
At the June 8th public meeting, after reviewing the revised plans, discussing all the information presented by the Applicant and receiving public testimony, the Planning Commission adopted the following motions by a vote of 4-0:
1. The revised design for Building Y, including the addition of a planter on Building Y’s deck, satisfies Project Condition of Approval No. 106.
2. The revised design for the Van Buren Parking Structure satisfies Project Condition of Approval No. 106, providing that the garage reconfiguration (allowing the step back of the first line of parking on Van Buren at the 6th floor level) is approved by the Fire Department.
Appeal
On June 21, 2016, Benjamin Reznik and Neill E. Brower of the law firm Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP (JMBM), representing the Culver City Residents for Responsible Development, filed a timely Appeal of the Planning Commission’s Decision (Attachment No. 3, Appellant Letter).
In summary, the Appeal purports that the Conformance Review action by the Planning Commission was a “piecemealed” approval and relied on “deferred mitigation” in that the Studio’s project was approved by the City before the adoption of necessary mitigation measures, and that the proposed revisions to the design of Building Y and the Van Buren Parking Garage are inadequate. The Appellant believes that the Conformance Review was in essence a delayed mitigation measure. The Appellant also claims the environmental analysis conducted under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the adopted environmental document/MND for CPA 6 are inadequate. Further, the appellant claims the Planning Commission “erred in failing to require the Project be modified appropriately to conform with the City’s height restrictions”. Further the appellant states the proposed adjustments to Building Y and the Van Buren Parking Structure are inadequate and that both buildings still remain massive and incompatible to neighboring residential structures. (See draft minutes of the June 8th Planning Commission meeting, Attachment No. 12, for further concerns raised by JMBM during June 8th public comment on this matter. These draft minutes are scheduled to be reviewed/approved by the Planning Commission at its the July 27, 2016 meeting.)
The merits of the Appeal are discussed in the Discussion section of the report below.
DISCUSSION:
At the June 8th public meeting, the Planning Commission expressed their support of the proposed revisions presented by the Applicant to the Van Buren Parking Structure and in particular to Building Y, noting the thoughtfulness of the design changes and sensitivity to the surrounding residential neighborhood.
The Planning Commission agreed that the changes to Building Y were significant and setting back the building along the south and west side of property line will provide the necessary visual buffer and aesthetics to the adjoining residential neighbors. Further, the Applicant indicated at the Planning Commission meeting that the proposed planter located on the balcony area facing the rear yards of residents on Van Buren Place would be widened after meeting with a resident who had concerns about privacy issues. The planters would be widened to approximately 4’ along this border of the building and provide additional privacy to these residents by preventing people from standing too close this area and over looking into neighbors back yards.
The Planning Commission also recognized the Studios effort to address visual concerns of the parking structure by stepping back the 6th level deck along the north side, providing “pop-outs” to break up the scale of the structure and also the use of colored aluminum panels to help camouflage the structure.
However, the Planning Commission expressed concerns over the need to further step back the parking structure along Van Buren Place. Following discussion with staff and the applicant on potential solutions, the Planning Commission directed the Applicant to conduct further design engineering analysis to determine how the structure could be lowered to allow for a step back on the top level without compromising the Fire Department’s ability to safely use the Van Buren Place driveway. Since the June 8th Planning Commission, the Applicant and staff have worked closely to develop a plan that addresses the building height, setback and emergency access concerns. The revisions result in a total setback at the top floor of 33’ from the property line. This includes a 15’ building setback at the ground level from the property line and an 18’ step back at the top level of the garage from the building elevation line. The additional 18’ step back at the top level eliminates approximately 43 spaces from the parking structure. The additional step back along this prominent side of the parking structure will help reduce the overall mass of the structure. (Attachment No. 5, Revised Conformance Review Plans).
The Van Buren parking structure emergency driveway was redesigned with a ramp starting at the edge of the street within the public right-of-way. By extending the ramping point beyond the property line to the street right of way, an overall ramp slope of 8% and an ADA-compliant sidewalk with maximum 2% cross-slope was designed to the satisfaction and approval by both the Fire and Public Works Departments. The proposed ramping design, lowers the building sufficiently to accommodate the transfer beams on the fifth floor and not impact the building height limit of 56’. The ramping design also meets the Studio’s need to accommodate production vehicles that are occasionally taller than the Fire Department’s equipment (Attachment No. 6, Exit Ramp Sections and Plan). Further, the Studios is required to install a rolled curb along the front edge of the drive approach of the emergency driveway so that storm water running in the gutter flows by the drive approach rather than draining into the parking structure (Attachment No. 7, Rolled Curb Detail).
Van Buren Place Street Trees
There were concerns expressed by the residents nearby regarding the potential impacts to the root system of the mature street trees along Van Buren Place, in front of the Studio property, created by the two levels of subterranean parking that (in previous designs) extended to the property line. Per The Culver Studios’ arborist, if the project is built as planned with the parking structure building setback from the property line and the Tree Protection Recommendations and Construction Guidelines contained in the arborist report are followed, then there will be “minimal to no impact” to the street trees from this project (Attachment No.8, Culver Studios Arborist Report). Further, The Studios’ arborist confirmed in a recent letter (Attachment No.13, Arborist Letter) that “the Studios decision to relocate the subterranean levels of the parking structure 15’ in bound from the property line creates a situation where it is extremely unlikely there will be any root damage due to excavation and provides the trees their greatest chance of survival.”
At the Planning Commission meeting, some members of the public raised concerns about the long term survival of the trees and their root system possibly extending further into the Studios property beyond the 15’ building setback area and asked the Studios to commit to a long term maintenance plan for these tress once the project is completed. Some of Van Buren residents commissioned a separate arborist report (Attachment No. 9, Van Buren Residents Arborist Report) which identified this issue. The residents’ arborist states that a long term care (not just during construction) for the Van Buren street trees in front of the Studio property is needed to ensure any trees showing signs of damage or stress due to root damage perhaps months or years after project is completed is addressed appropriately. The Studios has recently submitted a letter (Attachment No. 10) committing to provide ongoing care and maintenance of the trees for period of five years after construction has been completed. The residents also expressed concern about the importance preserving these trees. As stated by the Applicant at the Planning Commission meeting, all of the street trees including the tree in front of the new emergency driveway off of Van Buren Place will be preserved and will not be removed.
Appeal
The subject Appeal focuses on the claimed inadequacy of the environmental determination made in connection with the Project Approvals. Specifically, with regard to the Conformance Review, Appellant contends that Condition No. 106 is a mitigation measure and was inappropriately deferred. Contrary to Appellant’s position, Condition No. 106 is not a mitigation measure under CEQA. The Conditions of Approval clearly identify all mitigation measures. Condition No. 106 is a planning condition intended to ensure a design that is compatible with the adjacent neighborhood. As discussed above, these Project Approvals, as well as the related environmental determination, are final actions and are not within the City Council’s purview when considering the subject Appeal of the Planning Commission’s Decision. There is no legal basis for the City Council to reopen the Project Approvals or the CEQA process for CPA 6, based on allegations that the adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration is inadequate. Further, the City Council does not have the jurisdiction to impose additional Conditions of Approval. The narrow scope of the City Council’s review on the Appeal is to make a determination as to whether the revised designs to Building Y and the Van Buren Parking Garage have satisfied Condition No. 106, as specifically set forth in the alternate proposed Motions provided at the end of the report.
Public Comments
Staff received one public comment (Attachment No. 11) prior to this report publishing. The comment is from a resident, Ms. Tana Raikes, and is related to the protection, preservation and ongoing care and maintenance of the street trees and includes an arborist report commissioned on behalf of Mr. Stephan Michael and residents on Van Buren Place with concerns about the proposed new parking structure, specifically the health and survival prospects of the City parkway trees on Van Buren directly in front of the parking structure. Staff and the applicant have reviewed this arborist report and as mentioned above, the Applicant has agreed to provide ongoing care and maintenance of the street trees during construction and for a period of five years after construction is completed. Ms. Raikes also requests the status of the building setback and emergency access matter. Staff has contacted Ms. Raikes and informed her of the setback that is now part of the Studio’s plans.
Mr. Raikes previously submitted a comment (dated June 27, 2016) addressing various issues including vehicle fumes, noise, lighting, visual impacts, and the parkway trees. As the City Council is aware, these issues were discussed at the Planning Commission hearing on the application on November 18, 2015 and the Commission recommended conditions of approval and adopted CEQA mitigation measures to deal with these issues including the requirement for the conformance review to address scale and visual impacts of Building Y and the Van Buren Parking Structure. As the project moves forward through the building permit, construction, and occupancy stages staff will enforce the applicable conditions, CEQA mitigation measures, Zoning Code standards, and any other applicable law or regulation pertaining to the issues identified.
SUMMARY
The Planning Commission determined that design changes to Building Y have addressed their concerns as the proposed design changes reduced the building massing, softened the facades and provides a larger setback and step back buffer to address both visual and operational impacts to the abutting residential uses. Further, the proposed changes to the Van Buren Parking Structure result in a total setback at the top floor of 23’ from the property line or back of sidewalk, including a 15’ building setback at the ground level from the property line and an 18’ step back at the top level of the garage from the building elevation line along this prominent side of the parking structure to help reduce the building mass. Based on the these changes, staff recommends the City Council deny the Appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s determination that Condition No. 106 has been satisfied with the design revisions to the Building Y and the Van Buren Parking Structure.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2015-R098 and Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval
2. Planning Commission Staff Report, June 8, 2016 (without attachments)
3. Appellant Letter dated June 21, 2016
4. Cross Section Van Buren Parking Structure with additional Rooftop Step Back
5. Revised Plans for Building Y and the Van Buren Parking Structure
6. Cross Sections and Plan of Van Buren Exit Ramp
7. Rolled Curb Detail at Van Buren Exit Ramp
8. Culver Studios Tree Preservation Arborist Report
9. The Van Buren Place Residents Arborist Report
10. Letter from Culver Studios regarding Street Tree Maintenance
11. Public Comments
12. Draft Minutes of the June 8, 2016 Planning Commission meeting
13. Tree Case Management Arborist Letter dated July 14, 2016
MOTION
That the City Council:
1. (Staff Recommendation) Deny the Appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s Decision determining that the revised designs for Building Y and the Van Buren Parking Garage satisfy Condition of Approval No. 106.
OR
2. Grant the Appeal, overturn the Planning Commission’s Decision, in full or in part, and direct The Culver Studios to make further plan revisions to Building Y and/or the Van Buren Parking Garage, in order to satisfy Condition No. 106.
*City Council’s action shall be recorded by motion in the approved minutes of the July 25, 2016 meeting.