Loading...
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.