SR-402-007 (13)
Santa Monica, California
PCD:AA:f:\plan\admin\civctr\ccparking\cc appeal\strpt2.doc
Council Meeting: May 20, 2003
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: City Staff
SUBJECT: Appeal 03-002 of the Planning Commission’s approval of EIR 02-
003 and Development Review Permit 02-010 for the Civic Center
Parking Structure, including review of the issues raised by the
Planning Commission: community room, street-level landscaping,
roof-level stepback, southern façade, awnings, and roof-top
trellises. Applicant: City of Santa Monica. Appellant: Maureen
Gorson, Esq. for Doubletree Guest Suites Santa Monica
INTRODUCTION
This report recommends that the City Council take the following actions:
1. Consider issues related to the Civic Center Parking Structure, including the
concerns raised by the Planning Commission (community room, street-level
landscaping, roof-level stepback, southern façade, awnings, and roof-top
trellises) and the appeal filed by Maureen Gorson, Esq. for Doubletree Guest
Suites Santa Monica.
2. Certify the Final Environmental Impact Report prepared for the proposed
Civic Center Parking Structure;
3. Adopt a statement of overriding considerations and mitigation monitoring plan
for the proposed project; and
4. Deny the appeal and approve Development Review Permit 02DR-010 with
conditions for the proposed project.
BACKGROUND
The City proposes to construct of a new 244,930-square foot public parking
structure of five levels above grade with rooftop parking and one and one-half
levels of below-grade parking, accommodating a maximum of 880 parking
spaces with street-level leasable tenant spaces, in the Civic Center area.
Development Review Permit 02-010 is required as the project involves new
development of over 30,000 square feet within the Civic Center Specific Plan
(CCSP) area. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared that
examines the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project.
On March 5, 2003, the Planning Commission certified the Final EIR, adopted a
Statement of Overriding Considerations and Mitigation Monitoring Program, and
approved the Development Review Permit. The Planning Commission’s
Statement of Official Action is included as Attachment A and Meeting Minutes
from March 5 as Attachment B.
On March 19, 2003, representatives of the Doubletree Guest Suites Santa
Monica appealed the Planning Commission decision, contending that the
potential environmental impacts of the proposed project are not fully disclosed
and analyzed in the EIR and that the Planning Commission recognized
deficiencies within the EIR and certified the EIR nonetheless. The appeal
statement is included as Attachment C.
This hearing by the City Council is de novo. Consequently, all issues related to
the project are now before the Council. Although the Planning Commission
certified the EIR, the environmental document is also before the City Council.
Therefore, the City Council should re-certify the EIR prior to taking action on the
proposed project. While the EIR identifies significant and unavoidable adverse
environmental impacts, the Council may certify the EIR with these impacts,
2
provided that, prior to approval of the project, the Council adopts a Statement of
Overriding Considerations that finds the benefits of the proposed project
outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts.
DISCUSSION
Planning Commission Action
On March 5, 2003, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the
proposed project. The only public testimony came from representatives of the
Doubletree Hotel, whose testimony focused primarily on shadow impacts and
effects on ocean views from the hotel. The Planning Commission considered the
following issues in their review of the EIR and proposed project:
Traffic Data
Some of the commissioners expressed concern that the results of the traffic
study contained in the EIR differ from commissioners’ personal experiences of
traffic conditions. The base-year traffic operating conditions in the City’s traffic
model are developed based on empirical traffic counts collected at each
intersection.
The City’s practice for traffic studies is to use traffic count and forecast data from
the City’s Traffix model as the basis for the study, to which project traffic is then
added and evaluated. At present, the 1999 traffic count dataset in the Traffix
model database is the most recent available dataset, and has been used for this
3
EIR, as well as studies for other recent projects in Santa Monica. The traffic
study forecasts future conditions to the year 2009 by adding background traffic
growth at 1.5 percent per year compounded (from 1999 on), plus cumulative
traffic generated by specific proposed and approved related projects, including
development that has been completed between 1999 and the present. The 1.5
percent per year background growth is very conservative, particularly because it
is in addition to traffic from proposed and approved related projects. By
comparison, the 2002 Los Angeles County Congestion Management Program
forecasts overall traffic growth of less than one percent per year on the Westside,
including both ambient growth and future projects.
The project traffic study, as well as other EIR traffic studies prepared for the City,
is based on the “level of service” methodology. The peak-hour levels of service
are estimated using the “Operational Analysis” methodology from the Highway
Capacity Manual (HCM), in accordance with City guidelines. The HCM is a
nationally accepted document published by the Transportation Research Board.
Using this methodology, the level of service is determined and reported for the
intersection as a whole based on the average vehicular delay for all vehicles at
the intersection. This methodology calculates average delay and volume-to-
capacity ratio based on the amount of traffic traveling through the intersection,
travel lane geometries, signal phasing, and other factors affecting capacity such as
on-street parking, bus operations near the intersection, and pedestrian volumes at
the street crosswalks. While delays longer and shorter than the average condition
4
for the intersection as a whole can be experienced by motorists on certain
movements and during specific times within the peak hour, the methodology
reflects the overall conditions and delays that would be experienced by the
average motorist.
In this way, the City’s traffic model presents a conservative, comprehensive and
reasonable forecast of future traffic conditions.
Project Design
The Planning Commission expressed their satisfaction with the overall project
design. However, the Commission did apply special conditions to the
Development Review Permit stating that the Architectural Review Board should
pay special attention to the following elements of the project design:
?
Greater variation in the street-level awnings;
?
Creation of a “gateway” element on the south facade of the project;
?
Inclusion of landscaping that “softens” the building relative to Fourth Street
while not blocking the pedestrian-accessibility of the ground-floor uses; and
?
Massing and shadow effects of the project relative to Fourth Street, including
relocation of the rooftop trellises and a roof-level stepback.
The project’s design-build team has developed design alternatives and cost
estimates associated with the modifications considered by the Planning
Commission.
5
The Planning Commission requested consideration of greater variation in the
street-level awnings in order to create a more diverse texture of pedestrian
experience along the street. A “gateway” design element at the southern façade
was requested to give this façade equal importance to the ”gateway” element at
the north façade. Attachment E shows design modifications reflecting variation in
the street-level awnings and a southern gateway element.
The Planning Commission’s request for street-level landscaping presents
challenges with respect to the design intent and parking capacity of the proposed
project. While the general design approach for the project has been to provide a
high-quality pedestrian experience through building design and materials, some
options that have been developed for street-level landscaping are shown in
Attachment F, as follows:
?
Option 1 provides sidewalk-level building cutouts that provide small, protected
garden areas. While such an approach provides additional variation in the
pedestrian experience along Fourth Street, it is not recommended as it would
result in the loss of 15 parking spaces, create challenging discontinuity within
the first- and second-level tenant spaces, and introduce an element that is
inconsistent with the overall design intent of the project and likely will not be
of benefit to the long-term pedestrian-friendliness of the project.
?
Option 2 provides a variation of the previous option, with the notches
continuing vertically for the entire height of the structure. This option results
in the loss of 49 parking spaces and is not recommended as it presents the
same challenges associated with Option 1.
?
Option 3 provides vines growing up trellis panels along the Fourth Street
facade. This option adds additional variety and articulation to the façade,
though the City’s capacity to appropriately maintain the vines could affect the
project’s aesthetics over time.
6
?
Option 4 shows the addition of a landscaped strip between the sidewalk and
the storefront. This approach is not recommended as it could create a barrier
between pedestrians and the adjacent storefronts and serves to defeat the
primary purpose for providing street-level tenant uses.
?
Option 5 provides for the creation of a landscaped parkway between the
sidewalk and the street. This approach provides landscaping in a location
where it could provide for the greatest relief for pedestrians by creating a
green transition zone between the sidewalk and the adjacent travel lane.
The Planning Commission also suggested that the photovoltaic rooftop trellis
structures adjacent to Fourth Street be relocated to the center of the structure.
Attachment G shows the visual impacts of this approach. Staff does not support
this modification, which is contrary to the CCSP’s stated purpose of requiring
“perimeter” trellis structures to screen the rooftop parking from view. This
approach also negatively impacts the overall design intent of using the trellis
structures to add variation and visual interest to the Fourth Street façade. The
relocation of the trellises would also largely eliminate the proposed approach for
creating a “gateway” element at the north façade of the structure.
Finally, the Planning Commission engaged in a detailed discussion of providing a
stepback at the roof level adjacent to Fourth Street and requested that design
modifications to the roof-level be considered. Attachment H illustrates a roof-
level stepback of 15 feet adjacent to Fourth Street. This approaches results in a
loss of 51 parking spaces. Staff cannot support the roof-level stepback, which
significantly undermines the functional and visual integrity of the parking
structure. The roof-level stepback is expected to be largely imperceptible from
the sidewalk/street level, thereby not significantly affecting the perceived mass of
7
the structure as viewed by pedestrians. The stepback will likely appear to be a
mistake in the design or construction of the project, and certainly not in keeping
with the quality of the reminder of the structure.
If the Development Review Permit is approved, special conditions are
recommended (conditions 52 to 54) to ensure that the design intent associated
with the permit carries through design development and construction documents.
Rooftop Community Room
The Planning Commission inquired about a potential rooftop community room
that had been considered during the project’s conceptual design phase.
As the rooftop community room would exceed the height limit permitted under the
Civic Center Specific Plan, a discrete amendment to the specific plan would need
to be adopted prior to approval of the rooftop community room. The rooftop
community room was fully analyzed, including a complete traffic analysis, as a
project alternative within the EIR and no additional significant impacts were
shown to result from the inclusion of the room. If Council wishes to pursue the
inclusion of the community room, the Planning Commission or City Council must
adopt a notice of intent to amend the specific plan, followed by review and
recommendation on the plan amendment by the Planning Commission, prior to
Council adoption.
8
Appeal Analysis
Representatives of the Doubletree Hotel appealed both the Planning
Commission’s certification of the EIR and its approval of the Development
Review Permit. The appeal letter claims, “The EIR failed to analyze potential
significant environmental impacts or relied on multiple miscalculations that
substantially understate those impacts.” Staff disagrees with these assertions as
discussed in the Response to Comments to the Final EIR and in the Planning
Commission’s written and oral staff reports (see Attachment T, Appendix F,
pages 27 – 60). A discussion of the key issues is provided below.
Shadow Impacts
The Doubletree Hotel’s representatives claim that the project will have
environmentally significant shadow effects on the hotel’s outdoor patio, indoor
restaurant, lower-level guest rooms and swimming pool. In discussing shadow
effects, there are several important factors that are considered, including:
?
affected land use (i.e. is it a light-sensitive use whereby sunlight is essential
to its use?),
?
duration (i.e. how many hours per day might a use be in shadow?),
?
time of day (i.e. is it in shadow at a time of day when sunlight is most
important?),
?
season (i.e. what time of year might a particular use be in shadow?),
?
extent (i.e. what percentage of a particular use may be in shadow?),
9
?
nature of the shadows (i.e. is the shadow solid or more dappled in nature?),
and
?
pre-existing conditions (i.e. are there existing buildings, landscaping or other
features that currently shadow the use?).
The appellant’s first claim with respect to shadows is that winter afternoon
shading of the hotel’s first-floor outdoor patio, first-floor indoor restaurant, and
lower-level hotel rooms should be considered a significant impact pursuant to
CEQA. However, while unobstructed sunlight during all daylight hours may be
considered desirable for these uses, it is certainly not essential for their use and
these uses would thereby not be considered to be light-sensitive receptors
pursuant to the City’s CEQA criteria. It should be noted that the patio and
restaurant currently experience winter morning shading as a result of the building
design (see Attachment K) and winter afternoon shading as a result of the hotel’s
landscaping and walls (see Attachment L). In addition, staff had an opportunity
to regularly visit the outdoor patio at several points during the winter period and it
did not appear to receive any regular use during the winter period.
The appellants’ second shadowing claim relates to the third-floor swimming pool
(see Attachment M). Due to the critical importance of sunlight to the use of the
pool, the EIR considers it to be a light-sensitive use. In its analysis of shadow
effects on the pool, the Draft EIR miscalculated the distance between the parking
structure and pool. This miscalculation was corrected in the Response to
10
Comments and the shadow analysis revised for the Final EIR (see Attachment T,
Appendix F, page 60). The appellant has subsequently claimed that the grade
differential between the parking structure and hotel is overstated in the Final EIR
and the shadow effects are thereby understated. However, even if one were to
assume that the analysis and calculations contained in the appellant’s letter are
correct, the diagrams included with the letter do not demonstrate a significant
impact pursuant to the City’s CEQA criteria. The diagrams concur with the EIR’s
analysis and conclusion that there is no shadow effect during most of the year,
particularly during the warmer months of summer, fall and spring when the pool
is most likely to be enjoyed for its sunning opportunities.
With respect to winter, the appellant’s diagrams show that shadows would only
encroach upon the pool for a limited period during the mid- to late-afternoon
hours. In fact, the diagrams show that most of the winter afternoon shadowing of
the pool would be dappled shading from the trellis structures atop the proposed
project. Using the appellant-provided diagrams, Attachment N shows that at
3 p.m. on the winter solstice, solid shadows from the roofline of the proposed
parking structure do not yet reach the pool. It should also be noted with respect
to pre-existing shadow conditions that the pool already experiences winter
afternoon shadowing due to the cluster of large palm trees immediately adjacent
to and above the pool, as well as the landscaping and walls around the pool area
(see Attachment O.) Consistent with past City practice in environmental review,
11
given the winter season, short shadow duration, nature of the shadows, and pre-
existing shadow conditions, such shading would not be considered significant.
Impacts on Ocean Views
The appellant also claims that the EIR should consider impacts from the five-
story parking structure on the ocean views from the eight-story hotel. However,
the City’s environmental significance criteria only consider obstruction of ocean
views from a public viewing area to be significant, not from a private viewing
area. Furthermore, none of the City’s policies, including the General Plan
Elements, the Civic Center Specific Plan, and the Zoning Code, consider
protection of private views to be a land-use consideration, let alone an
environmental consideration. The appellant has also stated that they believe this
to be a Coastal Act issue. However, the Doubletree Hotel is not located within
the Coastal Zone and is therefore not accorded any projection by the Act.
Additionally, private views are not considered to be visual resources within the
City’s Local Coastal Program.
ththth
Representatives of the hotel have stated that the rooms on the 6, 7 and 8
floors are advertised as ocean view rooms. Attachment P provides an aerial
photograph of the area from the Doubletree Hotel to the Ocean. The rooms in
the southwestern-facing portion of the chevron-shaped hotel, which look out over
the Civic Auditorium parking lot and the northern end of the Ocean Park
neighborhood toward the ocean, are not expected to have view effects as a
12
result of the proposed project. The rooms on the eastern-facing sides of the
hotel are also not expected to be affected. However, given the proximity of the
proposed project to the existing hotel, the views from western-facing hotel rooms
parallel to Fourth Street are expected to be altered as a result of the project. The
roof level of the proposed project is 119 feet above sea level, with the parapet
th
extending to 121’6”. Eye level for a five-foot tall person on the 6 floor of the
hotel is at approximately 125’, with the view clearing the parapet of the parking
th
structure, although these 6 floor views would be partially obstructed by the
thth
rooftop trellises and elevators. Views from the 7 and 8 floors are expected to
clear the parking structure without obstruction. Upper-level, western-facing rooms
of the hotel look over the County Courthouse and over the series of hotels along
Ocean Avenue and Appian Way and out to the ocean and the horizon
approximately one-half mile from the hotel. These rooms also look over City Hall
and the RAND north parking lot and down towards Ocean Avenue, the Pier Sign,
the southern tip of Palisades Park, and the ocean. While ocean-horizon views
from the upper floors would remain, these downward-facing views are expected
to be clipped by the western edge of the parking structure.
When the City granted permits for the development of the hotel, it did not by that
decision intend to deprive all properties in the half-mile area between the hotel
and the ocean of their development potential. Similarly, it is unrealistic for the
hotel to expect that at such a distance from the ocean, their views would be
protected from future development.
13
In fact, just as construction of the hotel likely affected views of properties to the
east, development to the west of the hotel has occurred that would have affected
the hotel’s original viewshed. Since the hotel opened, new development to its
west has included Lowe’s Hotel, Le Merigot Hotel, and 1733 Ocean Avenue
mixed-use office. The new RAND Headquarters, which is currently under
construction, has a parapet height of 128’4” above sea level and roof projections
to 138’10” feet. Each of these development projects has altered or will alter the
scope of views available from the hotel, yet the hotel did not raise public
objections to these projects. The existing CCSP allows for additional mixed-use
residential development to the west of the hotel that would further alter the views
from the hotel. While the hotel’s concerns are certainly understandable, it would
be inequitable to eliminate development potential for properties to the west
simply because a building was built to their east that is tall enough to create
ocean views.
Similarly, it is difficult to define a threshold regarding which existing views might
be protected in granting development review permits. In this particular case, the
hotel’s concerns relate to the development of an approximately 56-foot high
structure that, due to topography and existing building heights, reaches a higher
point than many of the other buildings between the hotel and the ocean. If
properties to the west of the hotel were all one-story buildings, the hotel would
likely object to any two-story buildings that could block views from the second
14
floor of the hotel, making it unclear where one draws the line with respect to
which level of existing private views should be protected at the expense of other
properties. Considering private, commercial views to be protected in the
Downtown / Civic Center area, the most urban and intensely developed part of
Santa Monica, thereby has significant implications.
Other Appellant Issues
The appellant has also raised a variety of other issues, including public scoping,
aesthetic street effects, and appellant-preferred project alternatives. These
issues are fully addressed in the Final EIR (Attachment T, Section 4.1 and
Appendix F, pages 27 – 60.)
Project Description
The proposed Civic Center Parking Structure consists of an approximately 880-
space public parking structure of five levels above grade with rooftop parking and
one and one-half levels below grade, for a total of 233,609 square feet of above-
grade parking area. In addition, 11,321 square feet of leasable commercial
spaces are included on the first and second levels adjacent to Fourth Street and
Olympic Drive. The proposed height is 55’8” high, with the parapets projecting
42 inches, trellises projecting 11 feet, and elevator enclosures projecting 13 feet
above the roof height.
15
Following construction of the project, the parking structure is proposed to provide
public visitor parking in the Civic Center area, parking for official City vehicles,
and interim replacement parking for downtown employees while the downtown
parking structures undergo seismic retrofitting and reconstruction. Once the
downtown parking program has proceeded to the point that replacement parking
is no longer needed, part of the Civic Center parking needs that are currently
located in the Civic Auditorium parking lot will be shifted to the parking structure,
allowing for the eventual conversion of the lot to community-oriented uses as
outlined in the CCSP.
Civic Center Parking
The Civic Auditorium parking lot currently provides the primary parking resources
to meet the needs of public and community facilities within the Civic Center,
including City Hall, the existing police headquarters, County Courthouse, and
Civic Auditorium. The approximately 1,030-space surface parking lot is generally
able to meet the parking needs of the public, employees and official vehicles
associated with the community facilities when the Civic Auditorium is closed.
However, when weekday events are held at the Civic Auditorium, the lot is
insufficient to meet all of these needs.
The existing Civic Center Specific Plan (adopted in 1993, amended in 2000)
provides for the redevelopment of the Civic Auditorium parking lot as a public
park with associated community facilities. The plan prescribes the development
16
of a parking structure of up to 1,000 spaces on the proposed project site and an
additional parking structure of up to 725 spaces along Fourth Street, immediately
south of Civic Center Drive. These two parking structures are designed to
replace the parking within the Civic Auditorium lot while meeting parking
demands of new community facilities, including the public park, Public Safety
Facility, and the cultural, community and child care facilities. While the Specific
Plan allows for up to 1,000 parking spaces to be developed on the site, 880
spaces represents the amount of parking that can be fit within the Specific Plan’s
development standards, while still providing for street-level tenant spaces and a
majority of parking stalls that are full size.
The proposed update to the Civic Center Specific Plan, which is currently in draft
form, does not include the second 750-space parking structure. Rather, parking
would be primarily located underground as part of expanded or new community
facilities proposed by the draft plan. However, the proposed plan update
continues to provide for a parking structure of up to 1,000 spaces on the
proposed project site. Consequently, this aspect of the Specific Plan would
remain unchanged.
Project Initiation
The project is proposed on the site of an existing City vehicle parking lot that is
currently being used for police parking and construction staging for the Public
Safety Facility. With the Public Safety Facility anticipated to complete
17
construction in mid-2003, the site will become available for the Civic Center
Parking Structure.
In anticipation of the impending completion of the Public Safety Facility, the City
began moving forward with the preliminary development of the Civic Center
Parking Structure in 2001. Initial steps included City Council approval of a
financing plan. In late 2001, the City Council approved a contract for design of
the parking structure with a design-build team including Moore Ruble Yudell,
International Parking Design, and ARB, Inc. In June 2002, the Civic Center
Working Group hosted a public workshop to consider design concepts for the
parking structure. Based on the feedback from the workshop, the design-build
team developed a design plan that was conceptually approved by the City
Council on September 10, 2002.
Following construction of the project, the parking structure is proposed to provide
public parking to serve visitors to the Civic Center, parking for official City
vehicles, and interim replacement parking for downtown employees while the
downtown parking structures undergo seismic retrofitting and reconstruction.
Once the downtown parking program has proceeded to the point that
replacement parking is no longer needed in the Civic Center Parking Structure,
part of the Civic Center parking needs that are currently located in the Civic
Auditorium parking lot will be shifted to the parking structure, allowing for the
18
eventual conversion of the lot to community-oriented uses as outlined in the
CCSP.
Project Design
During the conceptualization of the project and the associated public review
process, a principle consideration has been how to take a structure that is
historically uniform and unarticulated by its very nature, and create a visually
appealing project that is integrated into the relevant urban context. The following
describes the approach that meets these goals.
One of the key elements of the proposed project approach is its foundation in the
architectural language of the Civic Center while introducing contemporary
architectural features and building materials that grow organically from its context
in the Civic Center. This approach allows the parking structure to not only
provide an important function within the Civic Center (i.e. parking for the adjacent
buildings), but also to contribute to the physical form and urban fabric of the Civic
Center.
The north side of the structure is designed with a strong civic presence to reflect
its relationship with City Hall and the Public Safety Facility. This civic statement
is accentuated through the use of robust building materials (light-colored, pre-
cast concrete) and rectangular punched openings that are evocative of the
facade of City Hall. The northwest corner of the parking structure will be visible
19
from Main Street and the lawn of City Hall. The north face of the structure is also
designed to incorporate lower-level tenant spaces that will create an active visual
interface between the parking structure and Olympic Drive and Fourth Street.
These tenant spaces could accommodate public-oriented uses such as public
service offices, neighborhood-serving retail or a café or sandwich shop.
The eastern façade of the structure is proposed to include variation in the vertical
plane and in the use of materials in order to create visual interest and break up
the massing of the structure adjacent to Fourth Street. This treatment includes
the use of narrow glass panels of varying hues that create an articulated visual
experience, allow air to circulate through the structure, and frame views into and
out of the structure. The sections of glass panels are interspersed with sections
of off-white, precast concrete panels with vertical rectangular openings that relate
to the structure’s Olympic Drive façade, as well as the facades of City Hall and
the Public Safety Facility. The concrete sections are set back from the glass
sections, creating variation in the vertical plane of the structure. This façade
also includes lower-level tenant spaces adjacent to Fourth Street and canopies
that provide a pedestrian-oriented foundation for the façade.
The south face of the parking structure intersperses energy-producing
photovoltaic panels with the colored glass panels in order to capitalize on the
solar orientation of this facade. The western façade, adjacent to Avenida
Mazatlan alley, angles photovoltaic panels to maximize its solar orientation while
20
allowing ocean breezes to flow through the structure and naturally cool its
interior.
In compliance with the CCSP, the project also includes roof-level trellises that
support energy-producing photovoltaic panels in order to screen the rooftop
parking, shade the parked cars, and generate electricity to help meet the
project’s needs.
General Plan, Civic Center Specific Plan and Zoning Code Consistency
Land Use Element Policy 1.12.2 states that public lands and facilities within this
area east of Main Street will be determined by the policies contained in the Civic
Center Specific Plan. SMMC Section Code section 9.04.08.32 (Civic Center
District) includes public parking and on-premise accessory uses as permitted
uses and states that all property development standards are as established in the
Civic Center Specific Plan.
The Civic Center Specific Plan, which was adopted in 1993 and amended in
2000 to reflect the change in location of the RAND Headquarters Project,
designated the site for the construction of a major public parking facility of up to
1,000 spaces. The CCSP provides specific standards for the parking structure
on this site, including length, height, ground-level uses, quality of materials, and
perimeter trellis structures. The proposed project complies with these
21
requirements, while establishing a new standard of quality in the design of public
parking in Santa Monica, as discussed above.
Development Review Permit 02-010
A Development Review Permit is required for any new development over 30,000
square feet within the CCSP area. The proposed project is 244,930 square feet
in size, requiring the Planning Commission to review the project and make
applicable findings. Overall, the physical location, size, massing, and placement
of the proposed project are compatible with and relate appropriately with the
surrounding sites and neighborhood. The Civic Center Parking Structure will
provide critical parking resources to support adjacent community-serving
facilities, including City Hall, the Public Safety Facility, County Courthouse and
Civic Auditorium, and will help provide for the eventual conversion of nearby
surface parking to community-oriented uses. The five-level, 55’8”, 244,930-
square foot building will have frontage along Fourth Street and Olympic and Civic
Center Drives and will be of a scale and massing comparable to the surrounding
buildings in the neighborhood which range in size from two to eight stories in
height and include a variety of styles and uses. The building will contain
pedestrian entrances adjacent to the three streets and leasable tenant spaces
with extensive glazing on the first and second levels adjacent to Fourth Street
and Olympic Drive in order to enhance the structure’s pedestrian orientation.
22
Neighborhood Compatibility
The proposed project would provide a major public parking facility that is a critical
component in serving the parking needs of the adjacent public facilities to allow
for the eventual reclamation of the Civic Auditorium parking lot for community-
oriented uses. The project’s proposed size and height is compatible with the
variety of area buildings that are primarily institutional or commercial in use and
range in height from three to eight stories, including the eight-story Doubletree
Hotel, four-story Public Safety Facility (under construction), three-story City Hall,
five-story RAND Headquarters (under construction), and eight-story Viceroy
Hotel.
In addition to the issues raised by the appellant, representatives of the County
Courthouse have voiced concerns regarding the project. The County’s concerns
primarily involve noise and security. Concerns regarding noise relate to potential
impacts on Courthouse operations associated with construction and operation of
the parking structure. Construction noise is analyzed in the EIR and mitigation
measures are required to bring noise to a less than significant level. Although
parking and its associated noises have historically occurred on the project site,
the EIR also analyzes operational noise and finds that any noise impacts on the
Courthouse will be less than significant. Security concerns are primarily
associated with the safety of judicial staff who park across Avenida Mazatlan
alley from the proposed parking structure site. While security is not an
23
environmental issue, is an important policy and social issue, and staff from the
County and City are meeting regularly to address the County’s concerns.
CEQA ANALYSIS
An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared for the proposed
project in accordance with Section 15087 of the California Environmental Quality
Act (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 that concluded
on July 30, 2002. Copies of the Draft EIR were made available for a 45-day
public review period, which closed on December 16, 2002. A total of 7 comment
letters on the draft EIR were received. These comment letters, as well as the
response to comments, are included in the Final EIR (Attachment T). Details of
the significant impacts are discussed below.
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, NOP and responses to the NOP. The
environmental analysis, particularly in the traffic and circulation section, includes
two stages of use of the parking structure: the “interim” conditions, when up to
700 parking spaces in the proposed project are occupied by downtown
employees, and the “ultimate” conditions, once the downtown parking seismic
retrofit and reconstruction program has progressed to the point that replacement
24
parking is no longer needed in the project and a portion of the parking needs
currently located in the Civic Auditorium parking lot are shifted to the proposed
project.
The environmental study determined that the proposed project would have
minimal or no impacts for the following eight environmental categories. Because
potential effects in these impact areas were found not to be significant, further
analysis of these impacts were not required or provided in the EIR:
Biological Resources Population and Housing
Cultural Resources Hydrology and Water Quality
Mineral Resources Public Services
Economic and Social Impacts Recreation
The NOP identified potentially significant effects in the following impact areas
associated with the construction or operation of the proposed project, which are
addressed in detail in the EIR:
Aesthetics and Shadow Effects Air Quality
Construction Effects Geology
Land Use and Planning Traffic and Circulation
Neighborhood Effects
Utilities, Service Systems, and Energy
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
25
CEQA significance criteria, without creating secondary impacts. Significant but
mitigatable impacts were found in the areas of Aesthetics/Shadow Effects,
Construction Effects, Geology, and Hazards/Hazardous Materials.
A brief description of the impact and summary of the recommended mitigation
measure for these mitigatable impacts is provided in the Summary of Significant
Impacts section of the EIR. As discussed below, significant, unavoidable and
adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated are identified by the EIR for
Traffic/Circulation and Neighborhood Effects, as follows:
?
Traffic/Circulation – unavoidably significant traffic impacts to two
intersections, as well as to Fourth Street south of Pico Boulevard.
?
Neighborhood Effects – unavoidably significant traffic impacts to Fourth
Street south of Pico Boulevard.
Traffic and Circulation
It may be helpful to the Council to clarify why traffic impacts are identified in the
EIR’s analysis, given that the project involves the construction of a parking
structure that does not generally create new automobile trips, but rather involves
replacing existing parking stalls. Impacts identified under the “interim conditions”
scenario are specifically associated with a portion of downtown employees who
are expected to reach the Civic Center Parking Structure using routes that are
slightly varied from their current routes. The change in routes results in
significant impacts related to Levels of Service (LOS) and volume/capacity ratios
at three of the 35 intersections studied:
26
?
Ocean Avenue/Neilson Way and Pico Boulevard,
?
Pico Boulevard and Fourth Street, and
?
Fourth Street and I-10 On-ramp.
While these impacts would only occur during the temporary period, they are
considered significant during that period. The intersection of Fourth Street and I-
10 On-ramp is also shown to be significantly impacted during the “ultimate
conditions” scenario. This is also related to shifting of existing trips as more
parkers take advantage of the parking structure’s adjacency to the freeway.
While this shift reduces traffic on other Santa Monica roadways and
intersections, it does create a significant impact at the Fourth Street intersection
with the freeway on-ramp.
A mitigation measure identified for the intersection of Ocean Avenue/Neilson
Way and Pico Boulevard would reduce the significant impact that was identified
under interim conditions to a less than significant level. However, the adverse
traffic-related environmental impacts identified at the other two intersections
cannot be feasibly mitigated as physical constraints would require narrowing or
eliminating sidewalks or encroaching upon adjacent properties to implement
mitigation. These mitigation measures would themselves result in significant
negative impacts to the area and impact the neighborhood context. Narrowing
sidewalk widths or eliminating sidewalks adversely affects the pedestrian
environment by reducing the walking area for pedestrians, including pedestrians
going to and coming from Santa Monica High School, and potentially forcing
pedestrians into the street. Encroachments on adjacent properties would involve
27
removing part of the Public Safety Facility, the commercial properties on the
south side of Pico Boulevard, or the Santa Monica High School Track and Field,
or removing landscaping adjacent to the Doubletree Hotel or the Civic Auditorium
Parking Lot. Removal of landscaped parkways would negatively affect the
pedestrian environment by removing adjacent green space that provides shading
and visual relief. Removal of parts of community facilities would negatively
impact the facilities’ ability to provide public services. Removal of parts of
commercial buildings on Pico Boulevard would negatively affect the interest and
variety of the pedestrian experience on that street, as well as impact the viability
of the existing businesses. Such widening of streets to accommodate additional
vehicle trips is contrary City policy where the preservation of neighborhoods and
the pedestrian environment is highly valued.
The neighborhood traffic impacts identified in the EIR are specifically associated
with the approximately 11,321 square feet of street-level leasable spaces
proposed for the structure. As the specific use of these spaces cannot be
identified at this time, the EIR uses the most conservative analysis and assumes
that the space will be used for retail use, which is associated with a relatively
high traffic generation rate. Given the nature of Fourth Street in this area, it is
unlikely that the street-level spaces would have much appeal to destination retail
tenants. If retail tenants were to occupy the space, they would likely be
neighborhood-serving uses specifically associated with pedestrian trips from City
Hall, the County Courthouse, or the Public Safety Facility. Other likely uses
28
would be public-serving governmental offices that are already located in the Civic
Center. In either case, the new trips associated with these tenant spaces would
be minimal.
In spite of the likely uses of the tenant space, the traffic analysis uses the most
conservative analysis and identifies significant neighborhood traffic impacts on
two segments of Fourth Street, south of Pico Boulevard. The significant
neighborhood traffic impacts cannot be mitigated as traffic-calming measures
have already been implemented on Fourth Street. To be effective in further
reducing pass-through traffic, any additional traffic-calming measures would likely
consist of diverters or partial or full street closures. Such measures would likely
have unintended adverse consequences on other parallel local streets, if traffic
shifted from Fourth Street to other streets and created negative neighborhood
traffic impacts.
The full discussion of traffic impacts and mitigation measures can be found in
Section 4.9 and Appendix E to the EIR.
Neighborhood Impacts
The significant and unavoidable neighborhood impacts identified in the EIR are
associated with neighborhood traffic impacts on Fourth Street, south of Pico
Boulevard, as discussed above.
29
Project Alternatives
CEQA requires that an EIR evaluate alternatives to the proposed project,
including a “No Project” alternative. Because an EIR must identify ways to
mitigate or avoid the significant effects that a project may have on the
environment, the discussion of alternatives focuses on changes to the project or
the project location that are capable of achieving the objectives of the proposed
project while avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects associated
with the project. However, only feasible alternatives need be studied. Among
the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of
alternatives are site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure,
general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional
boundaries, and whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control or
otherwise has access to the alternative site.
The following four alternatives to the proposed project were analyzed in the EIR
in compliance with CEQA requirements:
?
No Project: under this alternative, the Civic Center Parking Structure
would not be constructed and the site would remain a surface parking lot.
?
Proposed Project with Rooftop Community Room: this alternative is
essentially the same as the proposed project, with the addition of a 2,500-
square foot community room on the rooftop of the parking structure; this
alternative would require an amendment to the Civic Center Specific Plan.
?
Substitute Site: under this alternative, the parking structure would be built
on a site on Ocean Avenue, north of the Pacific Shores Hotel; this
alternative would require an amendment to the Civic Center Specific Plan.
30
?
Two Garages: under this alternative, the parking would be divided
between the proposed site and the substitute site referenced above; this
alternative would require an amendment to the Civic Center Specific Plan.
The EIR determined that the No Project Alternative would be considered the
environmentally superior alternative. Implementation of the No Project
Alternative would not meet the project objectives of providing adjacent parking to
support City Hall, County Courthouse, Public Safety Facility and Civic
Auditorium, creating new parking resources to allow for the eventual conversion
of surface parking to community-oriented uses, and serving as temporary parking
to support the downtown parking seismic retrofit and reconstruction program.
Among the remaining alternatives, the “Proposed Project with Rooftop
Community Room” appears to be superior overall, as it involves some
improvement in neighborhood impacts, and involves fewer increased impacts
than the other alternatives. While the “No Project Alternative” is considered to be
superior overall, the proposed project appears to be superior to the remaining
alternatives.
Representatives of the Doubletree Hotel have suggested a project alternative
that would involve removing the top levels of the parking structure. While such an
alternative could preserve a greater scope of the hotel’s views, this is not an
environmental issue or a land-use policy issue, as discussed in the appeal
analysis above. Additionally, a significantly reduced project would clearly not
meet the project and Specific Plan objective of developing an efficient public
31
parking structure that can eventually replace surface parking within the Civic
Center.
Statement of Overriding Considerations
In order to approve the project, the City Council must certify the EIR and adopt a
statement of overriding considerations. A statement of overriding considerations
is a finding by the City Council that the benefits of a proposed project outweigh
the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts. Staff recommends that a
statement of overriding considerations is warranted for the following reasons:
?
The Civic Center Parking Structure will support key community facilities,
including City Hall, the County Courthouse, the Public Safety Facility and
the Civic Auditorium, by providing parking for automobiles and bicycles of
the public and employees, as well as parking for official vehicles.
?
The Civic Center Parking Structure provides a major new parking resource
to allow for the eventual redevelopment of surface parking in the Civic
Center area for public-serving parks and community facilities, as
prescribed by the Civic Center Specific Plan for this site.
?
Land Use Element Policy 1.11 prescribes the provision of land for parks
and other public facilities adequate to meet future needs. The project
supports this policy of the Land Use Element by consolidating surface
parking into structures to allow for the eventual redevelopment of surface
parking in the Civic Center area for parks and community facilities.
?
Land Use Element Policy 1.12.2 provides for the use of public lands and
facilities within this area to be determined by the Civic Center Specific
Plan. The project supports this policy of the Land Use Element by
complying with the requirements of the Civic Center Specific Plan.
?
The traffic and transportation impacts to Fourth Street / Pico Boulevard
and Fourth Street / I-10 Eastbound On-ramp under the interim conditions
are temporary in nature and are not expected to continue beyond the
interim period during which certain downtown parking needs are
temporarily shifted to the Civic Center Parking Structure.
32
?
The traffic and transportation impact at Fourth Street / I-10 Eastbound On-
ramp under the ultimate conditions is related to shifting of existing trips as
more parkers take advantage of the parking structure’s adjacency to the
freeway. This shift reduces traffic on other Santa Monica roadways and
intersections.
?
The traffic and transportation impact on Fourth Street south of Pico under
the ultimate conditions is specifically associated with any destination retail
or restaurant use of the street-level leasable space in the parking garage.
As these uses are expected to be neighborhood-serving or public-service
functions, these traffic impacts would be reduced.
?
The significant and unavoidable traffic impacts on Fourth Street south of
Pico consists of only 16 additional daily trips on weekdays and 19
additional daily trips on Saturdays.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
The Civic Center Parking Structure is an important public project that represents
a critical step in the revitalization of the Civic Center, as well as a new approach
to creating visually interesting and physically integrated public parking structures
in Santa Monica. The project creates opportunities for reclamation of surface
parking in the Civic Center for community-oriented uses, as well as supporting
the seismic safety of public parking in the Downtown. Staff recommends that the
City Council approve the Development Review Permit for the Civic Center
Parking Structure.
BUDGET / FINANCIAL IMPACT
The recommendation presented in this report does not have any budget or fiscal
impact.
33
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council take the following actions:
1. Adopt the resolution contained in Attachment Q certifying Final Environmental
Impact Report 02EIR003;
2. Adopt the resolution contained in Attachment R approving a Statement of
Overriding Consideration and Mitigation Monitoring Program; and
3. Deny the appeal and approve Development Review Permit 02DR-010.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PERMIT FINDINGS
1. The physical location, size, massing, and placement of the proposed structure
on the site and the location of the proposed uses within the project are
compatible with and relate harmoniously to the surrounding sites and
neighborhoods, in that the Civic Center Parking Structure will provide critical
parking resources to support adjacent community-serving facilities, including City
Hall, the Public Safety Facility, County Courthouse and Civic Auditorium, and will
help provide for the eventual conversion of nearby surface parking to community-
oriented uses. The five-level, 55’8”, 244,930-square foot building will have
frontage along Fourth Street and Olympic and Civic Center Drives and will be of
a scale and massing comparable to the surrounding buildings in the
neighborhood which range in size from three to eight stories in height and include
a variety of styles and uses, including the eight-story Doubletree Hotel, four-story
Public Safety Facility (under construction), three-story City Hall, five-story RAND
Headquarters (under construction), and eight-story Viceroy Hotel. The building
will contain pedestrian entrances adjacent to the three streets and leasable
tenant spaces with extensive glazing on the first and second levels adjacent to
Fourth Street and Olympic Drive in order to enhance the structure’s pedestrian
orientation.
2. The rights-of-way can accommodate autos and pedestrians, including parking
and access, in that the design of the Civic Center Parking Structure provides
pedestrian access from Olympic Drive, Fourth Street and Civic Center Drive.
Bus access will continue to be provided from Fourth Street at Civic Center Drive.
Direct vehicular access will be provided from Avenida Mazatlan alley in order to
limit the potential for congestion and pedestrian interference on Olympic Drive,
Fourth Street, and Civic Center Drive.
3. The health and safety services (police, fire, etc.) and public infrastructure (e.g.
utilities) are sufficient to accommodate the new development, in that the Civic
34
Center Parking Structure is located within an urbanized area that is already
served by existing infrastructure. No new safety services or public infrastructure
will be required by this project, and the project will enhance the provision of
public safety services by providing additional secured parking for the Public
Safety Facility.
4. Any on-site provision of housing or parks and public open space, which are
part of the project mitigation measures required by Subchapter 9.04.70 and
Section 9.04.10.12 of the Santa Monica Zoning Ordinance, is satisfactory to meet
the goals of the mitigation program, in that no such requirement is applicable to
the construction of the Civic Center Parking Structure.
5. The project is generally consistent with the Municipal Code, Civic Center
Specific Plan and General Plan, in that the Civic Center Parking Structure is
being constructed as specifically designated and called for in the Civic Center
Specific Plan in order to allow for the consolidation of surface parking lots in the
Civic Center area into structured parking in order to allow for more intensive,
community-oriented use of that land.
6. Reasonable mitigation measures have been included for most adverse
impacts identified in the Environmental Impact Report and a Statement of
Overriding Considerations has been adopted in consideration of those significant
impacts that cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (DR02-010)
Plans
1. The approval is for those plans dated February 19, 2003, a copy of which
shall be maintained in the files of the City Planning Division. Project
development shall be consistent with such plans, except as otherwise
specified in these conditions of approval.
2. The plans shall comply with all other provisions of Chapter 1, Article IX of
the Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance) and all other pertinent ordinances
and General Plan policies of the City of Santa Monica.
3. Final parking layout and specifications shall be subject to review and
approval of the Transportation Management Division.
4. Minor amendments to the plans shall be subject to approval by the
Director of Planning and Community Development. A significant change
in the approved concept shall be subject to Planning Commission Review.
Construction shall be in conformance with the plans submitted or as
modified by the Planning Commission, Architectural Review Board or
Director of Planning and Community Development.
35
Architectural Review Board
5. Prior to consideration of the project by the Architectural Review Board, the
applicant shall review disabled access requirements with the Building and
Safety Division and make any necessary changes in the project design to
achieve compliance with such requirements. The Architectural Review
Board, in its review, shall pay particular attention to the aesthetic,
landscaping, and setback impacts of any ramps or other features
necessitated by accessibility requirements.
6. Prior to submittal of landscape plans for Architectural Review Board
approval, the applicant shall contact the Department of Environmental and
Public Works Management regarding urban runoff plans and calculations.
7. Construction period signage shall be subject to the approval of the
Architectural Review Board.
8. Plans for final design, landscaping, screening, trash enclosures, and
signage shall be subject to the review and approval by the Architectural
Review Board.
9. The Architectural Review Board, in its review, shall pay particular attention
to the project’s pedestrian orientation and amenities; scale and articulation
of design elements; exterior colors, textures, and materials; window
treatment; glazing; and landscaping.
10. As appropriate, the Architectural Review Board shall require the use of
anti-graffiti materials on surfaces likely to attract graffiti.
11. Landscaping plans shall comply with Subchapter 5B (Landscape
Standards) of the Zoning Ordinance including the use of water-conserving
landscaping materials, landscaping maintenance and other standards
contained in the Subchapter.
12. Refuse areas, storage areas and mechanical equipment shall be screened
in accordance with SMMC Sections 9.04.10.02.130 through
9.04.10.02.150. Refuse areas shall be of a size adequate to meet on-site
need, including recycling. The Architectural Review Board, in its review,
shall pay particular attention to the screening of such area and equipment.
Any rooftop mechanical equipment shall be minimized in height and visual
area, and shall be located in such a way as to minimize noise and visual
impacts to surrounding properties. Unless otherwise approved by the
Architectural Review Board, rooftop mechanical equipment shall be
located at least five feet from the edge of the roof.
36
Demolition
13. Street trees shall be maintained, relocated, or provided as required in a
manner consistent with the City’s Community Forest Management Plan
2000, per the specifications of the Open Space Management Division of
the Community and Cultural Services Department. No street trees shall
be removed without the approval of the Open Space management
Division.
14. Immediately after demolition of the parking lot and during construction, a
security fence, the height of which shall be the maximum permitted by the
Zoning Ordinance (8’), shall be maintained around the perimeter of the lot.
The lot shall be kept clear of all trash, weeds, etc. Mesh fabric shall be
installed on the fence to reduce the amount of dust leaving the site.
15. Prior to the issuance of any demolition of construction permits, a
demolitions materials recycling plan, which seeks to maximize the reuse /
recycling potential of existing building materials, shall be filed for approval
by the Department of Environmental and Public Works Management.
16. Until such time as demolition is undertaken, and unless the parking lot is
currently in use, the existing parking lot shall be maintained and secured
by erecting a security fence and removing all debris, bushes and planting
that inhibit the easy surveillance of the property to the satisfaction of the
Building and Safety Officer and the Fire Department. Any landscaping
material remaining shall be watered and maintained until demolition
occurs.
17. Prior to issuance of a demolition permit, applicant shall prepare for
Building Division approval a rodent and pest control plan to ensure that
demolition and construction activities at the site do not create pest control
impacts on the project neighborhood.
18. No demolition of buildings or structures 40 years or older shall be
permitted until the end of a 60-day review period by the Landmarks
Commission to determine whether an application for landmark designation
shall be filed. If an application for landmark designation is filed, no
demolition shall be approved until a final determination is made by the
Landmarks Commission on the application.
Construction
37
19. Unless otherwise approved by the Department of Environmental and
Public Works Management, all sidewalks shall be kept clear and passable
during the grading and construction phase of the project.
20. Sidewalks, curbs, gutters, paving and driveways which need replacing or
removal as a result of the project, as determined by the Department of
Environmental and Public Works Management, shall be constructed to the
satisfaction of the Department of Environmental and Public Works
Management prior to issuance of the building permits.
21. Vehicles hauling dirt or other construction debris from the site shall cover
any open load with a tarpaulin or other secure covering to minimize dust
emissions. Immediately after commencing dirt removal from the site, the
general contractor shall provide the City of Santa Monica with written
certification that all trucks leaving the site are covered in accordance with
this condition of approval.
22. A sign shall be posted on the property in a manner consistent with the
public hearing sign requirements which shall identify the address and
phone number of the owner and/or applicant for the purposes of
responding to questions and complaints during the construction period.
Said sign shall also indicate the hours of permissible construction work.
23. The property owner shall insure any graffiti on the site is promptly
removed through compliance with the City’s graffiti removal program.
24. A copy of these conditions shall be posted in an easily visible and
accessible location at all times during construction at the project site. The
pages shall be laminated or otherwise protected to ensure durability of the
copy.
Environmental Mitigation
25. Ultra-low flow plumbing fixtures are required on all new development and
remodeling where plumbing is to be added. (Maximum 1.6-gallon toilets
and 1.0-gallon urinals and low-flow showerhead.)
26. To mitigate solid waste impacts, prior to issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy, project owner shall submit a recycling plan to the Department
of Environmental and Public Works Management for its approval. The
recycling plan shall include: 1) list of materials such a white paper,
computer paper, metal cans, and glass to be recycled; 2) location of
recycling bins; 3) designated recycling coordinator; 4) nature and extent of
internal and external pick-up service; 5) pick-up schedule; 6) plan to
inform tenants / occupants of service.
38
27. To mitigate storm water and surface run-off from the project site, an Urban
Runoff Mitigation Plan may be required by the Department of
Environmental and Public Works Management (EPWM) pursuant to
Municipal Code Chapter 7.10. Applicant shall contact EPWM to determine
applicable requirements, which include the following:
?
Non-stormwater runoff, sediment and construction waste from the
construction site and parking areas is prohibited from leaving the site;
?
Any sediments or materials which are tracked off site must be removed
the same day they are tracked off site;
?
Excavated soil must be located on the site and soil poles should be
covered and otherwise protected so that sediments do not go into the
street or adjoining properties;
?
Washing of construction or other vehicles shall be allowed adjacent to
a construction site. No runoff from washing vehicles on a construction
site shall be allowed to leave the site;
?
Drainage controls may be required depending on the extent of grading
and topography of the site;
?
New development is required to reduce projected runoff pollution by at
least twenty percent through incorporation of design elements or
principles, such as increasing permeable surfaces; diverting or
catching runoff via swales, berms, and the like; orientation of drain
gutters toward permeable areas; modification of grade; use of retention
structures; and other methods.
28. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure AES-2(a), the applicant shall design
exterior building lighting to ensure that no light projects on adjacent sites.
Exterior lighting shall incorporate “cut-off” shields as appropriate to
prevent an increase in lighting at adjacent and nearby uses.
29. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure AES-2(b), landscape illumination and
exterior sign lighting shall be accomplished with low-level, unobtrusive
fixtures. Such lighting shall be shielded to direct light pools away from off-
site viewers.
30. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure AES-2(c), finish materials, including
glazing, shall be of a low reflectivity to minimize glare. Development shall
include low-reflective roofing materials to reduce glare potential for nearby
development that may have downward views of the project’s roof.
31. Pursuant to Mitigation Measures CON-1 and CON-3(d), the applicant shall
prepare and implement a Construction Impact Mitigation Plan to provide
for traffic and parking capacity management and construction mitigation
during construction. The plan shall be subject to review and approval by
the Departments of Environmental and Public Works Management and
Planning and Community Development prior to issuance of a building
39
permit. The approved construction plan shall be posted on the
construction site for the duration of the project construction and shall be
produced upon request. The plan, at a minimum, shall include the
following:
Names, addresses, telephone numbers and business license numbers
?
of all contractors and subcontractors, as well as the developer and
architect;
A telephone number for local residents to call to submit complaints
?
associated with construction noise; the number shall be posted on the
project site and shall be easily viewed from adjacent public areas;
A description of how demolition of any existing structures is to be
?
accomplished;
Where any cranes are to be located for erection / construction;
?
How much of the public street, alleyway, or sidewalk is proposed to be
?
used in conjunction with the construction;
Anticipated construction-related truck routes, number of truck trips,
?
hours of hauling and parking location;
Approval from the City, or Caltrans if necessary, must be obtained for
?
any construction detours or construction work requiring encroachment
into public rights-of-way, or any other street use activity (e.g. haul
routes);
Scheduling and expediting of work to cause the least amount of
?
disruption and interference to the adjacent vehicular and pedestrian
traffic flow. Weekday daytime work on City streets shall primarily be
performed between the hours of 9:00 AM and 3:00 PM;
Limiting of queuing of trucks to on-site and prohibition of truck queuing
?
on area roadways;
Scheduling of preconstruction meetings with affected agencies to
?
properly plan methods of controlling traffic through work areas;
Timely notification of construction schedules to all affected agencies
?
(e.g. Police Department, Fire Department, Department of Public Works,
Department of Planning and Community Development, Los Angeles
County Superior Court, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, and
transit agencies);
Coordination of construction work with affected agencies five to ten days
?
prior to start of work;
A traffic control plan for the streets surrounding the work area, which
?
includes specific information regarding the project’s construction and
activities that will disrupt normal traffic flow;
The extent and nature of any pile-driving operations;
?
The length and nature of any tiebacks which must extend under the
?
property of other persons;
The nature and extent of any dewatering and its effect on any adjacent
?
buildings;
The nature and extent of any helicopter hauling;
?
40
Whether any construction activity beyond normally permitted hours is
?
proposed;
Any proposed construction noise mitigation measures;
?
Construction-period security measures including any fencing, lighting
?
and security personnel;
A drainage plan;
?
A construction-period parking plan which shall minimize the use of public
?
streets for parking;
A designated on-site construction manager;
?
A construction materials recycling plan which seeks to maximize the
?
reuse / recycling of construction waste;
A plan regarding the use of recycled and low-environmental-impact
?
materials in building construction;
A construction period water runoff control plan
?
A public information program to advise motorists of impending
?
construction activities (e.g. media coverage, portable message signs,
and information signs at the construction site);
Minimizing dirt and demolition material hauling and construction material
?
delivery during the morning and afternoon peak traffic periods and
cleaning of streets and equipment as necessary;
Storage of construction material and equipment within the designated
?
work area and limitation of equipment and material visibility to the public;
and
Provision of off-street parking to workers that currently use the existing
?
site, Civic Auditorium parking lot, and construction employees, which
may include the use of a remote location with shuttle transport to the
site, if determined necessary by the City of Santa Monica.
32. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure CON-2(a), during construction, dust
generated by the development activities shall be kept to a minimum with a
goal of retaining dust through implementation of the following:
?
During clearing, grading, earth moving, excavation, or transportation of
cut or fill materials, water trucks or sprinkler systems are to be used to
prevent dust from leaving the site and to create a crust after each day's
activities cease. Provisions shall be made prior to and during watering
to prevent runoff from leaving the site.
?
During clearing, grading, earth moving, excavation or transportation of
cut of fill materials, streets and sidewalks within 150 feet of the site
perimeter shall be swept and cleaned a minimum of once daily;
?
During construction, water trucks or sprinkler systems shall be used to
keep all areas of vehicle movement damp enough to prevent dust from
leaving the site. At a minimum, this would include wetting down such
areas in the later morning and after work is completed for the day and
whenever wind exceeds 15 miles per hour.
?
Soil stockpiled for more than two days shall be covered, kept moist, or
treated with soil binders to prevent dust generation.
41
33. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure CON-2(b), during construction, any
construction equipment used on the site must meet the following
conditions in order to reduce NO emissions:
x
?
The number of pieces of equipment operating simultaneously must
be minimized through efficient management practices;
?
Construction equipment must be maintained in tune per
manufacturer's specifications;
?
Equipment shall be equipped with 2 to 4-degree engine timing
retard or precombustion chamber engines;
?
Catalytic converters shall be installed, if feasible;
?
Diesel-powered equipment such as booster pumps or generators
should be replaced by electric equipment, if feasible; and
?
Limiting the operation of heavy-duty construction equipment (e.g.
175-HP forklifts, wheeled tractors, tracked tractors) to no more than
five pieces of equipment at any one time.
34. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure CON-2(c), low-VOC architectural coatings
shall be used in construction whenever feasible and shall coordinate with
the SCAQMD to determine which coatings would reduce VOC emissions
to the maximum degree feasible.
35. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure CON-3(a), during construction, all diesel
equipment shall be operated with closed engine doors and shall be
equipped with factory-recommended mufflers.
36. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure CON-3(b), during construction, electrical
power shall be used to run air compressors and similar power tools.
37. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure CON-3(c), for all noise-generating
construction activity on the project site, additional noise attenuation
techniques shall be employed to reduce noise levels to City of Santa
Monica noise standards, such techniques shall include, but are not limited
to, the use of sounds blankets on noise-generating equipment and the
construction of temporary sound barriers between construction sites and
nearby sensitive receptors.
38. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure GEO-2, a geotechnical study shall be
prepared for the project site, prior to site development. This report shall
include an analysis of the liquefaction potential of the underlying materials.
If the site is found to be prone to seismically induced liquefaction,
appropriate techniques to minimize liquefaction potential shall be
prescribed and implemented. If found to be necessary, suitable measures
to reduce liquefaction impacts could include, but are not limited to:
specialized design of foundations by a structural engineer;
?
42
removal or treatment of liquefied soils to reduce the potential for
?
liquefaction;
drainage to lower the groundwater table to below the level of
?
liquefiable soils;
in-site densification of soils; or
?
other alterations to the ground characteristics.
?
Any recommended measures to minimize liquefaction potential specified
by the geotechnical study shall be fully implemented in accordance with
Uniform Building Code and California Building Code requirements
.
39. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure GEO-3(a), the geotechnical study shall
include an evaluation of the potential for slope stability at the site. The
information obtained shall be used to design the excavation and
excavation shoring to prevent destabilization of the excavation sidewalls.
Any recommendations contained in the geotechnical report shall be fully
implemented.
40. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure GEO-3(b), the parking lot design shall
consider a mechanism of removing groundwater, if it is shown to be
present at this site. The groundwater removal design shall consider
historical ranges in depth to groundwater. The removal system shall be
designed to prevent the parking garage from flooding.
41. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure GEO-3(c), all walls of the parking structure
shall be waterproofed to protect against corrosive effects of water contact.
42. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure GEO-4, Prior to issuance of a building
permit for the foundation or superstructure, whichever occurs first, soil
samples of final sub-grade areas and excavation sidewalls shall be
collected and analyzed for their expansion index. For areas where the
expansion index is found to be greater than 20, the appropriate grading
and foundation designs shall be engineered to withstand the existing
conditions. The expansion testing may be foregone if the grading and
foundations are engineered to withstand the presence of highly expansive
soils.
43. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure HHM-1(a), all earth-moving contractors
shall be directed to be aware of the possibility of contaminants during site
grading. If contaminants are suspected, soil samples are to be obtained
and analyzed to determine whether there are contaminants, and if
present, to determine the type and concentrations of contaminants. The
sample results are to be used to make a determination as to where to
transport the material for off-site disposal, or to determine if the soils can
be used onsite.
43
44. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure HHM-1(b), if contaminants are detected,
the results of the soil sampling within the Phase II ESA shall be forwarded
to the local regulatory agency (City of Santa Monica Environmental
Program Division, Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board,
and/or the State of California Environmental Protection Agency
Department of Toxic Substances Control). The agency should review the
data and either sign off on the property or determine if any additional
investigation or remedial activities are deemed necessary.
45. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure T-2, prior to issuance of a certificate of
occupancy, the City shall modify the intersection striping at Ocean
Avenue/Neilson Way & Pico Boulevard to provide a protected phase for
the westbound left-turn movement. Implementation of this measure would
necessitate the provision of some combination of new signage, controller
cabinets, poles, mast arms, detectors, and/or signal heads.
Miscellaneous Conditions
46. The building address shall be painted on the roof of the building and shall
measure four feet by eight feet (32 square feet).
47. The operation shall at all times be conducted in a manner not detrimental
to surrounding properties or residents by reason of lights, noise, activities
or other actions.
48. Street and alley lighting shall be provided on public rights-of-way adjacent
to the project if and as needed per the specifications and with the approval
of the Department of Environmental and Public Works Management.
49. Final approval of any mechanical equipment installation will require a
noise test in compliance with SMMC section 4.12.040. Equipment for the
test shall be provided by the owner or contractor and the test shall be
conducted by the owner or contractor. A copy of the noise test results on
mechanical equipment shall be submitted to the Community Noise Officer
for review to ensure that noise levels do not exceed maximum allowable
levels for the applicable noise zone.
50. Final building plans submitted for approval of a building permit shall
include on the plans a list of all mechanical equipment to be place
outdoors and all permanent mechanical equipment to be place indoors
which may be heard outdoors.
51. Prior to issuance of a Final Inspection, the application shall post a notice
at the building entry stating that the site is regulated by a Development
Review Permit (DR02-003) and that the Statement of Official Action, which
44
includes the establishment’s conditions of approval, is available upon
request. This notice shall remain posted at all times the establishment is
in operation.
Special Conditions
52. In order to ensure maximum pedestrian-orientation and accessibility and
high quality in the appearance and maintenance of the project,
landscaping is prohibited within or adjacent to the sidewalks of Fourth
Street.
53. In order to screen the rooftop parking from view and comply with the Civic
Center Specific Plan, the rooftop trellis structures shall be supported from
the perimeter of the project.
54. In order to maintain the overall parking capacity, efficiency and design
intent of the project, the dimensions of each level of the project shall
maintain a minimum width of 127 feet and a minimum length of 340 feet.
Validity of permits
55. In the event permittee violates or fails to comply with any conditions of
approval of this permit, no further permits, licenses, approvals or
certificates of occupancy shall be issues until such violation has been fully
remedied.
56. Within ten days of City Council transmittal of the Statement of Official
Action, project applicant shall sign and return a copy of the Statement of
Official Action prepared by the Planning and Community Development
Department, agreeing to the Conditions of Approval and acknowledging
that failure to comply with such conditions shall constitute grounds for
potential revocation of the permit approval. By signing same, applicant
shall not thereby waive any legal rights applicant may possess regarding
said conditions. The signed Statement shall be returned to the City
Planning and Community Development Department. Failure to comply
with the condition shall constitute ground for potential permit revocation.
57. The approval of DR02-010 shall expire if the rights granted are not
exercised within twenty-four months from the permit’s effective date.
Exercise of rights shall mean issuance of a building permit to commence
construction. However, the permits shall also expire if the building permit
expires, if the final inspection is not completed or a Certificate of
Occupancy is not issued within the time periods specified in SMMC
Section 8.08.060. One six-month extension may be permitted if approved
45
by the Director of Planning. Applicant is on notice that time extensions
may not be granted if development standards relevant to the project have
changed since project approval.
Monitoring of Conditions
58. Pursuant to the requirements of Public Resources Code Section 21081.6,
the City Planning Division will coordinate a monitoring and reporting
program regarding any required changes to the project made in
conjunction with project approval and any conditions of approval, including
those conditions intended to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the
environment. This program shall include, but is not limited to, ensuring
that the Planning Division itself and other City divisions and departments
such as the Building Division, the Environmental and Public Works
Management Department, the Transportation Management Division, the
Fire Department, the Police Department, the Community and Cultural
Services Department and the Finance Department are aware of project
requirements which must be satisfied prior to issuance of a Building
Permit, Certificate of Occupancy, or other permit, and that other
responsible agencies are also informed of conditions related to their
approval. Project owner shall demonstrate compliance with conditions of
approval in a written report submitted to the Planning Director and Building
Officer prior to issuance of a Building Permit or Certificate of Occupancy,
and, as applicable, provide periodic reports regarding compliance with
such conditions.
Prepared by: Suzanne Frick, Director, PCD
Andy Agle, Assistant Director, PCD
Attachments:
A. Planning Commission Statement of Official Action
B. Minutes of the March 5, 2003 Planning Commission Meeting
C. Appeal Statement
D. Not Used
E. Design Alternatives; Variation in Street-Level Awning and Southern Gateway
Element
F. Design Alternative Options for Street-Level Landscaping
G. Design Alternative: Relocation of Rooftop Trellis
H. Design Alternative: Roof-Level Stepback
I. Not Used
J. Not Used
K. Current Winter Morning Shadowing of Doubletree Hotel Patio
L. Current Winter Afternoon Shadowing of Doubletree Hotel Patio
M. Doubletree Hotel Swimming Pool Location
46
N. Appellants 3 p.m. Winter Solstice Shadowing Diagram, with Trellis Shadow
Annotated by Staff
O. Existing Winter Afternoon Shadows on Doubletree Hotel Swimming Pool
P. Aerial Photograph of Area between Doubletree Hotel and Pacific Ocean
Q. Resolution Certifying the Final EIR – See Resolution No. 9852 (CCS)
R. Resolution Adopting a Statement of Overriding Consideration and Mitigation
Monitoring Program – See Resolution No. 9853 (CCS)
S. Project plans, photos of surrounding sites, and contextual photosimulations –
NOT AVAILABLE ELECTRONICALLY – SEE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE TO
REVIEW ORIGINAL PACKET
NOT AVAILABLE ELECTRONICALLY – SEE CITY CLERK’S
T. Final EIR -
OFFICE TO REVIEW ORIGINAL PACKET
47