SR-081004-6A
bA
AUG I" 0 2004
PCD: SF :AS:J L: B R:f:\plan\share\cou ncil\strpt\2004 \03T A003-03D R002-03C U P003(2834 Colorado) .doc
Council Mtg: August 10, 2004 Santa Monica, California
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: City Staff
SUBJECT: Appeal (04APP-003) of the Planning Commission's Denial of Text
Amendment (03TA-003), Development Review Permit (03DR-002). and
Conditional Use Permit (03CUP-003) and Consideration of Environmental
Impact Report (03EIR-001) Located at 2834 Colorado Avenue to Allow the
Construction of a 145-Apartment Units Developed in a Complex of
Eighteen Buildings Ranging in Height from Two to Four Stories with 228
Subterranean Parking Spaces. Applicant & Appellant: Colorado Creative
Studios, LLC.
INTRODUCTION
This report recommends that the City Council deny Appeal No. 04APP-003 thereby
upholding the Planning Commission's denial of Text Amendment No. 03TA-003.
Development Review Permit No. 03DR-002, and Conditional Use Permit No. 03CUP-
003, which would have allowed the construction of a 115,150 square foot 145-unit
multifamily development located in the Light Manufacturing and Studio District. Since
denial of the project is recommended, staff does not support certification of the
Environmental Impact Report. In the event the City Council determines that housing
uses should be considered at this site, staff recommends that the City Council provide
direction regarding the appropriateness of a Development Agreement for this site and
the project's potential public benefits.
BACKGROUND
On February 18, 2004 the Planning Commission voted 6-0 to not recommend adoption
of text amendment (03TA-003) to the City Council, and also denied without prejudice
foil
1 AUG. Jl t) ZUU4
development review permit (03DR-002), and conditional use permit (03CUP-003). The
Planning Commission did not take any action on the project's Environmental Impact
Report.
The text amendment consists of three parts. First, it requests an amendment of the
Zoning Ordinance to allow multiple-family housing in the Light Manufacturing and Studio
District (LMSD) subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Second, it proposes a
maximum permissible multiple-family housing height of four stories and 45-feet. And,
third, the text amendment would permit multiple-family housing to be constructed to a
maximum floor area ratio of 1.5.
In addition, the applicant has filed both development review and conditional use permit
applications. The development review permit is required because the project exceeds
the district's 7,500-square foot threshold. The conditional use permit application is to
allow the project in the LMSD zone pursuant to the applicant-initiated text amendment.
ANAL YSIS
Proiect Description
The subject property is a relatively level, rectangular-shaped corner parcel located in
the LMSD zone. The parcel measures 120-feet wide along Colorado Avenue and 640-
feet deep along Stewart Street. The site has a land area of 76,800 square feet.
2
The site is developed with approximately 38,000-square feet of warehouse-type
industrial buildings. These buildings are oriented toward the site's paved interior space,
which is devoted to parking, and are not designed to relate well to the adjacent public
streets. The maximum height of existing improvements is approximately 18-feet
(average of 10-feet) and two-stories (averaging one story).
The site is located in an urban area containing a mix of residential, commercial
(including on.e restaurant), and light industrial uses. Surrounding uses consist of both
single- and multiple-family residential uses in the R2 (Low Density Multiple-Family
Residential) zone to the northwest. Uses to the southwest include offices and
production studios in both the C5 (Special Office Commercial) and LMSD zone.
Adjacent to the site to the east and southeast are light industrial and manufacturing
uses and some commercial development in the LMSD zone. Interstate 10 is located
approximately %-mile southeast of the project site.
All existing improvements would be demolished to facilitate the development of a 145-
unit apartment complex with 228 subterranean parking spaces. As proposed, the
project has a floor area of 115,150 square feet consisting of 29 studio, 109 one-
bedroom, and 7 two-bedroom units in 18 buildings with varying heights of two to four
stories.
Each of the proposed units range in size from approximately 600-square feet to 1,050-
square feet. Buildings would be arranged around three interior courtyards, the middle of
3
which would contain a sWimming pool, office, pool lounge, and community room.
Buildings along the interior lot lines and Stewart Street would be oriented toward the
courtyards, while the building along Colorado Avenue would be oriented towards the
street.
Parking is provided in a one level subterranean garage. Primary access to the garage
is available from Stewart Street via a twenty-foot wide, two-way driveway. A second
driveway located at the north end of the garage provides access to Colorado Avenue
and is twelve-feet wide but is limited to right-turn, exit-only movements. Twenty-nine of
the parking spaces are reserved for visitors to the site. One loading space is provided
at the southern end of the site and is accessible from Stewart Street.
The project includes approximately 3,800-square feet of landscaping. The majority of
landscaping is located along the project's street frontages. The remainder will be
disbursed between each of the three courtyards.
Planninq Commission Action
At its February 18, 2004 meeting, the Planning Commission found that the proposed
text amendment was inconsistent in principle with the goals, objectives, policies, land
uses, and programs specified in the City General Plan Land Use Element. The purpose
of the Light Manufacturing and Studio District (LMSD) is to preserve existing light
industrial uses, provide a location for studio-related uses such as film and music
production and post-production facilities, and provide opportunities for artist live/work
4
residential development. The Commission believed that the proposed text amendment
could significantly increase land values in the district leading to a predominance in
housing developments at the expense of light industrial uses and in contravention to the
provisions of the Land Use Element.
While not opposed to the concept of housing in this area, the Commission believed that
the requested text amendment raised broader policy issues related to the appropriate
mix and density of uses in the LMSD. Furthermore, the Planning Commission stated
that there is a need to protect housing from the deleterious effects associated with
industrial uses and a need to preserve the currently permitted uses in the LMSD zone.
The Commission believed that a project incorporating the principles of smart growth,
including integrating different land uses with transit services and pocket parks, should
be considered in order to meet the City's sustainability, walkability, livability and
jobs/housing balance goals. The Planning Commission also commented on design
elements of the project, including describing the development's appearance as plain.
The Commission also indicated that a common room in the project was very small and
that the Stewart Street elevation towered over the right-of-way. Furthermore, the
Commission expressed a desire for greater pedestrian orientation that may include
providing more unit entries from Stewart Street.
The Planning Commission also expressed concern over the loss of small businesses
and the jobs they create, displacement of necessary community services and the loss of
tax revenue. They also noted that the proposed text amendment would allow residential
5
development without any regulations as to unit density. By way of comparison, the
Commission identified that the proposed development would have a greater density
than is allowed in the R4 District, which is the City's most dense residential zone at one
unit per 900 square feet. The proposed project would allow one dwelling unit for each
529 square feet. As such, the Commission expressed concern that the size, scale, and
associated impacts of residential development could be inconsistent with the purpose of
the Light Industrial and Manufacturing District. Therefore, the issue of housing in the
Light Manufacturing and Studio District should be a comprehensive analysis as part of
the update to the Land Use Element and Zoning Ordinance.
The Planning Commission believed that the text amendment was detrimental to the
public health, safety, and general welfare based on the foregoing reasons. By
extension, the Development Review and Conditional Use Permit were denied without
predjudice and a recommendation regarding the text amendment was not forwarded to
the City Council.
Analysis
The project consists of 115, 150-square feet of improved floor area on the subject site
resulting in 145 new apartment units and community amenities with on-site affordable
housing in the Light Manufacturing and Studio District (LMSD). Presently, the LMSD
does not allow for residential uses (other than artist live-work space). Therefore, the
applicant/appellant is seeking approval of a text amendment that would modify
6
provisions of the Municipal Code to allow for multifamily residential uses in this zone
subject to certain development standards and discretionary review.
An environmental impact report was prepared to evaluate the proposed project's
impacts and identified three unmitigable traffic and construction impacts would result
from the project. Vehicles using Yale Street and Nebraska Avenue and application of
architectural coatings would cause these impacts. Because Yale Street and Nebraska
Avenue are local streets exceeding average daily traffic volumes, the addition of a
single trip is a significant impact.
Discussion at the Planning Commission meeting (see previous section) has caused
staff to reevaluate the initial recommendation to approve the project. The concept of
housing in the Light Manufacturing and Studio District may be appropriate and could
offer several benefits. For example, new housing opportunities could be provided in an
area of the City that previously has not allowed multiple family residential developments.
Residential uses may also provide a reasonable transition between the residential and
office development to the north and west to the industrial uses to the south and east.
Notwithstanding these possible benefits, broader community input and a more intensive
review of the policy implications is necessary to make this decision and to develop
regulations and design standards to guide this mix of uses. Combining this effort with
the comprehensive land use and zoning ordinance update would be appropriate.
7
As proposed, the project's environmental impacts outweigh its benefits. However, if the
City Council believes that housing should be considered at this site, given the parcel
size and proximity to existing residential uses, a development agreement could be an
alternative approach. This would also enable the broader discussion of the allowance
for housing throughout the Light Manufacturing and Studio District (LMSD) to be
considered with the Land Use Element and Zoning Ordinance update. An indication
from Council of potential public benefits and project modifications that should be
pursued and direction to staff to negotiate with the developer would initiate the
development agreement process.
CEQA STATUS
An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared that addresses the proposal
in accordance with Section 15087 of the CEQA Guidelines. A Notice of Preparation
(NOP) was filed with the California Office of Planning and Research and distributed to
involved public agencies and interested parties for a 30-day public review period, which
began June 6, 2003 and concluded on July 6, 2003. Copies of the Draft EIR were
made available on September 26, 2003 for a public review period, which closed on
November 10, 2003.
The California Environmental Quality Act requires certification of an EIR before a project
is approved. However, where a project is denied, certification of an EIR is not required.
As staff is recommending that the appeal be denied, thereby upholding the Planning
Commission's project denial, the City Council does not need to certify the EIR
8
document. Should the City Council decide that the project warrants approval,
certification of the project's EIR would be necessary and the following EIR analysis is
provided for City Council consideration. Because the project has unmitigable
environmental impacts, also described below, the City Council would have to adopt a
Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC). The SOC is a written statement
explaining why the City is willing to accept each of the project's significant and
unavoidable impacts. It is an opportunity for the City to balance the project's social,
economic, legal, technical or other benefits against its unavoidable environmental risks.
The EIR addresses the potential environmental effects of the proposed project. The
scope of the EIR includes environmental issues determined to be potentially significant
by the Initial Study (IS), Notice of Preparation (NOP) and responses to the NOP. The
environmental study determined that the proposed project would have minimal, or no
impacts for the following six environmental categories. Because potential effects on
these impacts were found not to be significant, further analysis of these impacts was not
required or provided in the EIR:
Biological Resources
Land Use/Planning
Agricultural Resources
Recreation
Hazards/Hazardous Materials
Mineral Resources
Economic/Social Impacts
Utilities/Service Systems
The IS/NOP identified potentially significant impacts on the following issue areas
associated with the construction and/or operation of the proposed project, which are
addressed in detail in the EIR:
Geology/Soils
Population/Housing
Construction Effects
Cultural Resources
9
T ransportation/T raffic
Shadows
Aesthetics
Air Quality
Neighborhood Effects
Mandatory Findings of Significance
Hydrology/Water Quality
Public Services
Noise
The EIR analyzed the issues referenced above and identified potentially significant
environmental impacts, including site-specific and cumulative effects of the project in
accordance with the provisions set forth in the CEQA Guidelines. The EIR also
recommends feasible mitigation measures, where possible. To be feasible, the
mitigation measure must eliminate or reduce the adverse effect so that its impact would
be considered less than significant pursuant to City and CEQA significance criteria.
Significant, but mitigable, impacts were found in the areas of Geology, Transportation
and Traffic, Aesthetics/Shadow Effects, and Construction Effects.
A brief description of the impact and summary of the recommended mitigation measure
for these mitigatable impacts is provided in the Summary of the Significant Impacts
section of the EIR. As discussed below, significant, unavoidable and adverse impacts
that cannot be mitigated are identified by the EIR for Transportation/Traffic and
Construction Effects.
. Transportation/Traffic - traffic impacts to the intersections of Centinela
Avenue/Nebraska Avenue, Stewart Street/Olympic Boulevard, and Yale
Street/Colorado Avenue would result in a lowering of City intersection operation
thresholds and an increase in trips on segments of the following two neighborhood
streets: Yale Street and Nebraska Avenue
. Construction Effects are related to increased reactive organic compounds (ROC)
emissions due to the application of architectural coatings.
10
As just noted, the project will create a significant and unavoidable traffic impact to the
intersection of Centinela Avenue and Nebraska Avenue. However, because this
intersection is located in the City of Los Angeles, the City of Santa Monica lacks the
authority to assure that the project receives all entitlements necessary to mitigate its
impacts. Therefore, for purposes of the environmental impact report, this impact is
identified as being significant and unavoidable.
Transportation and construction effects were found to have impacts; however, proposed
mitigation measures were dismissed because it was determined that they were
infeasible. The impact and mitigation measures are detailed below:
Transportation/traffic: In light of the City's policy to avoid widening streets, there are no
feasible measures to mitigate the impacts to the intersection of Stewart Street and
Olympic Boulevard. Due to physical constraints of these public rights-of-way, mitigation
would require narrowing sidewalks or eliminating sidewalks or encroaching upon
adjacent properties to implement the mitigation measure. These options would
themselves result in negative impacts to the area because narrowing sidewalk widths or
eliminating sidewalks adversely affects the pedestrian environment by reducing the
walking area for pedestrians, and potentially forcing pedestrians into the street.
Removal of landscaped parkways would also affect the pedestrian environment by
removing adjacent green space that provides shading and visual relief. This mitigation
measure has been rejected because street widening to accommodate additional vehicle
11
trips is contrary to City policy where the preservation of neighborhoods and the
pedestrian environment is highly valued.
With respect to the intersection of Yale Street and Colorado Avenue, installation of a
signal could reduce delays for southbound trips on Yale Street. However, this could
also negatively impact the adjoining neighborhood by encouraging motorists to travel
along Yale Street, resulting in a more detrimental neighborhood impact.
The City of Santa Monica's threshold for neighborhood traffic impacts on local streets is
the addition of one vehicle trip when the average daily traffic volume is greater than
2,250 vehicles. There are no mitigation measures that would eliminate the need for
even one trip to be added to the identified street segments short of full closure of the
affected street segments. This option is not acceptable since the street segments serve
adjacent land uses and carry substantial traffic that would then need to shift to other
nearby streets.
Construction effects: After implementation of the mitigation measure requiring use of
low VOC coatings, construction-related emissions would be reduced to the greatest
degree feasible. However, worst-case daily reactive organic compound (i.e. ROC)
emissions associated with the application of architectural coatings (e.g. painting) would
continue to exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management District's significance
threshold for that pollutant. There is no feasible alternative to mitigate this impact,
which is a common construction-related activitiy, because there is no other technology
12
available to apply architectural coatings that would reduce the amount of ROC emissions
during this phase of construction. This impact is temporary and will occur only during a
portion of the project construction.
Proiect Alternatives
CEQA requires that an EIR evaluate alternatives to the proposed project. The following
alternatives to the project were analyzed in the EIR in accordance with CEQA
requirements:
No Proiect
With this alternative, the proposed development would not occur and there would be no
change in the existing environmental conditions. As a result, this alternatives impact
would be less than those of the proposed project.
Reduced Proiect
This alternative assumes that the same type of land uses are proposed for the site, just
at a scale that is nearly one-half of the proposal in all respects except building height
and stories. Impacts in five issue areas would be lessened and air quality impacts could
potentially be avoided. This alternative would also generate less traffic. It would still
result in unavoidably significant impacts to study area intersections and neighborhood
street segments.
Commercial Proiect
13
This alternative involves the development of a 76,000-square foot building containing
production-related studio and office uses on the project site. This project would lessen
impacts in five issue areas and could potentially avoid the air quality impact.
Alternative Sites for Associated Amenities
Due to the scale of the proposed project, it is reasonable to conclude that significant
impacts related to traffic and circulation, construction-related noise, and neighborhood
effects would occur even if the proposed project were located at an alternate site within
the City.
Environmentallv Superior Alternative
In terms of physical effects on the environment and among the development options,
the environmentally superior alternative is the "Reduced Project." This is because it
incrementally reduces impacts in five issue areas and potentially avoids air quality
impacts associated with project construction activities.
RENT CONTROL STATUS
Commercial property exemption.
FEES
If approved, the project is subject to a Unit Dwelling Tax fee of $200 per unit for a total
fee of $29,000.00 dollars.
14
In addition, the project is required to comply with the City's Affordable Housing
Production Program as specified in Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 9.56. This
requirement may be satisfied by providing affordable housing on or off-site, or by
payment of an in-lieu fee. The project proposes to provide 10% (15 units) of the
proposed 145 units for very low-income on-site occupancy in order to comply with this
requirement.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
Pursuant to Municipal Code Sections 9.04.20.22.050, notice of the public hearing was
mailed to all owners and residential and commercial tenants of property located within a
500 foot radius of the project at least ten consecutive calendar days prior to the hearing.
A copy of the notice is contained in Attachment A.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT
The recommendation presented in this report does not have any budget or fiscal impact.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Council deny the appeal and not certify the Environmental
Impact Report (03EIR-001), deny Text Amendment (03TA-003). Development Review
(03DR-002), and Conditional Use Permit (03CUP-003) based on the findings below.
Additionally, staff recommends that the City Council provide direction regarding whether
15
a Development Agreement should be pursued for the project and, if so, what amenities,
benefits, and project design issues should be addressed.
TEXT AMENDMENT FINDINGS
1. The proposed amendment is not consistent in principle with the goals, objectives,
policies, land uses, and programs specified in the adopted General Plan in that
the purpose of the Light Manufacturing and Studio District (LMSD) is to preserve
existing light industrial uses, provide a location for studio-related uses such as
film and music production and post-production facilities, and provide
opportunities for artist live/work residential development. The proposed text
amendment changes this purpose and could lead to housing development
predominance in this zone in contravention to the provisions of the Land Use
Element. There is a need to protect housing from industrial uses and a need to
preserve the currently permitted uses in the LMSD zone. Without any limitations
regarding unit density, the size. scale, and associated impacts of residential
development could be inconsistent with the purpose of the Light Industrial and
Manufacturing District.
2. The public health, safety, and general welfare does not require the adoption of
the proposed amendment in that the purpose of the Light Manufacturing and
Studio District (LMSD) is to preserve existing light industrial uses, provide a
location for studio-related uses such as film and music production and post-
production facilities, and provide opportunities for artist live/work residential
development. The proposed text amendment changes this purpose and could
lead to housing taking over this zone in contravention to the provisions of the
Land Use Element. There is a need to protect housing from industrial uses and a
need to preserve the currently permitted uses in the LMSD zone. Without any
limitations regarding unit density, the size, scale, and associated impacts of
residential development could be inconsistent with the purpose of the Light
Industrial and Manufacturing District.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PERMIT FINDINGS
-
1. The physical location, size, massing, and placement of proposed structures on
the site and the location of proposed uses within the project are not compatible
with and do not relate harmoniously to surrounding sites and neighborhoods, in
that the proposed project is too large, too tall, too dense, does not embody the
standards and principles of "Smart Growth" development, and would create
unmitigable traffic impacts in the surrounding neighborhood.
2. The rights-of-way cannot accommodate autos and pedestrians, including parking
and access, in that the environmental impact report prepared for the project
16
identified significant and unavoidable traffic impacts at the following intersections:
Stewart Avenue and Olympic Boulevard; Yale Street and Colorado Avenue; and
Centinela Avenue and Nebraska Avenue. Additionally, the project created a
significant and unavoidable traffic impact at the following street segments: Yale
Street and Nebraska Avenue.
3. The project is generally inconsistent with the Municipal Code and General Plan,
in that the purpose of the Light Manufacturing and Studio District (LMSD) is to
preserve existing light industrial uses, provide a location for studio-related uses
such as film and music production and post-production facilities, and provide
opportunities for artist live/work residential development. The proposed text
amendment changes this purpose and could lead to housing development
predominance in this zone in contravention to the provisions of the Land Use
Element. Without any limitations regarding unit density, the size, scale, and
associated impacts of residential development could be inconsistent with the
purpose of the Light Industrial and Manufacturing District. There is a need to
protect housing from industrial uses and a need to preserve the currently
permitted uses in the LMSD zone.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS
1. The proposed use is not one conditionally permitted within the subject district and
does not comply with all of the applicable provisions of the "City of Santa Monica
Comprehensive Land Use and Zoning Ordinance", in that, multiple-family
residential uses are not identified as a permissible use in the Light Manufacturing
and Studio District (LMSD). In response, the applicant applied for a text
amendment to add multiple-family residential uses as a use requiring City
approval of a conditional use permit. In that the Conditional Use Permit relies
upon the proposed Text Amendment application being approved, and since the
proposed Text Amendment was denied, this finding in support of the Conditional
Use Permit cannot be made.
Prepared by:
Suzanne Frick, Director
Amanda Schachter, Planning Manager
Jonathan Lait, AICP, Acting Principal Planner
Bill Rodrigues, AICP, Associate Planner
City Planning Division
Planning and Community Development Department
Attachments:
A.
B.
C.
D.
Notice of Public Hearing
Photographs of Site and Surrounding Properties
Plot Plan, Floor Plans and Elevations
Final Environmental Impact Report
17
Attachment A
Notice of Public Hearing
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING
BEFORE THE SANTA MONICA CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT:
Appeal 04-003
2834 Colorado Avenue
APPLICANT/APPELLANT:
PROPERTY OWNER:
Colorado Creative Studios LLC
Colorado Creative Studios LLC
A public hearing will be held by the City Council to consider the following request:
An appeal of the Planning Commission's decisions relative to Text Amendment (03TA-003), Development
Review Permit (03DR-002), Conditional Use Permit (03CUP-003), and Environmental Impact Report
(03EIR-001) for a proposed 145-unit apartment project housed within 18 buildings of up to four stories
and 45-feet in height that would contain 15 units deed-restricted for very-low income household
occupancy over a one-level subterranean garage.
DATE/TIME: TUESDAY, AUGUST 10, 2004, AT 6:45 p.m.
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 City Council public
hearing, or by writing a letter. Written information will be given to the City Council at the meeting.
Address your letters to:
City Clerk
Re: Appeal (04APP-003)
1685 Main Street, Room 102
Santa Monica, CA 90401
MORE INFORMATION
If you want more information about this project or wish to review the project file, please contact Bill
Rodrigues at (310) 458-8341, or bye-mail at bill-rodrigues@santa-monica.org. The Zoning Ordinance is
available at the Planning Counter during business hours and on the City's web site at www.santa-
monica.orq.
The meeting facility is wheelchair accessible. For disability-related accommodations, please contact (310)
458-8341 or (310) 458-8696 TTY at least 72 hours in advance. All written materials are available in
alternate format upon request. Santa Monica Big Blue Bus Lines numbered 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10
serve City Hall.
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.
ESPANOL
Esto es una noticia de una audiencia publica para revisar applicaci6nes proponiendo desarrollo en Santa
Monica. Si deseas mas informaci6n, favor de lIamar a Carmen Gutierrez en la Divisi6n de Planificaci6n
al numero (310) 458-8341.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
AMANDA SCHACHTER
Planning Manager
f:\plan\share\council\notices\2004\04APP-003 (2834 Colorado Avenue).doc
Attachment B
Photographs of Site and Surrounding Properties
'f:'
VIEW TO SIDE SOUTH OF SUBJECT PROPERTY
vIEW TO WEST ACROSS STEWART
IEW OF SITE FROM ACROSS COLORADO
VIEW TO SIDE SOUTH OF SUBJECT PROPERTY
. VIEW TO WEST ACROSS STEWART
VIEW OF SITE TO WEST ACROSS FROM COLORADO
'IEW TO SITE FROM STEWART
EW TO SITE FROM STEWART
W TO SITE SOUTH OF PROPERTY
VIEW TO SITE FROM STEWART
VIEW TO SITE FROM STEWART
VIEW TO SITE SOUTH OF PROPERTY
VIEW INTO PROPERTY FROM COLORADO
VIEW TO SOUTHWEST CORNER OF COLORADO & STEWART
JEW TO RESIDENTIAL AREA NORTH OF SITE
VIEW TO SOUTHEAST ACROSS STEWART
VIEW TO NORTHWEST CORNER OF SITE
VIEW DOWN TO WEST OF THE SITE
~C~?
~ DOWN COLORADO TO WEST
VIEW ACROSS COLORADO
Attachment C
Plot Plan, Floor Plans and Elevations
~ III
a::
:J
0 ~ gJ
U z ......1
...J 0: r,I)"' J
~ 0 t)~
U. 0)1
:J ;a-:
l- e:( u:
Z () <-j
UJ <i. :><::J
0 ~ !;2!
z i
(f) 0 ,
:2 1
UJ ~ <
a:: z
0 e:(
en
0 ci
0:
~ ~
w
0 ...J
:J
...J 0
0 m
0
U Cl
c6 ~
0
I- ...J
0
a:: ()
~ V
M
co
N
UJ
I-
(f)
(j)
f-
CI:
:J
o
()
...J
~
f:
z
W
Q
(j)
W
CI:
o
Q
~
et
o
...J
o
()
06
f-
et
~
W
J-
(j)
Iii
~
Z
0::
o
u..
J
<(
()
<('
~
z
o
::!
~
z
<(
C/)
cl
0::
~
I.U
..J
:J
o
III
o
o
~
o
..J
o
()
'OJ"
C'l
co
N
U E
~.5
~"
",-
ogo
2"g
''''; ..
~-
(,)"',
<~
~~
0:::';;:
~.
Z
0::
o
u.
J
~
<(
()
z
o
~
~
z
o:t:
(f)
0"
0::
~
LU
oJ
:J
o
al
o
Cl
~
o
oJ
o
()
v
C'l
OJ
(\j
...J
<(
j:
Z
w
Q
(j)
w
a::
o
Q
<(
a::
o
...J
o
()
~
f-
a::
~
w
f-
(j)
<..iE
~g
>-<~
."
",-
-oij
g.=
-"
:E~
<.)""
~2"
~j
v, III
I-
0::
:J
0
U ~ c:.i
1':.
Z ......
...J a: vi'~
~ 0 0'
u. (IJ,
:J .... '
I- :.2'
<( 0:
Z 0 .<':
w <i. ~I
0 9 !2
z
(/) 0
~
W ~
0:: z
0 ~
0 ci
~ a:
~
w
0 ..J
::J
...J 0
0 m
0
U c
~ ~
0
I- ..J
0
0:: 0
~ .,
M
llJ
('II
W
I-
C/)
U) III
~
:J
0 1 0:
U s:::.
Z ""'""4 :
...J a: cA'~
0 ti
~ 1L Il.lI
....,
~ :.a -j
I- ~ 0'
Z <-I
W ti. ~I
0 ~ ~!
z 1
CJ) 0
~ 1
w ~ <
0: z
<l:
0 rJ)
0 ci
a:
~ ~
w
0 ~
:J
...J 0
0 m
0
U 0
06 ~
0
I- ~
0
0: 0
~ v
'"
co
'"
W
I-
CJ)
(f) III
I-
a::
:J
0
() ~
Z Ui5
...J ~ $:I 'C
......E
::f 0 .c
LL ",-
I- J t)gp
Z ~ .~.~
() ..$:1-
W ~- U ,,_
0 <~
~ tl
(f) z ~~
0
W :2 i:l:::.'i:
a:: ~
0 Z
~
0 rJ)
<( 6
a:: ~
0 ~
...J UJ
...J
0 :)
() 0
co
~ 0
0
I- ~
a:: 0
~ ...J
0
()
W <t
?- M
<Xl
(f) C\I
Attachment D
Final Environmental Impact Report
Attachment not available electronically.
Available at the City Clerk's Office.