SR-02-12-2002-6A~
; ~~~
F'CD:SF:JT:AS:PF:f:\plan\share\council\strpt\nmainappeal
Council Mtg: February 12, 2002
TO~, Mayor and City Council
FROM: City Staff
~~r~rt~ ~!ic~nic~, C~~li~c~rr~i~a
SUBJECT Certification of a Final Environmental Impact Report Prepared in Conjunction
with Two Proposed Mixed-Use Projects at 2012-2024 Main Street and 2021-
2029 Main Street and Appeal of Planning Commission Denial of
Development Review Permits 99-013 and 00-002; Conditional Use Permits
01-016 and 01-017; Text Amendment 99-010 and Vesting Tentative Parcel
Map 25566 Related to Both Mixed-Use Projects at 2012-2024 Main Street
and 2021-2029 Main Street. Applicant/Appellant: Calstar Equities, Inc.
INTRODUCTION
This report recommends that the City Council take the following actions
1 Certify the Final Environmental Impact Report prepared in conjunction with two
proposed mixed -use projects at 2012-2024 Main Street and 2021-2029 Main Street;
and
2 Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's denial of Development Review
Permit 99-013 and Conditional Use Permit 01-016 forthe mixed-use project at 2012-
2024 Main Street; and
3. Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's denial of Development Review
Permit 00-002 and Conditional Use Permit 01-017 forthe mixed-use project at 2021-
2029 Main Street; and
4 Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's denial of Vesting Tentative
Parcel Map 25566 proposed for both mixed-use projects; and
5. Deny Text Amendment 99-010 for the proposed mixed-use project located at 2012-
2024 Main Street.
BACKGROUND
The applicant/appellant proposes two mixed-use projects in the North Main Street area that
are directly across Main Street from each other in the Main Street Special Commercial
zoning district. The projects are referred to as the "East Project" and the "West Project".
FEB f 2 2002
The East Project site, located at 2021-29 Main Street, consists of two (2) parcels
comprising 18,000 square feet. This property is a corner parcel with frontage on Main
Street and Bicknell Avenue. The subject site is currently vacant and is leased for
construction staging. The West Project site, located at 2012-24 Main Street, consists of six
(6) parcels comprising 49,880 square feet. The property encompasses an entire City block
and is fronted on four sides by Main Street to the east, Bay Street to the north, Bicknell
Avenue to the south, and Neilson Way to the west. The property is currently developed
with a vacant 12, 687 square foot building that was formerly the Pioneer Boulangerie
bakery and restaurant and surface parking. The parking area of this site is also currently
leased for construction staging.
East Project
The East Project involves the construction of a mixed-use building with 34,839 square feet
of floor area, including 28,306 square feet of residential use and 6,533 square feet of
commercial use at the ground floor. The proposed ground floor commercial uses will be
pedestrian oriented uses in compliance with the Main Street Commercial District
regulations
The proposed three-story, 27 foot building will contain a total of 26 residential units (5 one-
bedroom and 21 two-bedroom units) and provide a two-level subterranean parking garage
with 87 parking spaces accessed from Bicknell Avenue. A more detailed project description
including parking, vehicle access and landscaping is contained in the December 5, 2001
Planning Commission staff report. (Attachment A)
2
West Project
The West Project involves the construction of a mixed-use building with 136,694 square
feet of floor area, including 124,412 square feet of residential use and 12,281 square feet
of commercial use at the ground floor. The ground floor commercial use is proposed to be
pedestrian oriented in compliance with the Main Street Commercial District regulations
The proposed four-story, 35 foot building will contain a total of 107 residential units (2
single units, 2- one bedroom units, 42 one-bedroom plus study units, 58 two-bedroom and
3 three-bedroom units) with a three-level subterranean parking garage with 288 parking
spaces accessed from Bicknell Avenue. A more detailed project description including
parking, vehicle access and landscaping is contained in the December 5, 2001 Planning
Commission staff report. (Attachment A)
The following discretionary approvals were requested by the applicant/appellant for the
proposed projects
• Development Review Permit DR 99-013 for 2012-2024 Main Street and DR 00-002
for 2021-2029 Main Street to permit buildings in excess of 11,000 square feet in the
CM (Main Street Commercial) District,
Conditional Use Permit CUP 01-016 for 2012-2024 Main Street and CUP 01-017 for
2021-2029 Main Street to allow the residential uses to occupy more than 7,500
square feet of floor area;
• Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment (TA 99-010) to modify the special project
design and development standards for the CM district; and
3
• Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 99-020 to merge the existing parcels at the 2 sites
into single building sites.
The environmental impacts of both projects were analyzed in a single Environmental
Impact Report (Attachment H).
On December 5, 2001, the Planning Commission denied without prejudice all of the
discretionary permits listed above related to the East and West Projects. In addition, the
Planning Commission voted not to certify the Environmental Impact Report because of
concerns related to the traffic analysis. The Statements of Official Action for the East and
West Projects are contained in Attachment B.
On December 13, 2001, the applicant appealed the Planning Commission decisions based
on the reasons listed in the appeal statement contained in Attachment C
There are 3 major issue areas that the Council must consider in reviewing the proposed
projects The Council must evaluate whether the Planning Commission properly denied
the discretionary permits. This decision is made de novo. Second, the Council must decide
whether to approve the text amendment which is necessary to facilitate the project design
Finally, the Council must review the projects' Environmental Impact Report for certification
prior to project approval. The EIR id~ntifies significant unavoidable adverse environmental
impacts. The Council may certify the EIR with these impacts. However, before the
Council could approve one or both of the projects, the Council would have to first adopt a
Statement of Overriding Considerations. A Statement of Overriding Considerations is a
4
determination by the Council that the economic, legal, social, technological or other
benefits of the proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts.
DISCUSSION
Planning Commission Action
The Commission voted not to certify the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), voted
to deny the Development Review Permits, Conditional Use Permits, and Vesting Tentative
Parcel Map, and did not recommend to the Council the proposed Zoning Ordinance text
amendment required for the West Project.
The Commission did not certify the FEIR because of concerns raised at the public hearing
regarding the projects' traffic impacts examined in the report, specifically the analysis of
the Pico Boulevard and Lincoln Boulevard and Pico Boulevard and 4'h Street intersections.
These concerns are discussed in more detail in the CEQA section of this report.
The Commission denied all of the planning applications related to the East and West
Project based upon their lack of compatibility with the existing neighborhood context. The
Commission concluded that both projects, taken individually and as a whole, are out of
character with the existing development in the area, provide minimal transition to adjacent
structures in the surrounding neighborhood and would overwhelm the existing North Main
Street neighborhood
More specifically, the Commission found that the proposed East project is inconsistent with
5
the pattern of development in the nearby area. The East project is 3-stories (plus
subterranean square footage and parking), with ground floor and subterranean commercial
space and 26 units, The project extends 150' along Bicknell Avenue. The north side of
Bicknell Avenue in the 200 block is characterized by 4 to 7 unit, 1 and 2-story residential
structures on 50' wide parcels. The residential frontage along the south side of Bicknell
Avenue is characterized by 1 and 2-story, single and multi-family dwellings, The
commercial uses along Main Street contain a 2 and 3 story commercial building, both with
50' of frontage on Bicknell Avenue. The east side of Main Street north of the East project
site is characterized by single story commercial structures. These sites have buildings with
less massing and greater setbacks than the proposed project.
The Commission further found that the placement of the proposed development along the
south side property line at Bicknell Avenue contrasts with the location of existing buildings
on this residential street. The residential development pattern consists of buildings that are
set back between 10' and 15' from the public right-of-way. While the project provides some
landscaping and building articulation along this elevation, design modifications such as
stepping the faCade back from the property line and matching the height lines of adjacent
buildings would enhance the transition into the residential neighborhood,
The Commission also found that the proposed West project is inconsistent with the pattern
of development in the area. In particular, no other development in the North Main Street
area encompasses an entire city block and dominates the street frontage in the manner of
the West project, North Main Street is generally characterized by developments on 60'
6
wide parcels. Those developments on wider parcels generally do not have the same
mass, including the developments at the intersection of Pico Boulevard
Visually, the two projects form a gateway-like atmosphere at Main Street and Bicknell
Avenue when looking north along Main Street. The development standards for the Main
Street Commercial District were formulated from the Main Street Master Plan to produce
gateway type features at the north and south ends of Main Street and not within the district.
It was the intention of the Main Street Master Plan to develop Main Street with a village-
type atmosphere
Although the projects contain many design elements and architectural features that the
Commission found appealing, the Commission believed that the projects, in particular the
West Project, overwhelmed the neighborhood. As such, the Commission denied the
applications without prejudice to enable the applicant/appellant to submit re-designed
projects for their consideration within 1 year. The findings of denial of the applications are
contained in the Statements of Official Action (Attachment B).
Development Review Permits
Development Review Permit applications DR 00-002 and DR 99-013 have been filed for
the East and West Projects respectively in compliance with the CM Main Street
Commercial district regulations as each project exceeds 11,000 square feet of floor area.
The review of a Development Review Permit application requires an evaluation of the
location, size, massing and placement of the proposed projects on the site to ensure
compatibility with fhe surrounding areas and neighborhood. However, the size of the
~
project is deemed compatible if the project is consistent with the height and density
standards of the Land Use Element. Project massing, however, relates to the placement of
building volumes, building setbacks and articulation and the overall visual bulk of the
build'rng
East Project
Immediately east of the East project is a 6-unit residential development consisting of 5
single story units with a 2-story unit (one unit above a garage) at the street front. On the
adjacent parcel to the east of this site is a 7-unit development which is the mirror image of
the 6 unit project except with a 2-story element containing 2 units over garages at the
street. These developments are oriented toward each other with an open courtyard area
between them,
The north side of Bicknell Avenue in the 200 block is dominated by 1 and 2-story
residential structures on 50' wide parcels that contain between 4 and 7 units. The only
exception is a 3-story, 25 unit building on a 100' parcel located at 229 Bicknell Avenue
The residential frontage along the south side of Bicknell Avenue is dominated by 1 and 2-
story, single and multi-family dwellings with 1 to 14 units on primarily 30 to 60 foot parcels.
The commercial frontage at Main Street contains a 2 and 3 story commercial building, both
with 50' of frontage on Bicknell Avenue. The east side of Main Street north of the East
project site is dominated by single story commercial structures,
In contrast, the East project is 3-stories (plus subterranean square footage and parking),
s
with ground floor and subterranean commercial space and 26 units with 150' of frontage
along Bicknell Avenue Given the neighborhood context, the proposed East project is
inconsistent with the placement and massing of nearby structures and, in general, with the
pattern of development in the nearby area. The proposed development is placed along the
south side property line on Bicknell Avenue with minimal setbacks. This contrasts with the
existing residential buildings that are set back between 10' and 15' from the front property
line along the north side of Bicknell Avenue and are generally of smaller scale and have
less building volume and visual bulk near the streetfront. As a result, the project provides
limited transition into the residential neighborhood along the north side of Bicknell Avenue.
Additionally, an assessment of the compatibility of the East Project with the surrounding
sites and the neighborhood cannot be separated from an assessment of the compatibility
of the West Project, detailed immediately below.
West Project
North Main Street is generally cha~acterized by 1 and 2 story developments on 60' wide
parcels. Those developments on parcels wider than 60' are generally not greater than 3-
stories in height, including the buildings at the corner of Pico Boulevard. The taller buildings
along Main Street are on 60' wide parcels including 1918 Main Street (3-stories) and 2110
Main Street (3-stories). To the west of the project site along Neilson Way, there is a 3-
story, multi-family building at 2021 Ocean Avenue with 78 units. This building has frontage
on 3 streets and shares the block with the 2-story Bayside Hotel which also has street
frontage on 3 sides. However, 2021 Ocean Avenue has 36% fewer units than the proposed
project. These developments are set back from Neilson Way and are oriented toward the
9
west and Ocean Avenue
The proposed West project is also inconsistent with nearby structures and the pattern of
development in the area. In particular, no other development in the Main Street area has a
similar parcel size, encompasses an entire city block or dominates the street frontage in
the manner of the West project. The existing buildings along the west side of Neilson Way
are set back between 20' and 60' from the sidewalk, whereas the proposed project
overwhelms the Neilson Way street front with minimal set backs that accommodate small
landscaped areas. Likewise, there are no landscaped areas between the residential units
and the sidewalk along Bay Street to soften the transition between building and sidewalk
for the pedestrians and residents along that street,
The visual mass of the two projects, particularly when looking north at Main Street and
Bicknell Avenue where the building design includes prominent corner elements, creates a
gateway-like atmosphere along the Main Street streetscape Further, this design is not
conducive to nor consistent with the village-like atmosphere intended for the district. This
type of massing where building volumes are placed at the street corners might be more
appropriate if located at the north and south ends of Main Street to serve as an entrance to
the Main Street district,
Conditional Use Permits
Conditional Use Permit applications CUP 01-016 and CUP01-017 have been filed forthe
East and West Projects respectively in compliance with the CM Main Street Commercial
10
District regulations. Specifically, SMMC Section 9.04.08.28.040(v) requires a Conditional
Use Permit for any otherwise permitted use in the Main Street District that occupies more
than 7,500 square feet of floor area. At both project sites, the residential component
exceeds 7,500 square feet. SMMC Section 9.04.08.28.040(w) also requires a Conditional
Use Permit for any otherwise permitted uses that occupy more than 75 linear feet of Main
Street frontage at the ground floor. No CUP for the commercial component is required at
this time as plans show that no retail use exceeds 75 linear feet along Main Street and no
individual retail use exceeds 7,500 square feet. A CUP would be required at a later date if
any of the uses, once identified, exceed 75 linear feet along Main Street or 7,500 square
feet
Staff cannot support approval of Conditional Use Permits 00-016 and 01-017 for the West
Project and East Project respectively because the projects would impair the integrity and
character of the district and adjacent neighborhoods, the proposed use would not be
compatible with existing and permissible land uses within the district and adjacent
neighborhoods, and the placement of the use on the site is not compatible with and does
not relate harmoniously to the surrounding neighborhood. The residential frontage along
the south side of Bicknell Avenue is daminated by 1 and 2-story, single and multi-family
dwellings with to 14 units on primarily 30 to 60 foot parcels. The commercial frontage at
Main Street contains a 2 and 3 story commercial building, both with 50' of frontage on
Bicknell Avenue. The east side of Main Street north of the East project site is dominated by
single story commercial structures
11
lr~st, ti~ E~~t r~i~~t i~ '~ ~rr~~r ~~1 ~~ar~~~ n~~ ~r~~ ~~ ~~~;~±~~°,~ r~~~ ~~7~r~~~P~c~
y~:rk~7 r~a~~r~~~ f'?~~s ~~~~rr:~n;~~~~i ~~~mrri~~~~;~1 ~~~~r~~ r~$i ;~~ it~ ~~,~iti7 :~~~`~ r~f fr~r~~l.~~~.'~~
I~n~ i~;l~n~l'1 /~~~~r~~~ i4.~~ tf~~ r~;~i~~~~rr~~~a~ ~~~~i`:~~~, tf~~ r~~~~~~,~~ ~~ ~r~~s~~r~
n~~ ~i~~,=5r~i °~,nr~th ~~ ~r;~~~ ~r~~ rre~a~~in~~ ~f r~~~r.~~y ~t~i.r~t~_~~~~ i~i~ g~~ r~~ ~~~~t~; 1~~~
p~tt~rn .~~ ~~- I~~r~~nt i~~ th~; n,~~~r~y r~~ ~r~r~~if~~ tF, ~ar-r,~J~~~~c~ ~~i~~~~~~~al,rr~~r~~
,~~ c:~~ v~l~n~ t;~~ ~~i..~ri°~ ~~r~ ~,r~,~~r~~~ ~~+~~~i~l Av~r~~.p ~~.`i~~~ mii r7,~1 ~~~t~;~=rr:~~~ Thi~
~f~~t~ ~,~riiF~ ~P~~ ~~sis~a~~~ ~~ 91~~ ti~ ~'ib~ 9r~ir~~ ~he~~ ~.~r~: ~~.tr~~-~~k a~~t4s~~~~r ~~~t'~ frt~°~
tri~: frr°~nt {-~r~,,~~r~u lii ~f~~~~~ iFi~ r~Fu id~ ~~~k~r~l A~~i~~~ ~~~ ilt, 1~-~=~ i~~~~~~~t
~a~€~~ ~{°~~~ (imit~~ t,~~ ~i~ir~i~ ~~t~ f~ r~~.i~Lt~~~~ti~l ~~~i~~ht~r~e~~~if~~~~~.i ~~ft~~~c~ th,~ r7~r~~~ i~7 ~f~i~4tn~ll
q~
~ ~~ W~~`t F~~~;~~~r~t I~ f~~1~ ~:~~'~,r ~~~,~~~'~- ~'~~,k~~~ f~7~fi I"~1i~~~r~_~,~~~ ~~f~f~F-~rr~~r~# ~r.~itP~~ ~"~3~
~~.r4~~r~~~ ~~~C~~~ ~~.r1t~~ I~~~~~{'~. ~f ~':~jr~,.~~ ~~°l~,~rt~ ~f~l~f~ i~~ ~:c`~r~~i~t~r"~~~ ~u~i9h~i thF
,~~~t~rn s~~ ~~~I~~S~r~~r~~ in th~`~ ~r~~ ~7[~ ~~~~~,~n~t~~~r~-~~ x~~~ r~~i~~h~a~~;~~~.~~rf I~r~ ~atFi~~r
~l~v~f~r`~m~.nt ~h;p ~~~rt.h M~ ~t~'~~~: ~r~,~ h~~ ~irr~iir~ ~~~:r~~l ~i~~ ~r~~t~~`~"~~~~~~~ .~n
~~~ti~°~ i~~~ ~n~:~ ~~i r~rrr~i~~~~8~~ i~~~ ~,tr~~~ fr~~`~r_~ th~~ r~"~~i~ ~f~~ "~~~~~~ ~~rc~;~r~t r~lr~rt:'hx
h~l~:+in t~~;~~ ~~r~r~l~y ~:h„~~~~: ~~ri~~~r~ ~~t ~~~ ~t~r+~~ ~p~a~l~~~~r ~~~-~;~ ~~1~ ~r~it'i ~~i~~~ ~~~4~.
Thr~~~ ~i~~~er~f~~ ri~~r~~~.~ ~.n ~~~rc~:~l 4~r;~~:~r° th~d~~~ f~f`~ ~:r~ ~~n~r~ll}t ~C'~ r~o~~~. r~~~r~ tR~ "~ ~t~;rr~~
I~~~~~~~t, r7~:l~a~i~r~c~ ~h~~ ii~J r~~ ~t a~i ,.~rr.r~~ ~'~~ ~~rr~ ~~~~ e+~~.r~~ aCLLp~r~ t~ll~ l~~ri~c~ r~~;~ ~~1~€~~~
N~rt~w M; iin ~~r~~k r~=~ ~~7' ~a~°~~~~I~; r~~;l~~~l~~~t~ M ~~~~~1 ~~-~t~,ri~~. ~r~~l ~~,~1~i~r
tr~~t ~m~.~~~°~.~' T f~i ~~~~~~~ 4~~ t~~ ~~~r~j~~t i~~ ~I~r~~ ~1~~I~f~~, W~~f t~r~r~: ~..Jt:r~~
m~ ioi-~°~r~°tily~~i, l~ii~,~ ~a~ ~~~- ~'°~a~~~ ,~i4~~•~L~~' ~ar~t~'M 7~ it~ Thi k~l~ I~~r~~ h~s~ fr~.~r7t~c;ry
~tr~~t~ ~r~J h~r~~ ~f~~ ~9~~r:l~ ~.~~~C~~., tF~~: ~~~tc~ry ;~~r~i~i~ H~~~t~~ ~~5~~,i~~:f~ ~I~~ ~r~s ~ttY~-~~~ fr~nt~~~
on 3 sides, These projects are oriented toward the west and Ocean Avenue and are set
back from Neilson Way 20' to 60' from the public right-of-way. The proposed project
provides minimal set backs to accommodate small landscaped areas.
The West Project also does not provide a sensitive transition to adjacent buildings and
uses. The proposed building has extensive street frontages which dominate the area,
including approximately 300 linear feet along Main Street. This frontage gives the
impression of a large, single use building and does not have a village-like character with
multiple storefronts and varying building heights. The ground floor of the building has
minimal setbacks from the public right-of-way, which is particularly noticeable along Neilson
Way where the surrounding existing buildings are set back further from the street.
Consistency with the General Plan
Under the City's Zoning Code, conditional use and development review permits must also
be consistent with the City's General Plan. Staff believes that both projects are inconsistent
with several important Land Use Element goals, objectives and policies. Land Use Element
Objective 1.1, in part, states that: "Improve the quality of life for all residents by providing a
balance of land uses consistent with: ... Protecting the quality of life in all residential
neighborhoods." Land Use Element Policy 1.2.1 states that devefopment should provide a
better transition between commercial and adjacent residential uses. Land Use Objective
3.2 calls for the protection of the scale and character of residential neighborhoods that are
adjacent to commercial areas.
13
The Land Use Element also sets forth 6 major land use proposals. One of these provides
proposals should "Preserve and enhance a favorable environment for residential
neighborhoods, Protect housing from all forms of intrusion caused by
commercial/industrial uses, through-traffic and commercial parking.'
As outlined in the FEIR, both the East and West Projects witl create a substantial amount
of additional cut-through vehicle traffic through the Ocean Park neighborhood along
Bicknell Avenue between Main Street and 4th Street and along 4'h Street north and south of
Bicknell Avenue, In fact, the FEIR identifies unavoidabte significant impacts at the
intersections of Main Street and Bicknell Avenue and 4th Street and Bicknell Avenue in this
neighborhood and unavoidable significant impacts on traffic volumes along 4'h Street north
and south of Bicknell Avenue and along Bicknell Avenue between Main Street and 4tn
Street.
The East Project extends the commercial uses and residential units to the south property
line in an area where minimum front yard setbacks are at least approximately 10'. This
placement of the building produces a building mass at the property line that is not a
sensitive transition to the residential uses to the east of the project site which provide a set
back,
The West Project also does not provide a sensitive transition to adjacent buildings and
uses. The proposed building has extensive street frontages which dominate the area,
including approximately 300 linear feet along Main Street, This frontage gives the
14
impression of a large, single use building and does not have a village-like character with
multiple storefronts and varying building heights. The ground floor of the building has
minimal setbacks from the public right-of-way, which is particularly noticeable along Neilson
Way where the surrounding existing buildings are set back further from the street.
Text Amendment
The applicant has requested an amendmentto SMMC Section 9.04.08.28.070, which sets
forth the special design and development standards for the Main Street Commercial
district. The applicant cites the uniqueness of the West Project site as it has street
frontages on four sides, with Bicknell Avenue considered as the front property line, since
this is the narrowest street frontage. Residential uses on the ground floor are currently
permitted to within 50' of the front property line, which would result in residential uses along
most of the Main Street frontage where commercial uses should dominate in order to
reinforce the pedestrian environment. Under current Code, the ground floor commercial
uses would be required along Bicknell Avenue with the residential uses commencing 50'
back from the property line along Bicknell Avenue. The applicant has proposed text
language such that the Main Street frontage can be considered the front yard for purposes
of determining allowable ground floor uses. This amendment would allow ground floor
pedestrian-oriented commercial uses along Main Street and residential uses along Bicknell
Avenue, Neilson Way and Bay Street where ground floor residential uses currently
characterize the neighborhood,
Staff is recommending that the Council uphold the Commission's action regarding the text
15
amendment based upon the findings contained in the Statement of Official Action for the
West Project (Attachment B).
Vesting Tentative Parcel Map
A Vesting Tentativ~ Parcel Map was filed by the applicant to merge the existing parcels at
the two project sites in orderto create 2 single parcels. The East Project currently consists
of two distinct parcels. Approval of the Vesting Tentative Parcel Map will create a parcel of
18,000 square feet for the East Project. The West Project site currently consists of 6
distinct parcels, including a City-owned parcel, which was just recently negotiated for
purchase by the applicant. Approval of #he Vesting Tentative Parcel Map will create a
parcel of 45,152 square feet for the West Project
Staff cannot support the approval of the Vesting Tentative Parcel Map as the
improvements associated with the proposed projects are inconsistent with Land Use
Element Policy # 1.2.1 which states that development should provide a better transition
between commercial and adjacent residential uses. The improvements are also
inconsistent with Land Use Objective 3.2 which calls for the protection of the scale and
character of residential neighborhoods that are adjacent to commercial areas.
The improvements associated with the proposed subdivision are not consistent with these
policies. The proposed East project is inconsistent with the scale and massing of nearby
structures and, in general, with the pattern of development in the nearby area. In addition,
the proposed development is placed along the south side property line on Bicknell Avenue
16
with minimal setbacks. As a result, the project provides limited transition into the
residential neighborhood along the north side of Bicknell Avenue.
The proposed West project is also inconsistent with these Land Use policies and is out of
character and scale and with the nearby residential neighborhood No other development
in the Main Street area has a similar parcel size or mass, encompasses an entire city block
or dominates the street frontage in the manner of the West project.
CEQA Status
An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for the proposed project in
accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Draft EIR (DEIR)
was distributed to affected agencies, surrounding cities, counties, and interested parties for
a 45-day review period in accordance with Section 15087 of the CEQA Guidelines. Copies
of the Draft EIR were made available on August 31, 2001 for the public review period,
which closed on October 15, 2001 A total of 9 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 H).
This 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 and Neighborhood Impact Statement (IS No. 00-004), Notice of Preparation
(NOP), responses to the NOP, and scoping discussions among the public, consulting staff,
and the county.
17
In accordance with Section 15128 (Effects Not Found to be Significant) of the CEQA
Guidelines, the IS/NOP provided reasons why the following environmental impacts were
not considered significant and, therefore, are not addressed further in this EIR:
Biological Resources Agricultural Resources
Energy Water Quality
Hazards and Hazardous Materials Recreation
Mineral Resources
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, and Hydrology
Air Quality
Noise
Land Use
Population and Housing
Neighborhood Effects
Aesthetics/Shadows
Transportation/Circutation
Public Services and Utilities
Cultural Resources
Construction Effects
The EIR addresses the issues referenced above and identifies potentially significant
environmental impacts, including site-specific and cumulative effects of the project in
accordance with the provisions set forth in the CEQA Guidelines. In addition, the EIR
recommends feasible mitigation measures; where possible, that would reduce or eliminate
adverse environmental effects.
However, as discussed below, the EIR identified significant and unavoidable impacts that
cannot be mitigated in the areas of Air Quality (during construction and demolition),
Traffic/Circulation (during construction and project related), and Noise (during
18
construction).
At the Planning Commission public hearing on December 5th, the Commission raised
concerns with respect to the tra~c analysis in the EIR. In particular, the Commission
questioned the analysis of two of the studied signalized intersections - Pico Boulevard and
Lincoln Boulevard and 4`h Street and Pico Boulevard. In response to the Commission's
concerns, staff re-examined the analysis of the operating conditions for the Lincoln/Pico
and Pico/4th Street intersections, including existing conditions, future conditions without
the projects and future conditions with the projects. The operating conditions of these
intersections are expressed qualitatively in Levels of Service (LOS), which are indicators of
an intersection's operating conditions used to represent various degrees of congestion and
delay. The LOS range from LOS A(excellent condition) to LOS F(extreme congestion).
Staff's re-examination of the data for these intersections yielded the following results:
• Corrections were necessary in the existing levels of service classification during the
AM and PM peak hours at both intersections.
• Changes in the future levels of service without the projects during the PM peak hour
were required at the 4th and Pico intersection and for both AM and PM peak hours at
Pico and Lincoln.
The projects' traffic impacts, individually and collectively, were re-analyzed using the same
TRAFFIX model previously used for the EIR as a whole. The corrections made to these
intersections did not result in any new significant impacts related to the projects or
substantially increase the severity of the environmental impacts at these intersections. As
such, these data corrections do not require re-circulation of the FEIR. The corrections
19
have been included in Response to Comments, Text Changes to the Draft EIR, in Part 2 of
the EIR.
Air Qualitv Concurrent construction is expected to occur for a duration of 15 months on
the East Project site and 18 months on the West Project site. Existing structures on the
West Project site would be demolished, and the parking lot on the East Project site would
be cleared. Following demolition, each site would be excavated to accommodate the
building foundations, substructures, and subterranean parking. Construction and
fabrication of the structures would follow excavation and then be followed by a phase of
finishing activities to prepare the uses for occupation.
Four basic types of activities would be expected to occur and cause emissions during
construction. For the purpose of estimating emissions during construction activities, the
potential sources are grouped according to the activities: demolition and site clearing,
excavation, construction of the structure, and finishing. During demolition and site clearing,
emissions of dust (particulate matter) would occur during break-up and transfer of the
existing structure and material to hauling vehicles, and exhaust emissions from operation
of loading equipment would occur. Excavation would require use of additional heavy
equipment. During construction of the structure, emissions would be caused primarily by
operation of construction equipment, such as heavy-duty trucks, cranes, lifts, and other
smaller stationary sources, and by construction workers who would visit the site in higher
numbers during this phase. Finishing stages would involve use of architectural coatings
that would cause emissions of reactive organic compounds.
20
Maximum daily emissions occur during periods of excavation when numerous haul trucks
would need to access the site to remove excavated material. During excavation activities
and construction activities involving on-site use of heavy equipment, the emissions caused
by construction would exceed SCAQMD significance thresholds for nitrogen oxides (NOx),
Because emissions of NOx would exceed the SCAQMD thresholds, a significant impact
would occur.
Implementation of mitigation measures would reduce the impacts of construction-related
dust (particulate matter) emissions to levels of fnsignificance; however, although emissions
of NOx would be reduced through the implementation of mitigation measures, they would
not be reduced to levels that would be considered less than significant. Therefore, impacts
resulting from construction-related emissions would remain significant and unavoidable
The discussion of the construction and demolition related air quality impacts and mitigation
measures can be found on page 3.10-7 of the EIR.
Traffic/Circulation
Construction Impacts: Construction activity would generate additional traffic on Main
Street, Bicknell Avenue, and 4th Street. Main Street and 4th Street are considered to be
traffic-impacted streets, and the addition of one vehicle trip on these streets due to
construction activities represents a significant and unavoidable impact in accordance with
the City's significance criteria. Mitigation measures would mitigate against impacts on the
21
;~iJrr~r n+1i~~ r~~~i~i~rit~~ ~tr~a~t~ ~~ii~ kti r~r~~~~c~t~ t~} r~~ri~ ~c~~ll~~°r~`~,- tr~~9~ tY~k:
~~~-c~~~r:~ vi~i it~ !t`~ re~rri~"r ic~~ifi~~n r~t~ ~°~~~i~i~l~I~
I~rr~~~~t I~~p~c'~~: r~~: ~~s~ ~'~r~l~r;~ ~a~~,r~~ ~a5~r,~.f~:i h~:~~~~ ~i~riifi~~~; r~n~~r°~ ~k th~~:~.
h~1.~irr;~i~~n~lf 4' ~~~~~f'~ ~~~t~:~~n€.~ ~r~-r°~~~ ~,~~ r z~ .
r1 ~ °'A°~i~~Ci~~ll" ~a~r~~~,t~~~°~ a=~tar~r~c~ ~I°~~
a~.M h1~LJ u7(~t"j' r~~ f~l~ ~4'li~~'I~t~~l~~l~~'~~ 9~~~~""ci.r~~'~~~~t~l ~~ ~~!I~ A.M ~]i~'~~C ~1{~fl ~ol~ ~r`~~i~
~r:~l~~;~ ~~~~JI~I' ~I~r~ f-~~~+~ i~~~ii''~~>ai1': i~i~~a~~~~f' ~l~i~~ t,~~a~fi~e =~~~li~rrw~~ c~r~, 4` ~r~~~t.
If rr~rr~ir~~r~~ ~~~~rti~ r~~ ~~~~~ ;f- ~r~~,~~~ i~~~`y~ ~l~°~ ~~ ~ ~h~ ~~~~r~ ~s~~ ifif.~~ rt°7~~=~~;:~.
T'~~,.v~ S~ ,~1 °i~~ W~~~. ~~r~~~+~~t5 ~~~~ i~l~?~ +J~Jt~LI'~~ ~~~~'1~~"~lt~! :~tg~J ~f ~~sN u ~J~'l~(f=~~~: r+ ~'a~i ~~lt~f~~C:lr_
~ri~~:~ ~i~Jrir'~C~ il~t`v G~~~~ ~~~?~.rJr, ~~ ~La~Fo~i~:l~ iri~~ ~iix~irac~ tP~he:-~ ~ M ~~x~~~ ~~a~~.~~' ~ri~i ~~~ t~l~~:
tP~~~~~ta~n~s~ ~~ ~:~..~r~~, ~~ 1 F~~~~ ~~ i~~~~r,~ tri~~ ~,~~t.~l~~ t~~=i~r~ i~rrifi~°~ar~fi r°~ i~;~~~p ~~.1r,~r~~
~~~J>r~~ ~~~=~ ir~t~.r~~~~:i~n~ ~ir~~ tP~r-& ~''.M ~~r,~r~~~ P-~~~:e~ ~~~~rcJic7~~ ~s~ ~'h~~ ~;i~:~,~` i~r~ifi~~~~~°~
~r~~:~ri: Th~ r~t~~~~~t~~r~ ~~ ~~~~ ~t~~~#C ~t ~«I~n~l Av~a~~~.a 4` ~t~~~t a~~ t~-~~
~;~~#p~c~~~ ~~~-r~~~i ~~~i 4' ~~~~~t a~ ~~I~r~~ll ~5yc~r~ i t-~~ ~r~l~~;~~ ~,+~~ialc~ I~~°,:~~.
~~.~~~i~'~~~:~w m~~~~~ ~t c~n~ r7t~~r~F~c~~of~ ~1~~~~r~c~ ~~ A.M. F~~a~ i~c~~a M~i ~t~~~ r~t, ~~~~~r~:lf
~+~~:-ii Tf~i+~~~~ fi~~a~ i~~ ~ ~~~~~~~ ;i.it~~~~ c~as~tr'~~~~i~~iv t1`~~ff~~o ~~r~~~~.~~~ frr~~~ Fh~: ~it~,r'
~~~,~~~~r ~=r~~~~i~~rurrr~r~t~ 1~~~~s~rr~~nt ira~~fi~: ~~:~~~i'~~
T~~r~ s,~~~m r~~~l F~r~~~~r:C~, t~~r~`~I~i ~~#~ ~r~a-~ifi~~r~r r7r~~~~~~ ~~~ t~,^~~ ~t~~;.r.~ ~~~~~~r~t~ C'~~~~~~
~Fi~ F~~~~j~~a~~i r~~°~~~~~~ in ~~~l~tr~~t~~,; ~~r5~~rrgr~~~ ~~~~a~din~ tr.'~ ti~~~ ~it~" s~~r~~i#ir-:~ra,~~ E~=ifi~rl,Y~.
Tf~~ ~'.r~~~~ 4` ~tr~~t r~~rt~~ ,~~~~3 ~~~,thr c~~~ ~~~~~.n~ll ~'~~ ~.~~~~~i~• n~~ E~i€~I~~~II' Ab~~~~~~i~~
between Main and 4'h Street.
There are no feasible project-related mitigation measures that would reduce the significant
traffic impacts. The significant intersection impacts could be mitigated by adding a turn
lane to one or more or the intersection approaches; however, this type of improvement
would require on-street parking removal or a narrowing of the sidewalk to accommodate
physical widening of the street. These measures would themselves result in significant
negative impacts to the area and impact the neighborhood context. Although the applicant
is proposing that excess parking on the West Project site be made available to the public to
replace any removed on-street parking, it is staff's experience that the public does not
generally utilize public parking provided on private property unless the public is frequenting
the establishment upon which the parking is placed.
Narrowing sidewalk widths adversely affects the pedestrian environment by reducing the
area where pedestrians may walk and potentially forcing pedestrians into the street. The
removal of on-street parking reduces the number of available public parking spaces in an
area where parking is at a premium for nearby residents and businesses. And finally, the
widening of streets to accommodate additional vehicle trips, particularly in residential
areas, is contrary to City policy where the preservation of neighborhoods and the
pedestrian environment is highly valued. Therefore, the impacts resulting from an increase
in project-related vehicle trips are considered significant and unavoidable.
The discussion of the traffic impacts and mitigation measures can be found on pages 3.7-
23
23 through 3.7-25 of the EIR.
Noise Foreseeable activities associated with the development that would occur on
both the East Project and West Project sites include demolition or site-prep work,
excavation, foundation installation, fabrication of the new structures, and finishing stages.
Such activities would be expected to require use of jack hammers for pavement breaking
or demolition, excavating equipment, a drilling rig forfoundation work, heavy-duty trucks for
hauling building materials and removing excavating materials, concrete mixers, and other
miscellaneous equipment for lifting materials or tools for finishing work. No pile driving
would be needed for foundation installation because the foundation will rely on a system of
piers installed in pre-drilled holes. Construction activities associated with the project would
be temporary. The developer anticipates that both the East Project and West Project
would be completed concurrently within approximately 18-months of the start of
construction. To avoid disruption of local neighborhood businesses or peak hour traffic, it
is possible that some construction activities could occur at off-peak times, including
evenings and weekends,
Noise levels from typical construction equipment varies widely depending on the process
underway, the type and condition of the equipment used, the layout of the construction site
and staging areas, and the day-by-day schedule of activities. These noise levels would
vary substantially throughout the day, and the peaks would occur only intermittently.
Noise-sensitive receptors, including the Ocean House Retirement Community and the
residences in the project vicinity and along the haul routes accessing the project sites,
24
could experience the adverse temporary affects of construction noise at these levels,
Without additional measures, noise levels associated with demolition or construction
activities could exceed the maximum allowable levels in the Noise Ordinance.
Implementation of mitigation measures would reduce the impacts of construction-related
noise, but not to levels that would be considered less than significant, and impacts would
remain significant and unavoidable. The noise levels during demolition and construction,
therefore, would be considered a significant and unavoidable impact to the project
neighborhood.
The discussion of the construction-related noise impacts and mitigation measures can be
found on pages 3.10-5 through 3.10-7 of the EIR.
Project Alternatives
CEQA also requires that an EIR evaluate alternatives to the proposed project, incfuding 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 which 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~bounda.ries,
and whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to
25
the alternative site.
In compliance with CEQA requirements, the EIR analyzed the following alternatives: an
office/retail use developed at a reduced scale, a senior housing/retait use, a reduced
retail/housing development and a no project alternative.
Environmentally Superior Alternative
The No Project Alternative would be environmentally superior to the proposed project on
the basis of the minimization or avoidance of physical environmental impacts. However,
the CEQA Guidelines require that if the environmentally superior alternative is the No
Project Alternative, "the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative
among the other alternatives." In terms of physical effects on the environment, the
environmentally superior alternative (other than the No Project) is the Reduced
Retail/Housing Alternative, which results in fewer impacts with respect to aesthetics/
shadow, population/housing, transportation/circulation and public services and utilities,
However, this project alternative would still result in unavoidable significant impacts that
cannot be mitigated. A detailed discussion of the Reduced Retail/Housing Alternative can
be found on pages 6-10 though 6-12 of the FEIR,
Statement of Overridinc~Considerations
As stated previously, the Council must certify the projects' Environmental Impact Report
prior to project approval. The EIR identifies significant unavoidable adverse environmental
impacts. The Council may certify the EIR with these impacts. However, before the
2s
~~= r~~~ ~:~x~f ~`~t+~-;e ~rr~ t~~~~h, nf tM~~ p:~~~~~~~. tl~~ +~`~~~rst~~~ ~r~~~lt~ h~°~r~ ~c~ ~+rc~~4~~
~t,~t~r-~~r~~. c~f ~~~~r~~r~ir~ r~~ ~~~is~~-~~~~`.~~~~ A ~t~t~m~r7t ~a~ ~~~~~-rw~~ n~ ~~ ~~~~~~r~ti~n. ~~
~t~ r~~ti~sr~ t~~ fh~~ ~~aun~i~ ~~i~~ ~Y~~~ ~~:~~5n~r~~r~i?~ I~~~! ~;~~~~i~~[ r~.~~~r~~71~~~ r,~~ ~a~` ~rh~r
~i~~~~~lt~ f~1 (~r~;`~~~r~~~i ~:r~aj~~:~ r~~~~~~~i~ tW~~ ~~~~~1'; h~l!e ~~~.~, r~~r~ir~~~~1~s~1~~11 ~r~ 9~°s,a~;~~
~~~ r~r'tc'~~ i~nifir~,rlt s~~~~rr°xir~~~E-Yl~ I~r1~~~~.~.~ ~~ t~~aff~~ r~l'~t:~~ E~~~~h ~~r~~r~~~~ ~.~~t~~~~.-~~;} I~I
;~~~~~~rr~t~ ~~i ~~s~~~~~ ~~~~ t~~h i~~~ t~~~s ~~~ ~~i~ ~ nf ~~~ h~i~:h ~~ ~~~~~~I~f r~~r;r,~ ~ ri r7c~ ~~ler A.M
r~~.~~ 11~ r~r~ r~ %~°+~~~~ ~t~~~r r~i~~~~q ih~ F'.M. p~~k hr~~i T~M~~~ ~dciii~~~r~~ ~}~I~i~l~e t,~`i~~~
I~ h;~u~ ~a~ ifr~:~nt im~~~~~ ~~ i~~~-m ~,~r~~t ~~i~4~~~.1 A~°~~r~~~~ 4` ~fir~~~ ~t ~fr.r~ I-~
~~~~s#f~r~i.~r~~i r~7~ :a~i±~ 4t ~t~~~~ ~it i~l~~~fl A`~1~~~~~3~ ~'iiiriri~ ~i~~ ~~~k F~,M. ~r~~~irr~iitii~~~
h~r~ l h~ ~r-,~r~~t~5 Uu~7~~i~'i fi~r.~~ 5n~~ ~fi~d"~1ltiri°ij~,~~fis ~7t M~~in ~$I~~~~~C ~I~~C~I~"~~1~•~r~r'r~~€~€~~.Ir'~i~
C'h~ A.M. ~~~~~ hc~~.~ f~~t~ ~ra~~~{t~ u~~~~_ii~f I~c~~ i~~° ~ic~nifi~~t~t im~~t~t c~rr~ r~~il~ kr~~'i~
~lut~~ ~~ ~t~~~9 r7{~rfih~ n~l ,~~~~t:~ ~~ i~:~r'~~I'I A~~~n~~~ ~.~~~ii~i~:r~~ill~~ t~~~ r~~~r.t ~,~~
o~nifis=~tlt ~~1~+~°~iC~~k~l~ ~':~'~i7~t~'t~~~~tr~~r~-r~lat€~ri -ir ~~~+ ~n~l ri3r~r~,~ P~`~~a~~t~.
Tlr~~ `~r~~~;t~ ~.~~r:~~,l~ (r~a: ~~~i~~~ r~~r,G ~~~~r::~ ~n~;f rl~~;~ r:~t~ ~~~a~t~~~:: ~` ~i~~r~ir~~~ t,~tfi r,~~?~s ~1~t
~~~~i~4~~~ t~°~~~~ ;~~iri~~`~~ c~f t~~ ~'~r: ~~~~~t~ ~~e, ~~rt ~h~~ ~v~rri~i~ Whi~~ tEi~ C;i~~+ f~~~a~~ ~~-J~~~t~~:~
~~r~,~rr~~~ ~~~~ C:~r~~~~~~~r~c~ th3~~~:hrr~lc~~rY~~r~tc~f ~~r~~~~~~~~~ i1~ r~~,~-rsrr~r~~~:~1 ~~~1~~~ tf~~ ~i~~a?
h~ ~t~~ ~r~ ~~~i`.i.~~~~ ~~ t~€~~~iiiF~ ~w~r~~~~~.a ir~ tt1~ ~Jr.:}~~~1r~~~rrt,~llt >f r'r~~':~rk~~-~;~~~ ri~~~a~in~
~'tt~:~°°r~r~~ r~c~ t~'~ t~t~ ~i~~+' F~~1~~rr:.~ ~~~~~~it; th~ ~ifi~ ,~Irr~:~~~~° m~~~ir~~ n~i .~~~°~~~it~~a ~t~`
~c~~ f€~ ~~'~~rk~:~r~t:~ f7~~ti~i~i~~ It ~~~i ~,~ thi~ ~~a~ftl~~ir+~~ t~r~t t~~ n~~-~~~r~ i~f ~t~~i~~r~j~~t ~~~c~~t
t~~ ~~~~~~~1' ~t~ff ~~i~irj~r ~=r~ t~ r~~fi~=~~~ th~~ ~~r~~~ ~h~ ~r~~~~~~ im~~~~~~ ~7~.r~r~i~-i~ ~is ~a~
r~t~f~ Thi i~ ~~~t, t~ ~~JC~c~~°°~~~ in iny rr~~~~J~ tP~~# t~~~ ~i~~ ~;~~~s~~l~`~ ~~~$_~~~~ i9~; e~~;f~~ir~~l
c'°.~~r~i~~ii~rr°~r~ri ~t~~ ~~~~i~~i~,~ ~~~~;~Ic~F~ ~nt ~p~ ~~rr7r~~rr~ra z~r~~;~ f~~~t~e f~-~~. ~;rar-~t~~ry.
However, given this continued success, it is quite appropriate for the City to carefully
assess the specific impacts of an individual project and to determine whether these
impacts are simply too great to justify project approval notwithstanding that market rate
house would be developed. In addition, the West Project could also be used, and may
well be intended for short-term corporate housing as evidenced by the amenities provided
which include a screening room, business center and meeting rooms. One of the City's
primary goals is to preserve the quality and character of the City's neighborhoods and
preserve its unique sense of community. The quality and character of the City's
neighborhoods and community comes in large part from the residents' participation in civic
affairs, cultural events and educational endeavors. Short-term housing does not contribute
to these goals as occupants of short-term housing do not have the same ties to the
community as those who make the City their home. Short-term corporate housing does not
satisfy the City's long term housing goals yet generates environmental impacts.
Given that the projects are inconsistent with the neighborhood context, produce significant
building mass along 6 street fronts, including an entire city block, and have significant
traffic impacts which affect the nearby neighborhood, staff cannot support an override of
the project.
Staff notes that the applicant/appellant forwarded to staff and the Planning Commission at
the December 5, 2001 hearing proposed findings for a Statement of Overriding
Considerations. The applicanUappellant suggests findings in the following five (5) areas:
• Housing - the projects provide additional rental housing units, which contribute
toward the City's regional fair share, without displacing existing residents; the
2s
projects will make a substantial contribution towards the City's need for affordable
housing through compliance with SMMC Chapter 9.56, the Affordable Housing
Production Program.
• Environment - the projects are designed as "green buildings' with numerous
environmenta~ly-sensitive features.
• Urban Planning - the projects provide pedestrian-oriented, neighborhood friendly
uses at the ground floor within mixed-use buildings on Main Street which provide an
important link between the Civic Center and the Main Street Commercial District.
• Fiscal - the projects will generate sales tax revenue, property tax revenue and
development fees for the City. ~
• Employment - the projects will generate significant construction-related and
permanent job opportunities.
However, notwithstanding the applicanUappellant's suggested benefits of the project, staff
still does not believe that the benefits of the projects outweigh the unavoidable significant
impacts, particularly those traffic-related impacts caused by the estimated 1,690 daily
vehicle trips generated by the projects.
Proposed Project Revisions by Applicant/Appellant
In response to the Planning Commission staff report of December 5, 2001 and the
comments from the Planning Commission at the hearing, the applicant/appellant has
proposed possible design modifications to the East and West Projects for staff's and the
Council's comment and consideration. The revisions are summarized below.
Possible Modifications to the East Project Plans
The applicant/appellant proposes that, consistent with the existing structure to the east of
29
the project site, the side yard setback on the East Project be increased to 10 feet along
Bicknell Avenue for the easterly one-half of the project closest to the residential
neighborhood. Patio and private open space walls along Bicknell Avenue are proposed at
36" in height with raised planter walls 18" above existing grade. Along the Main Street
frontage, the ground floor commercial and upper level residential building fa~ades have
been re-designed with respect to setbacks, materials, varied architectural features/styles
and additional articulation, including varying building heights and upper level stepbacks, so
that a perceived 60' wide sequential developmen# pattern is created. Finally, the exterior
character of the East Project has been modified to reflect architectural features not
common to the West Project in order to further differentiate the projects,
Possible Modifications to the West Project Plans
More extensive changes to the West Project plans have been offered by the
applicant/appellant. The revisions include:
~ To reduce the massing, provide better "transition" and eliminate the "gateway
effect" of the West Project, the fourth floor units at all four corners have been
removed and re-located within the building.
2, To further reduce the massing and provide a better transition for the West
Project, an additional fourth floor unit along the Bay Street frontage has also
been removed and re-located within the building.
3, To break up the massing of the West Project on Main Street, the ground floor
commercial and upper level residential building farades have been re-
designed with respect to setbacks, materials, varied architectural
features/styles and additional articulation, including varying building heights
and upper level stepbacks, so that a perceived 60' wide sequential
development pattern is created. The added ground floor outdoor space
incorporates pedestrian amenities including arcades, colonnades, awnings,
small courts, seating furniture and alternative paving materials. These
pedestrian treatments will also continue with the ground floor uses for 50'
30
along Bay Street and Bicknell Avenue.
4. To further reduce the massing and provide a better transition along Bay
Street, the north elevator tower has been re-located 27' to the interior
cou rtya rd.
5, The landscaped areas along Bay Street have been increased between the
building and the sidewalk.
6. The existing five foot wide sidewalk on Neilson Way can be increased to
eight feet at the request of the City.
7 The exterior character of the first 60' north along Main Street from Bicknell
Avenue has been modified to emphasize horizontality to the building fa~ade.
The modification to the West Project also includes a change to the proposed residential
uses at the upper garage level. Two below grade areas once labeled as "Business Center"
and "Screening Room" have been changed to "Community Room and "TV Room"
respectively,
Copies of the revised plans are contained in Attachment G.
Staff comments on Possible Design Modifications
East Project Modifications
The potential design modifications to the East Project provide a better differentiation
between the projects on opposite sides of the Main Street. The modifications to the Main
Street fa~ade also reduce the perceived width of the building by varying the architectural
style. The addition of setbacks and upper level stepbacks along Bicknell Avenue,
particularly the 10' setback along the rear'/2 of the building provides a better transition to
the residences to the east of the project site
31
West Project Modifications
The potential design modifications to the West Project have the potential to reduce the
perceived mass and scale of the building, particularly along Main Street and at the four
corners of the building. These modifications provide differing architectural style
components in 60' segments, greater setbacks and articulation and varying in roof heights
along the Main Street fa~ade which lessens the perception of the building as a single entity
and provides a better visual transition from the subject building to the surrounding
properties. The design modifications also include the removal of a fourth floor unit,
increased landscaping and the addition of gabled roof elements to help the visual transition
along Bay Street. Along Bicknell Avenue, the farade at the corner of Bicknell and Main
Street has been re-designed to reduce the visual `height' impact of the building corner.
Finally, the applicant/appellant has offered to increase the sidewalk width from 5' to 8' in
width along Neilson Way. This change will improve the pedestrian access along the east
side of the 2000 block of Neilson Way and improve the integration of the building and
public right of way. The west faCade, however, still dominates the street front in that area
of Neilson Way.
Overall, staff believes that the possible design modifications to the two projects could
improve the buildings' compatibility and transition to the surrounding properties and help to
differentiate the projects from one another. Although difficult to confirm, it appears the new
transition for the East Project from the commercial uses at the corner of Main Street and
Bicknell Avenue to the residential uses along Bicknell is improved by the 10' setback
32
offered at the rear 60' of the building. The West Project, which is a single building
encompassing an entire City block, may be improved by the proposed modifications by
enhancing the building's compatibility, scale, massing, pedestrian orientation along Neilson
Way and transition between the building and street.
Staff bases these comments on the material provided to date by the applicant/appellant.
However, at the time that this staff report was prepared, the applicant/appellant had not
provided detailed information for staff to make a thorough analysis. Staff requested
detailed information forthe proposed design modifications so that a more detailed analysis
and comment on the design modifications could be prepared. Without these materials, staff
cannot make a definitive recommendation to the Council on the proposed design
modifications. Moreover, as recently submitted information, these possible design
modifications have not been analyzed in the FEIR.
Appeal Analysis
The appeal statement of the applicant/appellant, which covers the appeals of the Planning
Commission denial of both the East Project and West Project, separates the Planning
Commission actions under appeal into four separate categories:
• Those actions that pertain specifically to the projects (CUP 017 and DR 00-002 for
the East Project and CUP 016 and DR 99-013 for the West Project);
• The Vesting Tentative Parcel Map filed for both projects;
• The proposed Zoning Ordinance text amendment for the West Project; and
• The failure of the Planning Commission to certify the Environmental Impact Report.
33
The appeal statement of the applicant/appellant is contained in Attachment C,
Appeal of the Planning Commission denial of CUP 017 and DR 00-002 for the East Project
and CUP 016 and DR 99-013 for the West Project.
The applicant/appellant has included 5 separate areas of appeal under this category
1 The Commission abused its direction acted contrary to the law acted in an unfair
manner, acted contrarv to City incentives for housing in commercial zoning districts
and acted contrarv to Citv practice by~ a) denying the projects which comply with
development standards and which the applicant would redesign to meet Plannin~
Commission desian concerns~ b) denying the proiects because they were too large
too massive and too ta~ll• c) denying the projects based upon the staff report's
contention that the proiects do not comply with "several highly general" provisions
of the Citv's Land Use Element• d) denying the projects because the City does not
need more market rate rental housing; and e) not approvinq the development of the
finro multi-lot sites with sinqle projects. ~
The East and West Projects required that Development Review Permit (DR) and
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) approval be obtained due to the buildings' size and the total
floor area of the residential uses within the buildings. Both of these permits are
discretionary permits which are subject to the review and approval of the Planning
Commission and the City Council on appeal. It is the responsibility of these bodies, as part
of their review, to ensure that proposed projects are compatible with and retate
harmoniously to surrounding sites _ and neighborhoods in terms of physical location,
massing and placement of the proposed buildings on the site.
Compliance with zoning laws does not entitle one to a permit when the permit sought is
34
subject to discretionary review. See Dore v. County of Ventura 23 Cal. App 4th 320, 328-
329 (1994); Guinnone v. San Francisco City Planning Commission, 209 Cal. App. 3d, 732,
736 (1989). Here, the Planning Commission, and the City Council on appeal, are
empowered to exercise discretionary review and to determine, among other findings, that
the proposed project is compatible with, and relates harmoniously to the surrounding sites
and neighborhoods.
In arguing that the City cannot deny these projects without violating its Zoning Ordinance,
appellant ignores the significant discretion that the City retains. While this exercise of
discretion must be sound and neither arbitrary nor capricious, such exercise of discretion
will be upheld if it is directed toward promoting the public interest. The concept of public
welfare is broad, representing physical, spiritual, aesthetic and monetary values. See
Guinnone, 209 Cal. App. 3d at 741-42, citing Bermon v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26, 33 (1954).
The decision of the Planning Commission constituted a sound exercise of its discretion.
In its review of the DR and CUP applications for the East and West Projects, the
Commission properly found that the buildings and the proposed uses within the projects
were not compatible with and did not relate harmoniously with the surrounding sites and
neighborhoods and would impair the integrity and character of the district. The projects are
incompatible, out of scale, not in character with the existing neighborhood, and not
consistent with the historical pattern of development in the area.
The applicant/appellant also contends that staff and the Commission are using "massing'
35
as a code word for "size" in opposing the projects. The applicanUappellant emphasizes
that pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance the size of a project is deemed compatible with and
relates harmoniously with the surrounding sites and neighborhood if it is consistent with the
height and density standards of the General Plan. The Planning Commission did not deny
the projects based on size and staff did not recommend that it do so. At the Commission
hearing, the Commission was specifically advised that it could not find the project
incompatible based on size. The Planning Commission followed this advice and focused
on the buildings' mass.
While housing is encouraged in commercial areas, neighborhood compatibility and
appropriate scale and massing of buildings cannot be overlooked simply because a project
is residential. All projects, whether commercial or residential, define the urban character
and cause long term effects on a neighborhood.
There is no question that the City has policies that promote residential development in its
commercial zones through height and density bonuses. However, these policies do not and
were never intended to require the City to approve every residential project irrespective of
its impacts on the surrounding sites or neighborhood.
Finally, contrary to the applicant/appellant's assertions, the Planning Commission did not
base their findings of denial of the projects on the lack of affordability of the multi-family
housing within the proposed projects or the fact that two single projects were proposed on
two multi-parcel sites. As outlined above, the Planning Commission's denial was based
36
upon issues related to the compatibility, mass and scale of the proposed developments,
2. The denial of the proiects by the Planning Commission is contrary to the Housinq
Element's findinp that the Citv discretionary review process does not constitute a
constraint on new housing development
The applicant/appellant contends that denial of this project violated several policies of the
City's Housing Element. The applicant/appellant focuses on an action plan of Housing
Element Program 1.a (assess and revise, where appropriate, city regulatory requirements)
which provides that the City should continue to promote and provide incentives to develop
residential uses in non-residential zoning districts. However, this action plan cannot be
interpreted to compel the City to approve every proposed housing development proposed
in a commercial zone, notwithstanding the proposal's impacts, particularly when the City
would have to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations. The applicant/appellanYs
related suggestion that the denial of this proposal demonstrates that the City is simply
opposed to housing development on this site is equally implausible. Moreover, the
appellant's contention that the City is not implementing this action plan ignores the
significant legislative acts that the City has undertaken to implement this plan and the
substantial housing development that is occurring. in the City's commercial zones.
Additionally, the Housing Element action plan does not compel the City to approve any
specific housing proposal irrespective of its impacts. Indeed both the City's Housing
Element and its Land Use Element establish policies that demonstrate just the opposite.
The City's Housing Element establishes the following housing policies relevant to this
project: "promote quality housing and neighbors", "promote livability and stability of
37
neighborhoods", "ensure that residential areas are protected from adverse impacts from
adjoining uses", and "encourage housing design and improvements which are aesthetically
compatible with and complementary to the surrounding neighborhood." These policies are
also reflected in the City's Land Use and Circulation Element. See Objective 1.10 ("Expand
the opportunity for residential land use while protecting the scale and character of existing
neighborhoods"); Objective 1.2 ("Ensure compatibility of adjacent land uses, with particular
concern for protecting residential neighborhoods").
The applicant/appellant also focuses on the City's 2000-2005 Housing Element constraint
analysis in which the City determined, in part, that its discretionary review process did not
operate as a constraint. Contrary to the appellant's assertions, this analysis does not
remotely suggest that the City will always address project impacts through redesign rather
than denial of the project irrespective of the nature of these impacts and the need for the
City to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations if it were to approve the project.
Finally, the applicant/appellant contends that because the project meets the objective
standards of the City's Zoning Ordinance, it cannot be found to be inconsistent with the
City's General Plan. However, this argument ignores the discretionary nature of this review
and that as part of this review, the City must find that the project is consistent with both the
City's Zoning Ordinance and its General Plan.
3. The denial of the projects by the Planning Commission violates State Housing Law
Government Code Section 65589.5(i).
Government Code Section 65589.5Q) provides, in relevant part, that a local agency's
38
d~ ~~a ~i~:ny r~pc~~~~ h~ ~in~ ~r~j~~t Phr~~~ ~~a~~~p~~~ ~~~I~I~ ~~~~~r~~~~~1 ~~~~~~~~u~.•,
g~ r~~ pl~ r~~ ~~nir~~ ~~~r~~~~~~~ r~~i ~:~i~~ri~~a ~f~~~,t ,F~~ th~~ ~irr~€~= ~f~:~~ ~h~~ ~~~~~~~fi,P
~~R~°~fi~~~~1 iS ~~m~~ r:r~it~~'~P~~~ arri.~~t ~~ }°a;~~~~d ~~I~' d:ar~ ~~r~:~ai~ ~~~r~fr~: ~I~Y I~~:~
~r~~a~~ ~t/< ~~~Cl~~r~~ ~:~~~1P~~~1~ th~,~~ a~i ~~ ia~t:~ ~'~7n~r~rni~~~~ri t~i~r~i~~~x7 ~s~~~~~~{~ ~h
.1r~~~ ~6c°~~'7 I ~~ ~;t~:~fif ~:~~c~r~r~~ ~;:ir~~ th~r;~ ~~II~ int ~~r~ t~~ ~,f ~=:~~~~~~ Frr~t, tF~
~~~~~fr'~ h~ r~c~:~~~la~:~'~t~~~s fi~s~h; ~art~~~~t ~~~s`+.~~,~i ~~~~~ ~~~ if~C tc~ ~:~i r~#~r ~i:ti~:~
r-~~i ~~~ tk~~, ~it~ ~fi ~~~7t~ ~tt1~r-~~r:~, I~:~ t~t ~ xtr~ t~~~t ~~ ~;~ryF ~;t~~~~~~~r~~t w~t~~:~~,i~,~
~-1~°~~~i~~~srr-~~nt ~~r~~j~~~ r~ffr~r~i~~,~~ t~ v~ry iF~s~~~ i~~•~~r r~r~~r~~~~=P'ir~9~-~ nr..~n~~ r~~~~am~~r~l~l:
~~~~r~~d~.__~~r~~r~ti~~ ~r~~r7~~~;~ru~f +~ ~i~y c~f ~~.n~ P~rr~~ ~~I, f~,4:~ 4~ ~~'~ ~~7:
~?~?~ ntir'~,~~~~II int h; ~A~il~~i f~ ~~~~°~~~`. r~~~r~~g~i~r,~:~ ~~rir~r7~tr-~t~r-~~~ ~f~~~ ~h~~ ~~r~~~s~~j:~
d~ ~al~~p.r~~ru~ ~4~~~~if t~~ ~f~~rr~~~-~~~: ~~~~s~~«~~ F~rr~~~r#. `~~~~F~~~1 ~~r~rs if ~ht~ ;~+'~~~`~~~rJ
r~~se~ I~pE~~rvnt ~~ t~ ~~~ =~~f~~rr~ k.~l~ t~i~ ~~~t~~ ~~'~~~~i~i }'~~ r-~~~~i~~r~~ n~.~ tF~ ~~r~pf~~~~l
~rO~~~t ~~1 r~s~:~t ~al~~~l°~ s~oi~f~ ~II ~p~i~~t~l!~ Z~f"~~~7~ ~t~rf~~~~~r~:i ~t 1h~r~ th~ ~~~~I~r,~t~~~r~ ~~~,=~~
~1~~~~7~~i Q:rs~r~-~~f~'r~. ,~~„~ Tt~~~~~ ~~. '~'~~~.~n...~t ~'€~~,~~ 7 ~"F ~~~~ 4~ ~i~~~ ~1~~ ~i~~~r~
~~~~~f ~~ 9h~i~; ~~~~ja~t, tN~~ ~a~g~~~l~~~~t ~'~~;4~~~tiF~~ ~~nir7~~ t~~:~h ~~`~~~i~~~r1~nF ix~ ~~i~~~;sS, t;~~
d~fi~i~t~~~r Thlr~ t~~t~ I~r~ t17~ ~n~ ~-~~~r~~~af Im,~~ ~°~. I~~~~rt ~~7~~~~r~~ai fc~r~~i~ G,r~~~~r-~
F~~ pro~p~~~c°i ~1« ~~~~r~A~~nt~~+~~~l~l h~~~~ a~3~°;ifi~~ r~~~r~~ rrb~:s~~~~t ~~~~ t~~~;~~~t~li~ ri~~lt~~
~,~~~~~ ~~ ~,~ t~-~~~~~ ~~r~i~: ~~ ~;.~~,~,_i ~ ~ ~~.,, ~+ r~:
`~ . t~ t,~~iti ~ e~ril~ mi~~~~~ a-~~~~fi th~ n=~~1~~~~~
im~~c:9~ ir~~t7`if`~;~~. ~~r~~~~u~~r~tly ~~~~~:~ ~ir~r~; ~~~~ti~=~ ~~~~~~. ~f~l~~i~~~~~~ I~~r~ t~~a.:b
~i~~~in~ ~q r~~i ~~~ P~~~~ ~~f;t~~r~ rr~~~lc~ ~a~: r~,~e~ ~~_~rtk~ t~ r~~ ~ts~~~~~ th~~:~t ~~=~~.ti~°, ~~,~~~~~
r~~ ~A~~~ tP~~t ~h~ ~i~~ ~~~~ar~~~~ tf~~ ;:~r~°ij~~~,~ t~y I^~~~ r~ ~h~~~ ~h~ ~i~y i~ ~.r~~~~~~~i~r~ t~~
=a~i~~~t t~~~rru~r~~ c~~ +~°~~rr~a~ir~~~ ~nn~id~~~r~rrr~~ ~~~~~~rt, c:~a~~rr~ n~a ~r~ ft~r :~f~,~~~~~~~il,
~~rt~~ ;~~~# tr~~m~~. ~~t~~,_ ~°~~r~ i~ ~~~~i~ i~r I~~~v t~~ ~~a~~-o-~~r~ th~i~- ~c.~rN ~~~~~i~rr7
~ ~,
4 The denial of the proiects constitutes a temporary and possibly permanent taking of
the applicant's propertk
Case law has long recognized that permit delays do not give rise to temporary takings.
First Enqlish v. County of Los Angeles 107 S. Ct. 2378; (1987) Landqate. Inc, v. California
Coastal Comm. 17 Cal. 4th 1006 (1998). In order to show a permanent taking, the
applicant/appellant must show that the City's actions denied the developer all economically
viable use of the property. The simple denial of inerely one project does not deprive the
developer of economically viable uses or prevent the developer from developing other
projects which are compatible with the Zoning Code and General Plan. Indeed, the
developer can use the property for a number of uses which do not even require
discretionary approval.
5. The Commission abused its discretion and acted unlawfully insofar as the
Commission denied the projects because the applicant has not yet determined the
method of compliance with SMMC Chapter 9.56 the Affordable Housing Production
Program.
The applicant/appellant contends that Chapter 9.56 cannot require the applicant to choose
a particular method of compliance with the Affordable Housing Production Program as a
condition of approval. However, Chapter 9.56, in Section 9.56.040, states: "A multi-family
project application will not be deemed complete until the applicant has submitted plans and
proposals which demonstrate the manner in which the requirements of this Chapterwill be
met". In an effort to proceed with the processing of the development applications and
absent the above information from the applicant/appellant, the City inferred that the
40
applicant/appellant would pay the affordable housing production fee as 85% of market-rate
multi-family projects have complied with Chapter 9.56 in this way. Moreover, the Planning
Commission did not base their findings of denial of the projects on the fact that the
applicant would likely comply with the Affordable Housing Production Program through the
payment of a fee.
Appeal of the Planning Commission denial of the Vesting Tentative Parcel Map.
The applicanUappellant contends that the Vesting Tentative Parcel Map should be
approved alonp with the proiects because no concerns have been expressed by Citv
staff orthe Planninq Commission regarding the combination of the existing parcels into
2 smqle building sites.
In denying the Vesting Tentative Parcel Map (VTPM), the Commission found that the
proposed improvements associated with the VTPM were not consistent with Land Use
Objective 3.2 and Policies 1.2.1 and 3.2.2. Land Use Element Policy # 1.2.1 states that
development should provide a better transition between commercial and adjacent
residential uses. Land Use Objective 3.2 calls for the protection of the scale and character
of residential neighborhoods that are adjacent to commercial areas,
The improvements associated with the proposed subdivision are not consistent with these
policies. The East project is 3-stories (plus subterranean square footage and parking), with
ground floor and subterranean commercial space and 26 units with 150' of frontage along
Bicknell Avenue. Given the neighborhood context, the proposed East project is
inconsistent with the scale and massing of nearby structures and, in general, with the
pattern of development in the nearby area.
41
The proposed West project is also inconsistent with these Land Use policies and is out of
character and scale and with the nearby residential neighborhood. No other development
in the Main Street area has a similar parcel size or mass, encompasses an entire city block
or dominates the street frontage in the manner of the West project.
Appeal of the Planning Commission denial of the proposed Zoning Ordinance text
amendment.
The applicant/appellant contends that even though City staff recommended the
proposed text amendment and the Commission expressed no opposition to it the
Commission did not recommend the text amendment to the Council based upon their
lack of support for the projects.
The Planning Commission did not recommend the proposed Zoning Ordinar~ce text
amendment because they found it inconsistent in principle with the goals, objectives and
policies, land uses and programs specified in the adopted General Plan. Land Use Plan
Objective 3.2 calls for the protection of the scale and character of residential
neighborhoods that are adjacent to commercial areas. The proposed text amendment is
associated with a development, the West Project, which is inconsistent with this Land Use
objective. The West Project is also inconsistent with Land Use Objective 3.4 that requires
that development enhance the image and unique character of the commercial and
residential districts and residential neighborhoods in the City. No other development in the
Main Street area has a similar parcel size or mass, encompasses an entire city block or
dominates and overwhelms the nearby neighborhood and commercial street frontage in the
manner of the West project. The existing buildings along the west side of Neilson Way are
42
set back between 20' and 60' from the public right-of-way, whereas the proposed project
overwhelms the Neilson Way street front with minimal set backs that accommodate small
landscaped areas. Likewise, there are no landscaped areas between the residential units
and the sidewalk along Bay Street to soften the transition between building and sidewalk
for the pedestrians and residents along that street.
Appeal of the Planning Commission's decision not to certify the Final Environmental Impact
Report (FEIR).
The applicant/appellant contends that the Commission abused its discretion and acted
contrary to the law in refusing to certify the FEIR
The appellant states that the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) complies with
CEQA and deserves certification. With this, staff agrees. The FEIR identified significant
and unavoidable impacts that cannot be mitigated in the areas of Air Quality (during
construction and demolition), Traffic/Circulation (during construction and project related),
and Noise (during construction). Thus, to approve this project, a Statement of Overriding
Considerations must be adopted. See CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15092, 15092. The
appellant contends it would be an abuse of discretion forthe City not to adopt a Statement
of Overriding Considerations. In making this argument, the appellant ignores the
substantial discretion that the City retains in determining whether to take this action. See
Practice Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEB), '17.23. A Statement of
Overriding Considerations reflects the final stage in the decision making process by the
public body. A public agency can approve a project with significant environmental impacts
only if it finds such effects can be mitigated or concludes that unavoidable impacts are
43
~r~~~i,~ I~ !~~~~m.,~~ r~~t ~~r~~~rr~~Jir~~~ ~~n~~~r~~ ~~~rr~ ~lu~a ~ ~~~~r~...~~a~t~~!~_~~.=~~:~r, 1 ~~I
~~f~ 4' ~~ ~~~~ A t~[~{~~~~~~ ~4a~~rriri r~~ ~~n~it~-1:~r:~~i~~-~~ t~~,~~r~~~~~,t~ ~~~li~'~
~i~~i~i~a~,,,~ r~if-~ ~~~ (,~~:;iWf°~~f~i;~~ ~r~:~a~r .~Af~~~~ h ~r~~ ~~~~i~rr°~ tki~k th~ ~~~r7~rii~ ~fi
P~,~r~~a~a~~~~ t~r~i~~t ~~~,it~~°~~~~~h i~s ra~~~~~i~'~~~h~l ~~,~.rir~;~r~rr,~~~,~1' i.`~~I~~ rT~t,~f t~~ ~~~~;~~c~n-t~~~i t~~r
~~~t~~,ti +~;t~ic,~~nr:~ It ~~,~~Ilr~c~~ i;~~~ith~~~ ~~~c~:~~~nc~rrr~}~r~~~,~r~~~~t~W~ ~I~
~~~~~rr~~~~ri~:i~t4i th~t th~°: h~,r~jr~r~t ~~u~~,i~ r~~~.a~@ in ~~~~r~i:~ic;~a~t, i~i~~~'ik~f~ i~~1~~~~.~~; t~~{;~~r~i~ir~~
t~~ ~~r~~~~t f~~t~~~~_~~ ~'~.~~~~ ~~~~rr~~.~iti~~, ~. ~.~~c~n~fi~~~~ ~~I Ap~ 4~ ~3~a~ ~~~~ ~~~~.
T ~~rc~u~ ~~t~l ~~II int~~~~~ tN~~t t~~ ~~`,~ rr~~.~~f ~f~r~v~ i~~ ~r~;~fir r~~r~~~itt~~t~~r~~ r~~~ t~~~n
~:~~~r°I ~~~r~ ~f tf~~~ ~~F ~rk~i~~;k' ~h~; ~r~~~°~~~I~r~r ~~r~i~ar~~~, r77~~fy i~~~~r~~A~ ~~~~~ trl~ I~~:~.
Mt.~r~~~~s~~r :;~s=~~f' ~~.~ri r,~~1 ~`i~a tf~~~ ~t~tr~r~~riti ~~~ ~.~ro.~~r~i~ r~~ ~~•-~~i~~~r:atr~r~~ r-a~-ac
w~r~~nt~r~ i~7 th~i~ c~a~~: i~ ~~:~~~ti~ ~~~f' ~~~,~~Iy ~~~~"~i~~~1~r~~r~ ~~~t~~~ r~n~rit~ ~fth~tii~ ~r~sj~~t in
~m~~r~~~rr t~ i~~ nbfir;a~r~i~nt~~ i~ri~,~~~t~_ ~r~J~~tN-~~~ ~~t~~~~~r~ te~i~~~ >f ~~~~~~°t ~~~rr~~~rr.~r~~~
tf~,r~~ ~,~~r~~ n:~~w~~i~i~~~~ ~~~r~F:~_~~~°ts ~,~~:~~~~'a~~,r~~~ik ~a~werri~~ r~r~~1 ~~~fr~r~ tf~i~ ~~rv~~in~il ~~1r`~ ~-,'~~
~~ ~~~ !~r~r~ M~C~(~ ~t~ff~ f~C:C7i~"Yf~ii~?t~?°~~~~~C7
~'~~~f~ f~~TI~I~,~T~~f~
~'~~~~i~~r~~ t~~~ ~11,,~~°gi~if~~l °~~~J~ ~~~;~1~ar~ C}~ ~~ ~C"a.~~~, ~.p,~~tl-~i~ r~~~~ ~ft~~ ff~.~~ ~m~~it~~~J~~
B-;~ir~t~~;~ ~~~,~ ~'i~:~r~i~ti ~~,-F~~I~~~. t~~ ~la~~nt ~~~~~~°~ ~~~~~ tf~~ ~,r~a~~;:rt~ ~t;~t~r~~ tM~~~.
~~ll~~~~~in t'~~~-t-~~+.i+~~~,_ F~r~~~~-f r~~~ I~I'u;~l~~r Y~ri~f ~r~j~~t: rn~~~~JriT~ki+~~r~ n~r~-r~ ri~~ t~l~~h~~~
imt~~: ~~~~Ii~~nt, ~i#~~ ~~~r~~~ ~~~~:~ terr~~=4 o-~~r~3 I!~~~fii~:~r~ nf ~uk~li~ ~~;~rir~~ n~.1 t~~s. ~if~~
I~:t ~ri~r~ €~~~~i~~~r~ ~~f~~~~r~ mt~~r It i~ ~h ;-~{~R~~~~~~°~t' r~~~~c~~i~ik~i~~~~,{ t~ ~~~~~~; tp'~~ h~~ri~r~~
~~~=~~~ if i~ ~°~~:nqF~rlt ~ft~ ~~~~tin~_
44
In addition, pursuant to Municipal Code Section 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 and all recognized neighborhood groups at
least ten consecutive calendar days prior to the hearing and published in the "California"
section of the Los Anqeles Times. A copy of the notice is contained in Attachment D,
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT
The recommendation presented in this report does not have any budget or financial
impact.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Council conduct a public hearing and take the following actions
1. Adopt the Resolution contained in Attachment E certifying the Final Environmental
Impact Report;
2. Deny the Zoning Ordinance text amendment;
3, Deny Development Review Permit application 99-013;
4. Deny Development Review Permit application 00-002;
5. Deny Conditional Use Permit application 01-016;
6. Deny Conditional Use Permit applications 01-017; and
7. Deny Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 25566.
Text Amendment Findinqs
1 The proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance is inconsistent in principle with
the goals, objectives and policies, land uses and programs specified in the adopted
General Plan in that Land Use Plan Objective 3.2 calls for the protection of the
scale and character of residential neighborhoods that are adjacent to commercial
areas. The proposed text amendment is associated with a development, the West
Project, which is inconsistent with this Land Use objective. The West Project is also
inconsistent with Land Use Objective 3.4 that requires that development enhance
the. image and unique character of the commercial and residential districts and
residential neighborhoods in the City.
No other development in the North Main Street area has a similar parcel size
45
encompasses an entire city block and dominates its street fronts in the manner of
the West project. North Main Street is generally characterized by 1 and 2 story
developments on 60' wide parcels. Those developments on parcels wider than 60'
are generally are not greater than 3-stories in height, including the buildings at the
corner of Pico Boulevard. The taller buildings along North Main Street are on 50'
parcels including 1918 Main Street (3-stories) and 2110 Main Street (3-stories). To
the west of the project site along Neilson Way, there is a 3-story, multi-family
building at 2021 Ocean Avenue with 78 units. This building has frontage on 3
streets and shares the block with the 2-story Bayside Hotel which also has street
frontage on 3 sides. These projects are oriented toward the west and Ocean
Avenue and are set back from Neilson Way 20' to 60' from the public right-of-way.
The proposed project provides minimal set backs to accommodate small
landscaped areas.
~_~°yt~~~a~~i~n~i~t..~~5~i~~~ ~.~rr-~~~it Fi~rc~i~~r~L,- I~~~~~-(~1w~
The City Council cannot find that the physical location, massing and placement of
proposed structures on the site and the location of proposed uses within the project
are compatible with and relate harmoniously to surrounding sites and
neighborhoods. The proposed project, a four story, 136,694 square foot mixed-use
development with 288 parking spaces within 3 levels of subterranean parking is not
consistent with the pattern of development in the area and overwhelms the nature of
the neighborhood. No other development in the North Main Street area has a
similar parcel size, encompasses an entire city block and dominates its street fronts
in the manner of the West project. North Main Street is generally characterized by 1
and 2 story developments on 60' wide parcels. Those developments on parcels
wider than 60' are generally not greater than 3-stories in height, including the
buildings at the corner of Pico Boulevard. The taller buildings along North Main
Street are on 50' parcels including 1918 Main Street (3-stories) and 2110 Main
Street (3-stories). Further, the project design concentrates building volumes at the
Main Street corners, resulting in building massing that is incompatible with the low
scale, village-like character intended for the district. To the west of the project site
along Neilson Way, there is a 3-story, multi-family building at 2021 Ocean Avenue
with 78 units. This building has frontage on 3 streets and shares the block with the
2-story Bayside Hotel which also has street frontage on 3 sides. However, 2021
Ocean Avenue has 36% fewer units than the proposed project. These finro buildings
have less mass at the street fronts and are set back from Neilson Way 20' to 60'
from the sidewalk, whereas the proposed project provides minimal set backs to
accommodate small landscaped areas.
2. The City Council cannot find that the proposed project is generally consistent with
the Municipal Code and General Plan in that the intent of mixed-use development,
as stated in Land Use Element Policy # 1.2.1 is to provide a better transition
between commercial and adjacent residential uses. Land Use Objective 3.2 calls
for the protection of the scale and character of residential neighborhoods that are
adjacent to commercial areas. Land Use Policy 3.2.2 states that there should be an
46
appropriate transition where commercial uses abut residential areas. The proposed
project is not consistent with these Land Use Element objectives and policies.
The proposed project does not provide a sensitive transition to adjacent buildings
and uses. The proposed building has extensive street frontages which dominate the
area, including approximately 300 linearfeet along Main Street. This frontage gives
the impression of a large, single use building and does not have a village-like
character with multiple storefronts and varying building heights. The ground floor of
the building has minimal setbacks from the public right-of-way, which is particularly
noticeable along Neilson Way where the surrounding existing buildings are set back
further from the street.
Development Review Permit Findings - DR00-002
The City Council cannot find that the physical location, massing and placement of
proposed structures on the site and the location of proposed uses within the project
are compatible with and relate harmoniously to surrounding sites and
neighborhoods. The proposed East Project is not consistent with the pattern of
development in the area and overwhelms the neighborhood. The proposed project,
a three story, 34,839 square foot mixed-use development with 87 parking spaces
within 2 levels of subterranean parking is not consistent with the pattern of
development in the area and overwhelms the nature of the neighborhood. The north
side of Bicknell Avenue in the 200 block is dominated by 1 and 2-story residential
structures on 50' wide parcels that contain between 4 and 7 units. There is one
exception at 229 Bicknell Avenue, a 3-story, 25 unit building on a 100' parcel. The
placement of the proposed 27' tall development along the south side property line at
Bicknell Avenue contrasts with the location of existing buildings on this residential
street. The residential development pattern consists of buildings that are set back
between 10' and 15' from the property line. The project provides some landscaping
and building articulation. Along this etevation, design modifications are required to
establish a transition into the residential neighborhood.
The residential frontage along the south side of Bicknell Avenue is dominated by 1
and 2-story, single and multi-family dwellings with 1 to 14 units on primarily 30 to 60
foot parcels. The commercial frontage at Main Street contains a 2 and 3 story
commercial building, both with 50' of frontage on Bicknell Avenue. The east side of
Main Street north of the East project site is dominated by single story commercial
structures. Further, the project design concentrates building volumes at the corner
of Main Street and Bicknell Avenue. This results in building massing that is
incompatible with the low scale, village-like character intended for the district.
2. The City Council cannot find that the proposed project is generally consistent with
the Municipal Code and General Plan in that the intent of mixed-use development,
as stated in Land Use Element Policy # 1.2.1 is to provide a better transition
between commercial and adjacent residential uses. . Land Use Objective 3.2 calls
for the protection of the scale and character of residential neighborhoods that are
47
adjacent to commercial areas. Land Use Policy 3.2.2 states that there should be an
appropriate transition where commercial uses abut residential areas. These policies
and objectives are also stated in the Main Street Master Plan, which was adopted in
1991 and set in place the vision for the Main Street area. The intent of the Main
Street Master Plan was to create a village-like atmosphere within the Main Street
Commercial District. Neither of the projects is consistent with these Land Use
Element objectives and policies nor the vision of the Main Street Master Plan.
The proposed project extends the commercial uses and residential units to the
south property line in an area where front yard setbacks of at least approximately
10' exist. This placement of the building produces a mass of building at the property
line that is not a sensitive transition to the residential uses to the east of the project
site which are set back from the sidewalk.
Conditional Use Permit Findings CUP01-016
1 The City Council finds that the proposed use would impair the integrity and
character of the district in which it is to be established or located, in that the
proposed project is a four story, 136,694 square foot mixed-use development with
288 parking spaces within 3 levels of subterranean parking which is not consistent
with the pattern of development in the area and overwhelms the neighborhood. No
other development in the North Main Street area has a similar parcel size,
encompasses an entire city block and dominates its street fronts in the manner of
the West project. North Main Street is generally characterized by 1 and 2 story
developments on 60' wide parcels. Those developments on parcels wider than
60'are generally are not greater than 3-stories in height, including the buildings at
the corner of Pico Boulevard. The taller buildings along North Main Street are on 50'
parcels including 1918 Main Street (3-stories) and 2110 Main Street (3-stories). To
the west of the project site along Neilson Way, there is a 3-story, multi-family
building at 2021 Ocean Avenue with 78 units. This building has frontage on 3
streets and shares the block with the 2-story Bayside Hotel which also has street
frontage on 3 sides. These projects are oriented toward the west and Ocean
Avenue and are set back from Neilson Way 20' to 60' from the public right-of-way.
The proposed project provides minimal set backs to accommodate small
landscaped areas.
The West Project also does not provide a sensitive transition to adjacent buildings
and uses. The proposed building has extensive street frontages which dominate the
area, including approximately 300 linear feet along Main Street. This frontage gives
the impression of a large, single use building and does not have a village-like
character with multiple storefronts and varying building heights. The ground floor of
the building has minimal setbacks from the public right-of-way, which is particularly
noticeable along Neilson Way where the surrounding existing buildings are set back
further from the street.
2. The City Council finds that the physical location or placement of the use on the site
48
is not compatible with and does not relate harmoniously to the surrounding
neighborhood, in that the proposed project is, a four story, 136,694 square foot
mixed-use development with 288 parking spaces within 3 levels of subterranean
parking which is not consistent with the pattern of development in the area and
overwhelms the neighborhood. No other development in the North Main Street area
has a similar parcel size, encompasses an entire city block and dominates its street
fronts in the manner of the West project. North Main Street is generally
characterized by 1 and 2 story developments on 60' wide parcels. Those
developments on parcels wider than 60' are generally are not greaterthan 3-stories
in height, including the buildings at the corner of Pico Boulevard. The taller buildings
along North Main Street are on 50' parcels including 1918 Main Street (3-stories)
and 2110 Main Street (3-stories). To the west of the project site along Neilson Way,
there is a 3-story, multi-family building at 2021 Ocean Avenue with 78 units. This
building has frontage on 3 streets and shares the block with the 2-story Bayside
Hotel which also has street frontage on 3 sides. These projects are oriented toward
the west and Ocean Avenue and are set back from Neilson Way 20' to 60' from the
public right-of-way. The proposed project provides minimal set backs to
accommodate small landscaped areas.
Conditional Use Permit Findings CUP01-017
The City Council finds that the proposed use would impair the integrity and
character of the district in which it is to be established or located, in that the mixed-
use project, which is 81 % residential, is a three story, 34,839 square foot
development with 87 parking spaces within 2 levels of subterranean parking that is
not consistent with the pattern of development in the area and overwhelms the
neighborhood. The north side of Bicknell Avenue in the 200 block is dominated by 1
and 2-story residential structures on 50' wide parcels that contain between 4 and 7
units. There is one exception at 229 Bicknell Avenue, a 3-story, 25 unit building on a
100' parcel. The placement of the proposed development extends the 27' structure
to the south side property line along Bicknell Avenue which is in contrast to the
existing buildings that are set back between 10' and 15' from the public right-of-way
along the north side of Bicknell Avenue. The project provides no transition along
the north side of Bicknell Avenue with the front yards of the existing residential
buildings which are located east of the project site.
The residential frontage along the south side of Bicknell Avenue is dominated by 1
and 2-story, single and multi-family dwellings with 1 to 14 units on primarily 30 to 60
foot parcels. The commercial frontage at Main Street contains a 2 and 3 story
commercial building, both with 50' of frontage on Bicknell Avenue. The east side of
Main Street north of the East project site is dominated by single story commercial
structures.
In contrast, the East Project is 3-stories (plus subterranean square footage and
parking), with ground floor and subterranean commercial space and 26 units with
150' of frontage along Bicknell Avenue. Given the neighborhood context, the
49
proposed East project is inconsistent with the scale and massing of nearby
structures and, in general, with the pattern of development in the nearby area. In
addition, the proposed development is placed along the south side property line on
Bicknell Avenue with minimal setbacks. This contrasts with the existing residential
buildings that are set back between 10' and 15' from the front property line along
the north side of Bicknell Avenue. As a result, the project provides limited transition
into the residential neighborhood along the north side of Bicknell Avenue.
2 The City Council finds that the physical location or placement of the use on the site
is not compatible with and does not relate harmoniously to the surrounding
neighborhood, in that that the mixed-use project, which is 81 % residential, is a
three story, 34,839 square foot development with 87 parking spaces within 2 levels
of subterranean parking that is nat consistent with the pattern of development in the
area and overwhelms the neighborhood. The north side of Bicknell Avenue in the
200 block is dominated by 1 and 2-story residential structures on 50' wide parcels
that contain between 4 and 7 units. There is one exception at 229 Bicknell Avenue,
a 3-story, 25 unit building on a 100' parcel. The placement of the proposed
development extends the 27' structure to the south side property line along Bicknell
Avenue which is in contrast to the existing buildings that are set back between 10'
and 15' from the public right-of-way along the north side of Bicknell Avenue. The
project provides no transition along the north side of Bicknell Avenue with the front
yards of the existing residential buildings which are located east of the project site.
The residential frontage along the south side of Bicknell Avenue is dominated by 1
and 2-story, single and multi-family dwellings with 1 to 14 units on primarily 30 to 60
foot parcels. The commercial frontage at Main Street contains a 2 and 3 story
commercial building, both with 50' of frontage on Bicknell Avenue. The east side of
Main Street north of the East project site is dominated by single story commercial
structures.
In contrast, the East project is 3-stories (plus subterranean square footage and
parking), with ground floor and subterranean commercial space and 26 units with
150' of frontage along Bicknell Avenue. Given the neighborhood context, the
proposed East project is inconsistent with the scale and massing of nearby
structures and, in general, with the pattern of development in the nearby area. In
addition, the proposed development is placed along the south side property line on
Bicknell Avenue with minimal setbacks. This contrasts with the existing residential
buildings that are set back between 10' and 15' from the front property line along
the north side of Bicknell Avenue. As a result, the project provides limited transition
into the residential neighborhood along the north side of Bicknell Avenue.
Vesting Tentative Parcel Map Findings
The City Council cannot find that the proposed subdivision, together with its
provision for its design and improvements, is consistent with applicable general and
50
specific plans as adopted by the City of Santa Monica, in that Land Use Element
Policy # 1.2.1 states that development should provide a better transition between
commercial and adjacent residential uses. Land Use Objective 3.2 calls for the
protection of the scale and character of residential neighborhoods that are adjacent
to commercial areas. Land Use Policy 3.2.2 states that there should be an
appropriate transition where commercial uses abut residential areas. These policies
and objectives are also stated in the Main Street Master Plan, which was adopted in
1991 and set in place the vision for the Main Street area. The intent of the Main
Street Master Plan was to create a village-like atmosphere within the Main Street
Commercial District.
The improvements associated with the proposed subdivision are not consistent with
these policies. The East project is 3-stories (plus subterranean square footage and
parking), with ground floor and subterranean commercial space and 26 units with
150' of frontage along Bicknell Avenue. Given the neighborhood context, the
proposed East project is inconsistent with the scale and massing of nearby
structures and, in general, with the pattern of development in the nearby area. In
addition, the proposed development is placed along the south side property line on
Bicknell Avenue with minimal setbacks. This contrasts with the existing residential
buildings that are set back between 10' and 15' from the front property line along
the north side of Bicknell Avenue. As a result, the project provides limited transition
into the residential neighborhood along the north side of Bicknell Avenue.
The proposed West project is also inconsistent with these Land Use policies and is
out of character and scale and with the nearby residential neighborhood. No other
development in the Main Street area has a similar parcel size or mass,
encompasses an entire city block or dominates the street frontage in the manner of
the West project. The existing buildings along the west side of Neilson Way are set
back between 20' and 60' from the public right-of-way, whereas the proposed
project overwhelms the Neilson Way street front with minimal set backs that
accommodate small landscaped areas. Likewise, there are no landscaped areas
between the residential units and the sidewalk along Bay Street to soften the
transition between building and sidewalk for the pedestrians and residents along
that street.
The visual mass of the two projects, particularly when looking north at Main Street
and Bicknell Avenue where the building design includes prominent corner elements,
creates a gateway-like atmosphere along the Main Street streetscape. Further, this
design is not conducive to nor consistent with the village-like atmosphere intended
for the district. This type of massing would be more appropriate if located at the
north and south ends of Main Street to serve as an entrance to the Main Street
district.
Prepared by: Suzanne Frick, Director, PCD
51
Jay Trevino, AICP, Planning Manager
Amanda Schachter, Principai Planner
Paul Foley, Senior Planner
Attachments:
A. Planning Commission staff report, dated December 5, 2001
B. Planning Commission Statements of Official Action, dated December 5, 2001
C. Appeal Statement
D. Public Hearing Notice
E. Resolution certifying the FEIR
F East and West Project Plans with Photographs of Project Sites and Surrounding
Properties
G Proposed revisions to East and West Project plans with Photographs of Project
Sites and Surrounding Properties
H Final Environmental Impact Report
52
ATTACHMENT A
Planning Commission staff report, dated
December 5, 2001
ti~
CP:JT:AS:PF:f:1 lanlshare\ clstf tlnorthmainst.doc ~-' `
P P p
Planning Commission Meeting: December 5, 2001 Santa Monica, California
TO; The Honorable Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Staff
SUBJECT: Development Review Permits 99-013 and 00-002
Conditional Use Permits 01-016 and 01-017
Text Amendment 99-010
Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 99-020
Final Environmental Impact Report 00-004
Address:
Applicant:
Property
Owner:
INTRODUCTION
2012-2024 and 2021-2029 Main Street
Calstar Equities, Inc.
2000 Main St., LLC
Summary: Applications for Development Review Permits, Conditional Use Permits,
Vesting Tentative Parcel Map and Text Amendment are proposed to allow construction of
two mixed-use buildings located at 2012-24 Main Street ("West project") and 2021-29 Main
Street ("East project") respectively.
Separate discretionary permits have been requested for the East Project and the West
Project. The environmental impacts of both projects were analyzed in a single
Environmental Impact Report and a single vesting tentative parcel map was filed for the
project sites which are under common ownership. A text amendment was filed by the
applicant for the West Project.
An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared that examines the potential
environmental impacts of the proposed projects.
Recommended Action: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the following
actions
1. Adopt a resolution certifiying the Environmental Impact Report;
2. Recommendation that the City Council adopt a Zoning Ordinance text amendment
to the special design and development standards for the Main Street Commercial
district;
3. Deny Development Review Permit 99-013 (West Project);
4. Deny Development Review Permit 00-012 (East Project);
5. Deny Conditional Use Permits 00-016 (West Project);
6. Deny Conditional Use Permits 00-017 (East Project); and
1~~(; ~
7. Deny Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 25566,
Permit Streamlining Expiration Date: 180 days from certification of the Environmental
Impact Report, pursuant to Government Code Section 65950.
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The East project site located at 2021-29 Main Street consists of two (2) parcels comprising
18,000 square feet. This property is a corner parcel with frontage on Main Street and
Bicknell Avenue. The subject site is currently vacant and is leased for construction staging.
The West project site located at 2012-24 Main Street consists of six (6) parcels comprising
49,880 square feet The property encompasses an entire City block and is fronted on four
sides by Main Street to the east, Bay Street to the north, Bicknell Avenue to the south, and
Neilson Way to the west. The property is currently developed with a vacant 12, 687 square
foot building that was formerly the Pioneer Boulangerie bakery and restaurant and surface
parking. The parking area of this site is also currently leased for construction staging.
Zoning District: 2012-2024 Main Street: CM-3 (Main Street Commercial) District
2021-2029 Main Street: CM-2 (Main Street Commercial) District
Land Use District: Service and Specialty Commercial
Parcel Area: 2012-2024 Main Street: 49,880 square feet
2021-2029 Main Street: 18,000 square feet
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project involves the development of two mixed use buildings on two
separate sites located along the 2000 block of Main Street. The non-contiguous parcels
are separated by Main Street, an 80 foot wide public right-of-way, and are located in the
Main Street Special Commercial zoning district.
East Project
The proposed building located at 2021-29 Main Street involves the construction of a mixed
use building with 34,839 square feet of floor area including 28,306 square feet of
residential use and 6,533 square feet of commercial use at the ground floor. The proposed
ground floor commercial uses will be pedestrian oriented uses in compliance with the Main
Street Commercial District regulations.
The proposed three-story, 27 foot building will contain a total of 26 residential units (5 one-
bedroom and 21 two-bedroom units) and provide a two-level subterranean parking garage
with 87 parking spaces accessed from Bicknell Avenue. The .41 acre parcel is currently
developed with a surFace level parking lot and is currently used for construction staging.
West Project
The proposed building located at 2012-24 Main Street involves the construction of a mixed-
2
~ G3
use building with 136,694 square feet of floor area including 124,412 square feet of
residential use and 12,281 square feet of commercial use at the ground floor. The ground
floor commercial use is proposed to be pedestrian oriented in compliance with the Main
Street Commercial District Code regulations.
The proposed four-story, 35 foot building will contain a total of 107 residential units (2
single units, 42 one-bedroom, 60 two-bedroom and 3 three-bedroom units) with a three-
level subterranean parking garage with 288 parking spaces accessed from Bicknell
Avenue. The 1.15 acre parcel is currently developed with an approximately 12,687 square
foot vacant bakery and restaurant building.
The following discretionary approvals have been requested:
Development Review Permit DR 99-013 for 2012-2024 Main Street and DR 00-002 for
2021-2029 Main Street to permit buildings in excess of 11,000 square feet in the CM (Main
Street Commercial) District,
Conditional Use Permit CUP 01-016for2012-2024 Main Streetand CUP 01-017for2021-
2029 Main Street to allow the residential uses to occupy more than 7,500 square feet of
floor area;
Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment (TA 99-010) to modify the special project design and
development standards for the CM district; and
Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 99-020 to merge the existing parcels at the 2 sites into single
building sites.
MUNICIPAL CODE CONFORMANCE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE
With approval of the Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment, the proposed projects comply
with the Zoning Ordinance. As detailed further, the proposed projects are not consistent
with the Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) of the General Plan. ~
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY STATUS
The subject properties at 2021-2029 Main Street and 2012-2024 Main Street are not listed
in the City's Historic Resources Inventory. The existing building at 2012-2024 Main Street
was analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report for its status as a historic resource and
was found not to be historically significant.
RENT CONTROL STATUS
The subject site is commercial property exempt from Rent Contcol.
FEES
Both projects are subject to a Parks and Recreation Facilities Tax of $200.00 for each
dwelling unit. Both projects are also subject to the affordable housing fee of $ 7.14 per
square foot of floor area as required by SMMC Chapter 9.56 the Affordable Housing
3
~ ~i ~
Production Program,
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 9.04.20.20.080, within 15 days after the subject
application was deemed complete, the applicant posted a sign on the property stating the
following information: Project case number, brief project description, name and telephone
nurnber of applicant, site address, date, time and location of public hearing, and the City
Planning Division phone number. It is the applicant's responsibility to update the hearing
date if it is changed after posting. -
In addition, pursuant to Municipal Code Section 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 sites, all the City's neighborhood groups and
to other persons interested in the project, at least ten consecutive calendar days prior to
the hearing. The notice was also published in the "California" section of the Los Anqeles
Times . A copy of the notice is contained in Attachment B.
ANALYSIS
The Environmental Impact Report prepared for the projects identifies significant and
unavoidable adverse impacts resulting from the construction and operation of the proposed
developments. These adverse environmental impacts cannot be mitigated. Given these
impacts, the projects, including the Development Review permits, the Conditional Use
Permits, and the Vesting Tentative Parcel Map, cannot be approved unless a Statement of
Overriding Considerations is adopted. Staff cannot support such an override given these
ramifications. Detailed analysis of these issues is included later in this staff report.
Additionally, staff has concerns regarding the massing, location and placement of the two
projects, particularly in relation to the existing neighborhood and the transition from the
projects to the commercial uses along Main Street and the adjacent residential areas.
While t#~ese concerns could be addressed through project redesign, staff cannot support
approval of the plans as submitted.
Background
The East Project site is located on Main Street, two blocks south of Pico Boulevard. This
site was formerly used as a surface parking lot for approximately 50 cars for the Pioneer
Boulangerie bakery and restaurant and is currently used for construction staging for a
street improvement project.
The Pioneer Boulangerie bakery and restaurant formerly occupied the West Project site,
located on Main Street across the street from the proposed East Project site. The facility
was in operation from the 1970s to the early 1990s, at which time it closed permanently.
The existing building on the site has remained vacant. The existing parking lot is currently
used for construction staging.
4
~~~ G5
In general, the project area has a mix of residential, commercial, institutional, and public
uses. Land uses surrounding the proposed East Project site include:
• One to three-story commercial and residential uses to the north along the east side
of Main Street and across Bay Street;
One to three-story commercial and residential uses to the south across Bicknell
Avenue; and
• One to three-story residential uses to the east.
Land uses surrounding the proposed West Project site include:
A surface parking lot (site of the East Project) and one story commercial buildings
across Main Street to the east;
A two-story hotel and a three-and-a-half-story multi-family residential building to the
west across Neilson Way; ~
One to three-story commercial and residential uses to the north along the west side
of Main Street and across Bay Street;
• One and two-story commercial and residential uses to the south across Bieknell
Avenue; and
A restaurant to the south across Bicknell Avenue.
Project Desiqn
East Project
The proposed project is a mixed-use building with 34,839 square feet of floor area
including 28,306 square feet of residential use and 6,533 square feet of commercial use at
the ground floor. The proposed ground floor commercial uses will be pedestrian oriented
uses to a depth of 50' from the property line along Main Street. The remainder of the
ground floor square footage will be devoted to residential uses permitted by Code to within
50'of the front property tine.
The proposed three-story, 27 foot building will contain a total of 26 residential units (5 one-
bedroom and 21 two-bedroom units) and provide a two-level subterranean parking garage
with 87 parking spaces accessed from Bicknell Avenue.
The ground floor will contain a total of 4,730 square feet of retail space along Main Street
and at the corner of Bicknell Avenue plus a 2,163 square foot below grade commercial
space at the upper subterranean garage level which is accessed from a stairway at the
corner of Main and Bicknell. There will also be 8 residential units (5 -1 bedroom units; 3-
2 bedroom units) located behind the retail space, which are oriented around a center
courtyard. RII units have private patio spaces ranging in size from approximately 85 square
feet to 126 square feet.
The second and third floors will contain 18 units with upstairs and downstairs areas. Of
5
~G6
these, 17 units have private open spaces in balconies on the second floor which range in
size from 21 square feet to 176 square feet; 17 of these units also have access to private
outdoor spaces on the roof level which range from 175 square feet to more than 370
square feet in size.
The building will contain common and private stairwell enclosures that extend 8' above the
27' height of the building and an elevator shaft that extends 13' above this height.
West Project
The 136,694 square feet West Project includes 113,442 square feet of residential use,
12,282 square feet of ground floor commercial space and 10,971 square feet of below
grade commercial space. The proposed ground floor commercial uses will be pedestrian
oriented uses to a depth of 50' from the property line along Main Street in compliance with
the Main Street Special Commercial District regulations.
The proposed four-story, 35 foot building will contain a total of 107 residential units (2
single units, 2- one bedroom units, 42 one-bedroom plus study units, 58 two-bedroom and
3 three-bedroom units) with a three-level subterranean parking garage with 288 parking
spaces accessed from Bicknell Avenue.
The ground floor will contain a total of 12,282 square feet of retail space along Main Street
and at the corners of Bicknell Avenue and Bay Street. There will be 42 residential units (all
2-story, 1 bedroom units with study) located behind the retail space which are oriented
around a center courtyard. All units will have private patio spaces of approximately 70
square feet. The ground floor will also have 2 lobby areas serving the residential uses and
a management office.
The second floor will contain the second level of these units plus 2 studio units, a
community room with kitchen and another management office.
The third floor and fourth floors will contain 63 units: 2 1-bedroom, 2 story units; 1 2-
bedroom single level unit; 58 2- bedroom, 2 story units and 2 3- bedroom, 2 story units.
Many of these units will have private open spaces in balconies on the third and fourth
floors which range in size from 21 square feet to 176 square feet; 56 of these units also
have access to private outdoor spaces on the roof tevel which range from 55 square feet to
more than 265 square feet in size. The roof level will also contain a common swimming
pool and hot tub.
On the upper subterranean garage level, the project will provide amenities for tenants of
the building including a 1,400 square foot screening room, a 1,125 square foot gym, a 625
square foot business center, a 625 square foot meeting room, a 1,376 sq.uare foot
recreation room, and 2 storage rooms totaling 2,732 square feet. These subterranean
areas will be accessed by either an elevator located adjacent to the Main Street sidewalk
,or 2 elevators and a stainroay located within a residential lobby area along Bay Street, or
by 2 elevators located within another residential lobby area along Bicknell Avenue. The
6
~~~G7
middle and lower garage levels wili each contain an additional 1,372 square foot storage
area.
The building will contain 4 elevators accessing the roof level as well as common and
private stairwell enclosures. The elevator shafts and stairwell enclosures will extend 8' 6"
above the 35' height of the building. In addition, each private stairwell enclosure will have
installed on the roof a 70 kw photovoltaic solar energy system which is expected to
generate 110 kwh of electricity per year.
Parkinq and Vehicular Circulation
East Project
The existing surface parking lot on the East Project site would be removed. Parking for the
East Project is provided on-site in a proposed two-level subterranean parking garage
containing 87 parking spaces. The proposed parking garage contains 68 standard parking
spaces, 15 compact spaces, and 4 handicapped spaces for use by the disabled.
Vehicular access to the East Project site is provided from a driveway entrance on Bicknell
Avenue approximately 130 feet north of Main Street. No vehicular access would be
provided from Main Street. The parking garage entry/exit driveway design consists of two
lanes - one lane used for vehicle entry and one for exiting. As required by the City's
Zoning Code, parking within the garage will segregate the residential parking spaces from
the commercial parking spaces to allow for full separate and secure access to residential
parking spaces 24 hours per day. Specifically, the commercial parking would be located
on the first subterranean level of the garage. The retail tenants will manage the
commercial parking spaces. Customers of the retail spaces will receive 2 hours free
parking. Employees of the retail tenants will receive parking passes for access to the
parking spaces and will billed monthly by the tenants.
An interior gate would control access to the residential spaces located on the lower levels
of the parking garage. The driveway gate would be recessed approximately 100 feet into
the property to allow for internal queuing of up to five cars per lane. Residents would
receive pass cards or remote-controlled t~ansmitters that will operate the exterior and
interior parking gates. In addition, an intercom system would be located at the entrance to
the parking gates so that visitors can notify residents of their arrival and allow their entry
through the gates electronically to the available guest parking.
Loading for the East Project's commercial uses would be accomplished on-site in one
loading space located adjacent to the building lobby and vehicle entrance. This loading
space would be accessed from Bicknell Avenue approximately 100 feet north of Main
Street.
West Project
Parking for the West Project is provided on-site in a proposed three-level subterranean
parking garage consisting of 288 parking spaces, 16 spaces in excess of the 276 required
by Code. The proposed parking garage would contain 252 standard parking spaces, 28
7
t,; ~ ~j 8
compact spaces, as well as 8 handicapped-accessible spaces.
Vehicular access is provided from the driveway entrance on Bicknell Avenue mid-block
between Main Street and Neilson Way. No vehicular access will be provided from Main
Street, Neilson Way or Bay Street. The parking garage entry/exit driveway design consists
of two lanes - one for vehicle entry and one for exiting. The parking attendant gate would
be recessed approximately 125 feet into the structure to allow for internal queuing of up to
seven cars before reaching the parking attendant booth within the structure. The parking
garage main gate would remain open during the business hours of the ground floor
commercial uses. An attendant would be stationed at a booth within the parking garage
during hours of operation collecting parking validations or parking fees for the commercial
employees and patrons. After hours, the main gate would be closed to the general public
but would be accessible by all commercial and residential tenants. Because 70 parking
spaces would be allocated for commercial tenants, parking would be available after hours
and overnight for guests of the residential tenants.
As required by the City's Zoning Code, parking within the garage will segregate the
residential parking spaces from the commercial parking spaces to allow for full separate
and secure access to residential parking spaces 24 hours per day. Specifically, the
commercial parking would be located on the first subterranean level of the garage. An
interior gate would control access to the residential spaces located on the lower levels of
the parking garage. Residents would receive pass cards or remote-controlled transmitters
that will operate the exterior and interior parking gates. In addition, an intercom system
would be located at the entrance to the parking gates so that visitors can notify residents of
their arrival and allow their entry through the gates electronically to the available guest
parking.
Loading for the West Project's commercial tenants would be on-site in one loading space
located adjacent to the building lobby and vehicle entrance. This loading space will be
accessed from Bicknell Avenue, mid-block between Neilson Way and Main Street.
LandscapinQ
Landscaped planters are proposed at all street frontages. Residential entrances at street
grade are proposed to have additional landscaping to provide an additional buffer between
the residences and the street.
East Project
The East project provides planters containing a total of 189 square feet of landscaped area
along the Main Street frontage which is in excess of the 180 square feet required by Code.
Along Bicknell Avenue, the project includes planters which total 321 square feet of
landscaping which is also in excess of the 225 square feet require by Code.
West Project
The West project also provides landscaping in excess of that required by Code along the
8
street frontage. Planters containing a total of 467 square feet of landscaped area are
shown along the Main Street frontage which is in excess of the 452 square feet required by
Code. Along Bicknell Avenue, the project includes planter which total 256 square feet of
landscaping which is also in excess of the 228 square feet require by Code. The Bay
Street frontage shows planters which total 274 square feet of landscaping which exceeds
the Code required 266 square feet. And along Neilson Way, planted areas total 497
square feet which is 42 square feet more than required.
Development Review/Neiqhborhood Compatibility
East Project
Immediately east of the East project is a 6-unit residential development consisting of 5
single story units with a 2-story unit (one unit above a garage) at the street front. On the
adjacent parcel to the east of this site is a 7-unit development which is the mirror image of
the 6 unit project except with a 2-story element containing 2 units over garages at the
street. These developments are oriented toward each other with an open courtyard area
between them.
The north side of Bicknell Avenue in the 200 block is dominated by 1 and 2-story
residential structures on 50' wide parcels that contain between 4 and 7 un'rts. The only
exception is a 3-story, 25 unit building on a 100' parcel located at 229 Bicknell Avenue.
The residential frontage along the south side of Bicknell Avenue is dominated by 1 and 2-
story, single and multi-family dwellings with 1 to 14 units on primarily 30 to 60 foot parcels.
The commercial frontage at Main Street contains a 2 and 3 story commercial building, both
with 50' of frontage on Bicknell Avenue. The east side of Main Street north of the East
project site is dominated by single story commercial structures.
In contrast, the East project is 3-stories (plus subterranean square footage and parking),
with ground floor and subterranean commercial space and 26 units with 150' of frontage
along Bicknell Avenue. Given the neighborhood context, the proposed East project is
inconsistent with the placement and massing of nearby structures and, in general, with the
pattern of development in the nearby area. The proposed development is placed along the
south side property line on Bicknell Avenue with minimal setbacks. This contrasts with the
existing residential buildings that are set back between 10' and 15' from the front property
line along the north side of Bicknell Avenue. As a result, the project provides limited
transition into the residential neighborhood along the north side of Bicknell Avenue.
Additionally, an assessment of the compatibility of the East Project with the surrounding
sites and the neighborhood cannot be separated from the West Project.
West Project
North Main Street is generally characterized by 1 and 2 story developments on 60' wide
parcels. Those developments on parcels wider than 60' are generalty not greater than 3-
stories in height, including the buildings at the corner of Pico Boulevard. The taller buildings
along Main Street are on 60' wide parcels including 1918 Main Street (3-stories) and 2110
Main Street (3-stories). To the west of the project site along Neilson Way, there is a 3-
9
story, multi-family building at 2021 Ocean Avenue with 78 units. This building has frontage
on 3 streets and shares the block with the 2-story Bayside Hotel which also has street
frontage on 3 sides. However, 2021 Ocean Avenue has 36% fewer units than the proposed
project. These developments are set back from Neilson Way and are oriented toward the
west and Ocean Avenue.
The proposed West project is also inconsistent with nearby structures and the pattern of
development in the area. In particular, no other development in the Main Street area has a
similar parcel size, encompasses an entire city block or dominates the street frontage in
the manner of the West project. The existing buildings along the west side of Neilson Way
are set back between 20' and 60' from the sidewalk, whereas the proposed project
overwhelms the Neilson Way street front with minimal set backs that accommodate small
landscaped areas. Likewise, there are no landscaped areas befinreen the residential units
and the sidewalk along Bay Street to soften the transition between building and sidewalk
for the pedestrians and residents along that street.
The visual mass of the two projects, particularly when looking north at Main Street and
Bicknell Avenue where the building design includes prominent corner elements, creates a
gateway-like atmosphere along the Main Street streetscape. Further, this design is not
conducive to nor consistent with the village-like atmosphere intended for the district. This
type of massing would be more appropriate if located at the north and south ends of Main
Street to serve as an entrance to the Main Street district.
Consistency with the General Plan
The intent of mixed-use development, as stated in Land Use Element Policy 1.2.1 is to
provide a better transition between commercial and adjacent residential uses. Land Use
Objective 3.2 calls for the protection of the scale and character of residential
neighborhoods that are adjacent to commercial areas. Land Use Policy 3.2.2 states that
there should be an appropriate transition where commercial uses abut residential areas.
Neither of the projects is consistent with these Land Use Element objectives a~nd policies.
These policies and objectives are also re-affirmed in the Main Street Master Plan, which
was adopted in 1991 and set in place the vision for the Main Street area. The intent of the
Main Street Master Plan was to create a village-like atmosphere within the Main Street
Commercial District.
The East Project extends the commercial uses and residential units to the south property
line in an area where minimum front yard setbacks are at least approximately 10'. This
placement of the building produces a building mass at the property line that is not a
sensitive transition to the residential uses to the east of the project site which provide a set
back.
The West Project also does not provide a sensitive transition to adjacent buildings and
uses. The proposed building has extensive street frontages which dominate the area,
lO ~~~
including approximately 300 linear feet along Main Street. This frontage gives the
impression of a large, single use building and does not have a village-like character with
multiple storefronts. The ground floor of the building has minimal setbacks from the public
right-of-way, which is particularly noticeable along Neilson Way where the surrounding
existing buildings are set back further from the street.
Local Coastal Plan
The project site is located within Sub-area 7 of the Local Coastal Plan (LCP), which
governs development policy within the City's Coastal Zone. Both the East project and
West project are consistent with the LCP policies for Sub-area 7. Policy #74 states that
mixed-use projects may provide residential uses on the ground floor provided that no
portion of the residential uses are at the ground floor fronting Main Street. In addition, the
commercial uses must be neighborhood and visitor serving uses. The proposed projects
will provide retail uses to a minimum depth of 50' from the Main Street property line on the
ground floor. The specific retail tenants, however, have not been determined.
Text Amendment
The applicant has requested an amendment to SMMC Section 9.04.08.28.070, which sets
forth the special design and development standards for the Main Street Commercial
district. The applicant cites the uniqueness of the West Project site as it has street
frontages on four sides, with Bicknell Avenue considered as the front property line, since
this is the narrowest street frontage. Residential uses on the ground floor are currently
permitted to within 50' of the front property line, which would result in residential uses along
most of the Main Street frontage where commercial uses should dominate in order to
reinforce the pedestrian environment. Under current Code, the ground floor commercial
uses would be required along Bicknell Avenue with the residential uses commencing 50'
back from the property line along Bicknell Avenue. The applicant has proposed text
language such that the Main Street frontage can be considered the front yard for purposes
of determining allowable ground floor uses. This amendment would allow ground floor
pedestrian-oriented commercial uses along Main Street and residential uses along Bicknell
Avenue, Neilson Way and Bay Street where ground floor residential uses currently
characterize the neighborhood.
Staff is recommending approval of the proposed text amendment to ensure that the ground
floor pedestrian-oriented uses within the Main Street Commercial District are con~entrated
along Main Street and not at the side streets which lead to adjacent residential areas.
The proposed text amendment language is shown in Attachment C.
Conditional Use Permits
Conditional Use Permit applications CUP 01-016 and CUP01-017 have been filed for the
East and West Projects respectively in compliance with the CM Main Street Commercial
District regulations. Specifically, SMMC Section 9.04.08.28.040(v) requires a Conditional
~~~2
Use Permit for any otherwise permitted use in the Main Street District that occupies more
than 7,500 square feet of floor area. At both project sites, the residential component
exceeds 7,500 square feet. SMMC Section 9.04.08.28.040(w) also requires a Conditional
Use Permit for any otherwise permitted uses that occupy more than 75 linear feet of Main
Street frontage at the ground floor. No CUP for the commercial component is required at
this time as plans show that no retail use exceeds 75 linear feet along Main Street and no
individual retail use exceeds 7,500 square feet. A CUP would be required at a later date if
any of the uses, once identified, exceed 75 linear feet along Main Street or 7,500 square
feet.
Staff cannot support approval of Conditional Use Permits 00-016 and 01-017 for the West
Project and East Project respectively because the projects would impair the integrity and
character of the district and adjacent neighborhoods. The West Project does not provide a
sensitive transition to adjacent buildings and uses. The proposed building has extensive
street frontages which dominate the area, including approximately 300 linear feet along
Main Street. This frontage gives the impression of a large, single use building and does
not have a village-like character with multiple storefronts. The ground floor of the buitding
has minimal setbacks from the public right-of-way, which is particularly noticeable along
Neilson Way where the surrounding existing buildings are set back further from the street.
The East Project is 3-stories (plus subterranean square footage and parking), with ground
floor and subterranean commercial space and 26 units with 150' of frontage along Bicknell
Avenue. Given the neighborhood context, the proposed East project is inconsistent with
the placement and massing of nearby structures and, in general, with the pattern of
development in the nearby area. In addition, the proposed development is placed along the
south side property line on Bicknell Avenue with minimal setbacks. This contrasts with the
existing residential buildings that are set back between 10' and 15' from the front property
line along the north side of Bicknell Avenue. As a result, the project provides limited
transition into the residential neighborhood along the north side of Bicknell Avenue.
Vesting Tentative Parcel Map
A Vesting Tentative Parcel Map was filed by the applicant to merge the existing parcels at
the two project sites in order to create 2 single parcels. The East Project currently consists
of two distinct parcels. Approval of the Vesting Tentative Parcel Map will create a parcel of
18,000 square feet for the East Project. The West Project site currently consists of 6
distinct parcels, including a City-owned parcel, which was just recently negotiated for
purchase by the applicant. Approval of the Vesting Tentative Parcel Map will create a
parcel of 45,152 square feet for the West Project. If approved, a Vesting Tentative Parcel
Map also vests the right to proceed with development of the subject sites in substantial
compliance with any ordinances, policies and development standards in effect as of the
date the application was deemed complete for filing.
Staff cannot support the approval of the Vesting Tentative Parcel Map as the
improvements associated with the proposed projects are inconsistent with Land Use
12
~ t~ ~-13
Element Policy 1.2.1 which states that development should provide a better transition
between commercial and adjacent residential uses. Land Use Objective 3.2 calls for the
protection of the scale and character of residential neighborhoods that are adjacent to
commercial areas. Land Use Policy 3.2.2 states that there should be an appropriate
transition where commercial uses abut residential areas. As stated above, neither project
is consistent with the character and scale of the adjacent neighborhood and provide
minimal transition between commercial uses along Main Street and the adjacent residential
areas.
A copy of the Vesting Tentative Parcel Map is included in Attachment E.
CEQA Analysis
An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared for the proposed project in
accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Draft EIR (DEIR)
was distributed to affected agencies, surrounding cities, counties, and interested parties for
a 45-day review period in accordance with Section 15087 of the CEQA Guidelines. Copies
of the Draft EIR were made available on August 31, 2001 for the public review period,
which closed on October 15, 2001. A total of 9 comment tetters on the draft EIR were
received. These comment letters, as well as the response to comments, are included in
the Final EIR (Attachment J).
This 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 and Neighborhood Impact Statement (IS No. 00-004), Notice of Preparation
(NOP), responses to the NOP, and scoping discussions among the public, consulting staff,
and the county.
In accordance with Section 15128 (Effects Not Found to be Significant) of the CEQA
Guidelines, the IS/NOP provided reasons why the following environmental impacts were
not considered significant and, therefore, are not addressed further in this EIR:
Biological Resources Agricultural Resources
Energy Water Quality
Hazards and Hazardous Materials Recreation
Mineral Resources
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, and Hydrology
Air Quality
Noise
Land Use
Aesthetics/Shadows
Transportation/Circulation
Public Services and Utilities
Cultural Resources
13
~~
Population and Housing Construction Effects
Neighborhood Effects
The EIR addresses the issues referenced above and identifies potentially significant
environmental impacts, including site-specific and cumulative effects of the project in
accordance with the provisions set forth in the CEQA Guidelines. In addition, the EIR
recommends feasible mitigation measures, where possible, that would reduce or eliminate
adverse environmental effects.
However, as discussed below, significant and unavoidable impacts that cannot be
mitigated are identified by the EIR in the areas of Air Quality (during construction and
demolition), Traffic/Circulation (during construction and project related), and Noise (during
construction).
Air Quality Concurrent construction is expected to occurfor a duration of 15 months on
the East Project site and 18 months on the West Project site. Existing structures on the
West Project site would be demolished, and the parking lot on the East Project site would
be cleared. Following demolition, each site would be excavated to accommodate the
building fo~andations, substructures, and subterranean parking. Construction and
fabrication of the structures would follow excavation and then be followed by a phase of
finishing activities to prepare the uses for occupation.
Four basic types of activities would be expected to occur and cause emissions during
construction. For the purpose of estimating emissions during construction activities, the
potential sources are grouped according to the activities: demolition and site clearing,
excavation, construction of the structure, and finishing. During demolition and site clearing,
emissions of dust (particulate matter) would occur during break-up and transfer of the
existing structure and material to hauling vehicles, and exhaust emissions from operation
of loading equipment would occur. Excavation would require use of additional heavy
equipment. During construction of the structure, emissions would be caused primarily by
operation of construction equipment, such as heavy-duty trucks, cranes, lifts, and other
smaller stationary sources, and by construction workers who would visit the site in higher
numbers during this phase. Finishing stages would involve use of architectural coatings
that would cause emissions of reactive organic compounds.
Maximum daily emissions occur during periods of excavation when numerous haul trucks
would need to access the site to remove excavated material. During excavation activities
and construction activities involving on-site use of heavy equipment, the emissions caused
by construction would exceed SCAQMD significance thresholds for nitrogen oxides (NOx).
Because emissions of NOx would exceed the SCAQMD thresholds, a significant impact
would occur.
Implementation of mitigation measu~es would reduce the impacts of construction-related
dust (particulate matter) emissions to levels of insignificance; however, although emissions
of NOx would be reduced through the implementation of mitigation measures, they would
14
'~'`~~
not be reduced to levels that would be considered less than significant. Therefore, impacts
resulting from construction-related emissions would remain significant and unavoidable.
The discussion of the construction and demolition related air quality impacts and mitigation
measures can be found on page 3.10-7 of the EIR.
Traffic/Circulation
Construction Impacts: Construction activity would generate additional traffic on Main
Street, Bicknell Avenue, and 4~h Street. Main Street and 4th Street are considered to be
traffic-impacted streets, and the addition of one vehicle trip on these streets due to
construction activities represents a significant and unavoidable impact in accordance with
the City's significance criteria. Mitigation measures would mitigate against impacts on the
surrounding residential streets, but the impacts to arterial and collector streets in the
project vicinity would remain significant and unavoidable.
Proiect Impacts: The East Project alone would have a significant impact at the
Main/Bicknell, 4`h Street/I-10 eastbound on-ramp, and 4`h/Bicknell intersections during the
P.M. peak hour and at the Main/Bicknell intersection at the A.M. peak hour. The East
Project would also have a significant impact on daily traffic volumes on 4'h Street.
If considered alone, the West Project would have the same significant impacts.
The East and West Projects combined would generate a total of approximately 88 vehicle
trips during the a.M. peak hour, 153 vehicle trips during the P.nn. peak hour and 1,690 trips
throughout a 24-hour day. These additional trips would have a significant impact at three
study area intersections during the P.M. peak hour according to the City's significance
criteria. The intersections are Main Street at Bicknell Avenue, 4ih Street at the I-10
eastbound on-ramp, and 4th Street at Bicknell Avenue. The projects would have a
significant impact at one intersection during the A.M. peak hour, Main Street at Bicknell
Avenue. These findings are based on future cumulative traffic forecasts from the City's
Master Environmental Assessment traffic model.
The combined projects would have significant impacts on two street segments based on
the projected increases in daily traffic volumes, according to the City's significance criteria.
The streets are 4`h Street (north and south of Bicknell Avenue) and Bickr~ell Avenue
between Main and 4'h Street.
There are no feasible project-related mitigation measures that would reduce the significant
traffic impacts. The significant intersection impacts could be mitigated by adding a turn
lane to one or more or the intersection approaches; however, this type of improvement
would require on-street parking removal or a narrowing of the sidewalk to accommodate
physical widening of the street. These measures would result in negative impacts to the
area and impact the neighborhood context. Although the applicant is proposing that
excess parking on the West Project site will be made available to the public to replace any
15
~~,~ ~~
removed on-street parking, staff finds that the public does not generally utilize public
parking provided on private property.
Narrowing sidewalk widths adversely affects the pedestrian environment by reducing the
area where pedestrians may walk and potentially forcing pedestrians into the street. The
removal of on-street parking reduces the number of available public parking spaces in an
area where parking is at a premium for nearby residents and businesses. And finally, the
widening of streets to accommodate additional vehicle trips, particularly in residential
areas, is contrary to City policy where the preservation of neighborhoods and the
pedestrian environment is highly valued. Therefore, the impacts resulting from an increase
in project-related vehicle trips are considered significant and unavoidable.
The discussion of the traffic impacts and mitigation measures can be found on pages 3.7-
23 through 3.7-25 of the EIR.
Noise Foreseeable activities associated with the development that would occur on
both the East Project and West Project sites include demolition or site-prep work,
excavation, foundation installation, fabrication of the new structures, and finishing stages.
Such activities would be expected to require use of jack hammers for pavement breaking
or demolition, excavating equipment, a drilling rig for foundation work, heavy-duty trucks for
hauling building materials and removing excavating materials, concrete mixers, and other
miscellaneous equipment for lifting materials or tools for finishing work. No pile driving
would be needed for foundation installation because the foundation will rely on a system of
piers installed in pre-drilled holes. Construction activities associated with the project would
be temporary. The developer anticipates that both the East Project and West Project
would be completed concurrently within approximately 18-months of the start of
construction. To avoid disruption of local neighborhood businesses or peak hour traffic, it
is possible that some construction activities could occur at off-peak times, including
evenings and weekends.
Noise levels from typical construction equipment varies widely depending on the process
underway, the type and condition of the equipment used, the layout of the construction site
and staging areas, and the day-by-day schedule of activities. These noise levels would
vary substantially throughout the day, and the peaks would occur only intermittently.
Noise-sensitiVe receptors, including the Ocean House Retirement Community and the
residences in the project vicinity and along the haul routes accessing the project sites,
could experience the adverse temporary affects of construction noise at these levels.
Without additional measures, noise levels associated with demolition or construction
activities could exceed the maximum allowable levels in the Noise Ordinance.
Implementation of mitigation measures would reduce the impacts of construction-related
noise, but not to levels that would be considered less than significant, and impacts would
remain significant and unavoidable. The noise levels during demolition and construction,
therefore, would be considered a significant and unavoidable impact to the project
neighborhood.
16
~~~~ ~
The discussion of the construction-related noise impacts and mitigation measures can be
found on pages 3.10-5 through 3.10-7 of the EIR.
Project Alternatives
CEQA also 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 which 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 ptans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries,
and whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to
the alternative site.
The following alternatives to the proposed project were analyzed in the EIR in compliance
with CEQA requirements:
Office/Retail-With this alternative, the proposed project would be fully commercial project
constructed at a reduced scale of development size and intensity without a residential
component. The East Project Site would consist of a two-story, 27-foot high commercial
office building with ground floor pedestrian-oriented uses along the east side of Main
Street. Approximately 27,000 square feet of floor area would be constructed (1.5 floor area
ratio). Of this square footage, approximately 6,500 square feet would be ground floor retail
space and approximately 20,500 square feet would be office space. The surface floor area
dedicated for retail uses would include pedestrian-oriented open space and plaza areas
intended to ease access to the businesses and serve as a common area. Approximately
90 subterranean parking spaces would be required for this project.
The West Project Site would consist of a three-story, 35-foot high commercial office
building with ground floor pedestrian-oriented uses along the west side of Main Street.
Approximatety 95,000 square feet of floor area would be constructed (1.94 floor area ratio).
Of this square footage, approximately 12,000 square feet would be ground floor retail
space and approximately 83,000 square feet would be office space. The surFace floor area
dedicated for retail uses would include pedestrian-oriented open space and plaza areas
intended to ease access to the businesses and serve as a common area. Approximately
317 subterranean parking spaces would be required for this project.
This alternative would have similar environmental impacts to the proposed projects except
that the geologic, solid waste and population impacts would be slightly less and the traffic
impacts would be greater given the increased commercial component over the proposed
mixed use project.
Senior Housing/Retai! Project-With this alternative, the proposed project site would be
7
,:~-~8
used for the same mix of uses but include senior housing. An alternative use could be a
Senior Housing project within both the East and West Project Sites, with retail/commercial
uses that would be consistent with the existing commercial nature of the Main Street
Corridor. A Senior Housing/Retail Project alternative would likely require major demolition
of existing structures to accommodate housing units, ground-floor retail space, open space
and other recreational amenities, and parking for both project sites. These open spaces
could consist of open seating, green spaces, public art, and pedestrian walkways allowing
access for persons using surrounding streets and businesses, as well as Main Street.
This development alternative is expected to have similar adverse environmental impacts as
the proposed project.
Reduced Retail/Housing-With this alternative, the proposed project would contain first-
floor retail uses as well as a reduced amount of housing; no o~ce uses would be included
in this alternative. Under this scenario, the West Project Site would be developed as a
three-story building consisting of first-floor retail, with second and third floors containing
housing. Retail uses on the East Site would include boutiques and restaurants. This
development would require 207 parking spaces total, 117 spaces for the West Project Site
and 90 spaces for the East Project Site.
This project alternative would result in reduced impacts in the areas of shadows, solid
waste, population and traffic although traffic would remain a significant impact but to a
lesser degree.
No Project/No Development-With this alternative, the proposed project development
would not occur. In general, no new environmental effects would directly result from the
selection of this alternative. Maintenance of the project site in its present state would atlow
the on-site uses to continue. Because the site would not be developed, any significant and
adverse environmental impacts directly or cumulatively associated with the proposed
project would be avoided.
Environmentally Superior Alternative
The No Project Alternative would be environmentally superior to the proposed project on
the basis of the minimization or avoidance of physical environmental impacts. However,
the CEQA Guidelines require that if the environmentally superior alternative is the No
Project Alternative, "the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative
among the other alternatives." In terms of physical effects on the environment, the
environmentally superior alternative (other than the No Project) is the Reduced
Retail/Housing Alternative, which results in fewer impacts with respect to
aesthetics/shadow, population/housing, transportation/circulation and public services and
utilities.
Public Notification
In conjunction with the EIR preparation, a Notice of Preparation of the EIR was sent to the
State Clearinghouse to begin a 30-day public review period which began on December 18,
18
~~
2000. A Notice of Availability of the DEIR, was published in the "California" section of the
Los Angeles Times to initiate a 45-day public review period which began August 31, 2001.
A copy of the Notice of Availability is shown in Attachment D.
A notice of the public hearing was published in the "California" section of the Los Angeles
Times a minimum of ten days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the public notice is
shown in Attachment B.
UMMARY AND CONCLUSION
Both projects, taken individually and as a whole, are out of character with the existing
development in the area, provide minimal transition to adjacent structures in the
surrounding neighborhood and would overwhelm the existing North Main Street
neighborhood.
The proposed East project is inconsistent with the pattern of development in the nearby
area. The East project is 3-stories (plus subterranean square footage and parking), with
ground floor and subterranean commercial space and 26 units. The project extends 150'
along Bicknell Avenue. The north side of Bicknell Avenue in the 200 block is characterized
by 4 to 7 unit, 1 and 2-story residential structures on 50' wide parcels. The residential
frontage along the south side of Bicknell Avenue is characterized by 1 and 2-story, single
and multi-family dwellings. The commercial uses along Main Street contain a 2 and 3 story
commercial building, both with 50' of frontage on Bicknell Avenue. The east side of Main
Street north of the East project site is characterized by single story commercial structures.
These sites have buildings with less massing and greater setbacks than the proposed
project.
The placement of the proposed development along the south side property line at Bicknell
Avenue contrasts with the location of existing buildings on this residential street. The
residential development pattern consists of buildings that are set back befinreen 10' and 15'
from the public right-of-way. While the project provides some landscaping and building
articulation along this elevation, design modifications such as stepping the fa~ade back
from the property line and matching the height lines of adjacent buildings would enhance
the transition into the residential neighborhood.
The proposed West project is also inconsistent with the pattern of development in the area.
In particular, no other development in the North Main Street area encompasses an entire
city block and dominates the street frontage in the manner of the West project. North Main
Street is generally characterized by developments on 60' wide parcels. Those
developments on wider parcels generally do not have the same mass, including the
developments at the intersection of Pico Boulevard.
Visually, the two projects form a gateway-like atmosphere at Main Street and Bicknell
Avenue when looking north along Main Street. The development standards for the Main
Street Commercial District were formulated from the Main Street Master Plan to produce
19
gateway type features at the north and south ends of Main Street and not within the district.
It was the intention of the Main Street Master Plan to develop Main Street with a village-
type atmosphere.
Staff cannot support a Statement of Overriding Considerations for approval of the projects
as required by CEQA as the proposed projects (together and individually) have significant
and unavoidable environmental impacts that oufinreigh any benefit from the developments.
The most significant impacts are traffic related. The projects would result in additional
vehicle trips that would have significant impacts at Main Street at Bicknell Avenue, 4`n
Street at the I-10 eastbound on-ramp, and 4~' Street at Bicknell Avenue during the peak
P.M. commuting hour. The projects would have significant impacts at Main Street at
Bicknell Avenue during the A.M. peak hour. Both projects would also have a significant
impact on daily traffic volumes on 4th Street, north and south of Bicknell Avenue. The
project also has significant unavoidable construction-related air quality and noise impacts.
The projects would provide retail space and market rate apartment housing. While the City
has adopted numerous policies promoting the development of housing in its commercial
zones, the City has been and continues to be quite successful in the development of
market-rate housing. According to the City's Housing Element, the City is already meeting
and exceeding its goal for market-rate housing. Staff's opposition to this project is not
based on the fact that multi-family housing is proposed, but is based exclusively on the
specific project as designed and the specific impacts that the projects engender.
Moreover, the West Project could also be used, and may well be intended for short-term
corporate housing as evidenced by the amenities provided which include a screening
room, business center and meeting rooms. One of the City's primary goals is to preserve
the quality and character of the City's neighborhoods and preserve its unique sense of
community. The quality and character of the City's neighborhoods and community comes
in large part from the residents' participation in civic affairs, cultural events and educational
endeavors. Short-term housing does not contribute to these goals as occupants of short-
term housing do not have the same ties to the community as those who make the City their
home. Sho~t-term corporate housing does not satisfy the City's long term housing goals
yet generates environmental impacts.
Therefore, the only real social benefit to derive from the projects would be the affordable
housing production fee required by SMMC Chapter 9.56. Weighed against the fact that the
projects are inconsistent with the neighborhood context, produce significant building mass
along 6 street fronts, including an entire city block and have significant traffic impacts which
affect the nearby neighborhood, staff cannot support approval of the projects as proposed.
However, staff believes that through re-design of the proposed projects, the compatibility,
transition and consistency issues with the adjacent residential neighborhood could be
addressed. __
RECOMMENDATION
Planning staff recommends that the Commission take the following actions:
1. Adopt the Resolution contained in Attachment F certifying the Final Environmental
20
il~Z~
impact Report;
2 Recommend that the City Councii adopt the Zoning Ordinance text amendment as
proposed in Attachment C;
3. Deny Development Review Permit application 99-013;
4. Deny Development Review Permit application 00-002;
5. Deny Conditional Use Permit application 01-016;
6. Deny Conditional Use Permit applications 01-017; and
7 Deny Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 25566.
Text Amendment Findinqs
1 The proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance is consistent in principle with
the goals, objectives and policies, land uses and programs specified in the adopted
General Plan in that Land Use Plan Policy 1.7.9 states that City policies should
"Preserve the concentration of neighborhood commercial uses on:...Main Street
between Pico and Ocean Park Boulevards". The proposed text amendment will
ensure that the ground floor pedestrian-oriented uses within the Main Street
Commercial District are concentrated along Main Street and not at the side streets
which lead to adjacent residential areas.
2, The public health, safety and general welfare require the adoption of the proposed
amendment to ~the Zoning Ordinance in that the community is better served by
ensuring that commercial uses are concentrated along Main Street in the Main
Street Commercial District and not along the side streets that access the adjacent
residential areas.
Development Review Permit Findinqs - DR99-013
1 The Planning Commission cannot find that the physical location, massing and
placement of proposed structures on the site and the location of proposed uses
within the project are compatible with and relate harmoniously to surrounding sites
and neighborhoods. The proposed project, a four story, 136,694 square foot mixed-
use development with 288 parking spaces within 3 levels of subterranean parking is
not consistent with the pattern of development in the area and overwhelms the
nature of the neighborhood. No other development in the North Main Street area
has a similar parcel size, encompasses an entire city block and dominates its street
fronts in the manner of the West project. North Main Street is generally
characterized by 1 and 2 story developments on 60' wide parcels. Those
developments on parcels wider than 60' are generally are not greater than 3-stories
in height, including the buildings at the corner of Pico Boulevard. The taller buildings
along North Main Street are on 50' parcels including 1918 Main Street (3-stories)
and 2110 Main Street (3-stories). To the west of the project site along Neilson Way,
there is a 3-story, multi-family building at 2021 Ocean Avenue with 78 units. This
building has frontage on 3 streets and shares the block with the 2-story Bayside
Hotel which also has street frontage on 3 sides. However, 2021 Ocean Avenue has
21
lav~
36% fewer units than the proposed project. These two buildings have less mass at
the street fronts and are set back from Neilson Way 20' to 60' from the sidewalk,
whereas the proposed project provides minimal set backs to accommodate small
landscaped areas.
2 The Planning Commission cannot find that the proposed project is generally
consistent with the Municipal Code and General Plan in that the intent of mixed-use
development, as stated in Land Use Element Policy # 1.2.1 is to provide a better
transition between commercial and adjacent residential uses. Land Use Objective
3.2 calls for the protection of the scale and character of residential neighborhoods
that are adjacent to commercial areas. Land Use Policy 3.2.2 states that there
should be an appropriate transition where commercial uses abut residential areas.
The proposed project is not consistent with these Land Use Element objectives and
policies.
The proposed project does not provide a sensitive transition to adjacent buildings
and uses. The proposed building has extensive street frontages which dominate the
area, including approximately 300 linear feet along Main Street. This frontage gives
the impression of a large, single use building and does not have a village-like
character with multiple storefronts. The ground floor of the building has minimal
setbacks from the public right-of-way, which is particularly noticeable along Neilson
Way where the surrounding existing buildings are set back further from the street.
Development Review Permit Findings - DR00-002
1 The Planning Commission cannot find that the physical location, massing and
placement of proposed structures on the site and the location of proposed uses
within the project are compatible with and relate harmoniously to surrounding sites
and neighborhoods. The proposed East Project is not consistent with the pattern of
development in the area and overwhelms the neighborhood. The proposed project,
a three story, 34,839 square foot mixed-use development with 87 parking spaces
within 2 levels of subterranean parking is not consistent with the pattern of
development in the area and overwhelms the nature of the neighborhood. The north
side of Bicknell Avenue in the 200 block is dominated by 1 and 2-story residential
structures on 50' wide parcels that contain between 4 and 7 units. There is one
exception at 229 Bicknell Avenue, a 3-story, 25 unit building on a 100' parcel. The
placement of the proposed 27' tall development along the south side property line at
Bicknell Avenue contrasts with the location of existing buildings on this residential
street. The residential development pattern consists of buildings that are set back
between 10' and 15' from the property line. The project provides some landscaping
and building articulation. Along this elevation, design modifications are required to
establish a transition into the residential neighborhood.
The residential frontage along the south side of Bicknell Avenue is dominated by 1
and 2-story, single and multi-family dwellings with 1 to 14 units on primarily 30 to 60
22
G~
foot parcels. The commercial frontage at Main Street contains a 2 and 3 story
commercial building, both with 50' of frontage on Bicknell Avenue. The east side of
Main Street north of the East project site is dominated by single story commercial
structures.
2 The Planning Commission cannot find that the proposed project is generally
consistent with the Municipal Code and General Plan in that the intent of mixed-use
development, as stated in Land Use Element Policy # 1.2.1 is to provide a better
transition between commercial and adjacent residential uses. . Land Use Objective
3.2 calls for the protection of the scale and character of residential neighborhoods
that are adjacent to commercial areas. Land Use Policy 3.2.2 states that there
should be an appropriate transition where commercial uses abut residential areas.
These policies and objectives are also stated in the Main Street Master Plan, which
was adopted in 1991 and set in place the vision for the Main Street area. The intent
of the Main Street Master Plan was to create a village-like atmosphere within the
Main Street Commercial District. Neither of the projects is consistent with these
Land Use Element objectives and policies nor the vision of the Main Street Master
Plan.
The proposed project extends the commercial uses and residentiaf units to the
south property line in an area where front yard setbacks of at least approximately
10' exist. This placement of the building produces a mass of building at the property
line that is not a sensitive transition to the residential uses to the east of the project
site which are set back from the sidewalk.
Conditional Use Permit Findinqs CUP01-016
1 The Planning Commission finds that the proposed use would impair the integrity
and character of the district in which it is to be established or located, in that the
proposed project is a four story, 136,694 square foot mixed-use development with
288 parking spaces within 3 levels of subterranean parking which is not consistent
with the pattern of development in the area and overwhelms the neighborhood. No
other development in the North Main Street area has a similar parcel size,
encompasses an entire city block and dominates its street fronts in the manner of
the West project. North Main Street is generally characterized by 1 and 2 story
developments on 60' wide parcels. Those developments on parcels wider than
60'are generally are not greater than 3-stories in height, including the buildings at
the corner of Pico Boulevard. The taller buildings along North Main Street are on 50'
parcels including 1918 Main Street (3-stories) and 2110 Main Street (3-stories). To
the west of the project site along Neilson Way, there is a 3-story, multi-family
building at 2021 Ocean Avenue with 78 units. This building has frontage on 3
streets and shares the block with the 2-story Bayside Hotel which also has street
frontage on 3 sides. These projects are oriented toward the west and Ocean
Avenue and are set back from Neilson Way 20' to 60' from the public right-of-way.
The proposed project provides minimal set backs to accommodate small
23
~ ~'~'~4
landscaped areas
The West Project also does not provide a sensitive transition to adjacent buildings
and uses. The proposed building has extensive street frontages which dominate the
area, including approximately 300 linear feet along Main Street. This frontage gives
the impression of a large, single use building and does not have a village-like
character with multiple storefronts. The ground floor of the building has minimal
setbacks from the public right-of-way, which is particularly noticeable along Neilson
Way where the surrounding existing buildings are set back further from the street.
2 The Planning Commission finds that the physical location or placement of the use
on the site is not compatible with and does not relate harmoniously to the
surrounding neighborhood, in that the proposed project is, a four story, 136,694
square foot mixed-use development with 288 parking spaces within 3 levels of
subterranean parking which is not consistent with the pattern of development in the
area and overwhelms the neighborhood. No other development in the North Main
Street area has a similar parcel size, encompasses an entire city block and
dominates its street fronts in the manner of the West project. North Main Street is
generally characterized by 1 and 2 story developments on 60' wide parcels. Those
developments on parcels wider than 60' are generally are not greater than 3-stories
in height, including the buildings at the corner of Pico Boulevard. The taller buildings
along North Main Street are on 50' parcels including 1918 Main Street (3-stories)
and 2110 Main Street (3-stories). To the west of the project site along Neilson Way,
there is a 3-story, multi-family building at 2021 Ocean Avenue with 78 units. This
building has frontage on 3 streets and shares the block with the 2-story Bayside
Hotel which also has street frontage on 3 sides. These projects are oriented toward
the west and Ocean Avenue and are set back from Neilson Way 20' to 60' from the
public right-of-way. The proposed project provides minimal set backs to
accommodate small landscaped areas.
Conditional Use Permit Findings CUP01-017
The Planning Commission finds that the proposed use would impair the integrity
and character of the district in which it is to be established or located, in that the
mixed-use project, which is 81 °/a residential, is a three story, 34,839 square foot
development with 87 parking spaces within 2 levels of subterranean parking that is
not consistent with the pattern of development in the area and overwhelms the
neighborhood. The north side of Bicknell Avenue in the 200 block is dominated by 1
and 2-story residential structures on 50' wide parcels that contain between 4 and 7
units. There is one exception at 229 Bicknell Avenue, a 3-story, 25 unit building on a
100' parcel. The placement of the proposed development extends the 27' structure
to the south side property line along Bicknell Avenue which is in contrast to the
existing buildings that are set back between 10' and 15' from the public right-of-way
along the north side of Bicknell Avenue. The project provides no transition along
the north side of Bicknell Avenue with the front yards of the existing residential
24
~~ ~ ~ ~J
buildings which are located east of the project site.
The residential frontage along the south side of Bicknell Avenue is dominated by 1
and 2-story, single and multi-family dwellings with 1 to 14 units on primarily 30 to 60
foot parcels. The commercial frontage at Main Street contains a 2 and 3 story
commercial building, both with 50' of frontage on Bicknell Avenue. The east side of
Main Street north of the East project site is dominated by single story commercial
structures.
In contrast, the East Project is 3-stories (plus subterranean square footage and
parking), with ground floor and subterranean commercial space and 26 units with
150' of frontage along Bicknell Avenue. Given the neighborhood context, the
proposed East project is inconsistent with the scale and massing of nearby
structures and, in general, with the pattern of development in the nearby area. In
addition, the proposed development is placed along the south side property line on
Bicknell Avenue with minimal setbacks. This contrasts with the existing residential
buildings that are set back between 10' and 15' from the front property line along
the north side of Bicknell Avenue. As a result, the project provides limited transition
into the residential neighborhood along the north side of Bicknell Avenue.
2 The Planning Commission finds that the physical location or placement of the use
on the site is not compatible with and does not relate harmoniously to the
surrounding neighborhood, in that that the mixed-use project, which is 81 %
residential, is a three story, 34,839 square foot development with 87 parking spaces
within 2 levels of subterranean parking that is not consistent with the pattern of
development in the area and overwhelms the neighborhood. The north side of
Bicknell Avenue in the 200 block is dominated by 1 and 2-story residential
structures on 50' wide parcels that contain between 4 and 7 units. There is one
exception at 229 Bicknell Avenue, a 3-story, 25 unit building on a 100' parcel. The
placement of the proposed development extends the 27' structure to the south side
property line along Bicknell Avenue which is in contrast to the existing buildings that
are set back between 10' and 15' from the public right-of-way along the north side of
Bicknell Avenue. The project provides no transition along the north sicle of Bicknell
Avenue with the front yards of the existing residential buildings which are located
east of the project site.
The residential frontage along the south side of Bicknell Avenue is dominated by 1
and 2-story, single and multi-family dwellings with 1 to 14 units on primarily 30 to 60
foot parcels. The commercial frontage at Main Street contains a 2 and 3 story
commercial building, both with 50' of frontage on Bicknell Avenue. The east side of
Main Street north of the East project site is dortiinated by single story commercial
structures.
In contrast, the East project is 3-stories (plus subterranean square footage and
parking), with ground floor and subterranean commercial space and 26 units with
25
t i ~ ~. 6
150' of frontage along Bicknell Avenue. Given the neighborhood context, the
proposed East project is inconsistent with the scale and massing of nearby
structures and, in general, with the pattern of development in the nearby area. In
addition, the proposed development is placed along the south side property line on
Bicknell Avenue with minimal setbacks. This contrasts with the existing residential
buildings that are set back between 10' and 15' from the front property line along
the north side of Bicknell Avenue. As a result, the project provides limited transition
into the residential neighborhood along the north side of Bicknell Avenue.
Vesting Tentative Parcel Map Findings
1 The Planning Commission cannot find that the proposed subdivision, together with
its provision for its design and improvements, is consistent with applicable general
and specific plans as adopted by the City of Santa Monica, in that Land Use
Element Policy # 1.2.1 states that development should provide a better transition
between commercial and adjacent residential uses. Land Use Objective 3.2 calls
for the protection of the scale and character of residential neighborhoods that are
adjacent to commercial areas. Land Use Policy 3.2.2 states that there should be an
appropriate transition where commercial uses abut residential areas. These policies
and objectives are also stated in the Main Street Master Plan, which was adopted in
1991 and set in place the vision for the Main Street area. The intent of the Main
Street Master Plan was to create a village-like atmosphere within the Main Street
Commercial District.
The improvements associated with the proposed subdivision are not consistent with
these policies. The East project is 3-stories (plus subterranean square footage and
parking), with ground floor and subterranean commercial space and 26 units with
150' of frontage along Bicknell Avenue. Given the neighborhood context, the
proposed East project is inconsistent with the scale and massing of nearby
structures and, in general, with the pattern of development in the nearby area. In
addition, the proposed development is placed along the south side property line on
Bicknell Avenue with minimal setbacks. This contrasts with the existing residential
buildings that are set back between 10' and 15' from the front property line along
the north side of Bicknell Avenue. As a result, the project provides limited transition
into the residential neighborhood along the north side of Bicknell Avenue.
The proposed West project is also inconsistent with these Land Use policies and is
out of character and scale and ~with the nearby residential neighborhood. . No other
development in the Main Street area has a similar parcel size or mass,
encompasses an entire city block or dominates the street frontage in the manner of
the West project. The existing buildings along the west side of Neilson Way are set
back between 20' and 60' from the public right-of-way, whereas the proposed
project overwhelms the Neilso.n Way street firont with minimal set backs tha~
accommodate small landscaped areas. Likewise, there are no landscaped areas
between the residential units and the sidewalk along Bay Street to soften the
26 ~} v ~ .~
transition between building and sidewalk for the pedestrians and residents along
that street.
The visual mass of the two projects, particularly when looking north at Main Street
and Bicknell Avenue where the building design includes prominent corner elements,
creates a gateway-like atmosphere along the Main Street streetscape. Further, this
design is not conducive to nor consistent with the village-like atmosphere intended
for the district. This type of massing would be more appropriate if located at the
north and south ends of Main Street to serve as an entrance to the Main Street
district.
Prepared by: Suzanne Frick, Director
Jay Trevino, AICP, Planning Manager
Amanda Schachter, Principal Planner
Paul Foley, ~enior Planner
Attachments: A. Municipal Code and General Plan Conformance
B. Notice of Public Hearing
C. Proposed Zoning Ordinance text amendment language
D. Notice of Availability
E Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 25566
F. Resolution certifying the Final EIR
G. Photos of properties and surroc~nding sites
H. Project plans
~. Public correspondence
J. Final EIR
27
~~~'~$
ATTACHMENT A
MUNICIPAL CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE
CATEGORY LAND USE MUNICIPAL CODE PROJECT
ELEMENT
Permitted Use Mixed-use project Both East and West
with pedestrian- projects are mixed-use
oriented uses at the with ground floor retail.
ground floor.
Height of Building
East Project CM2 - 27 feet 27 feet
West Project CM3 - 35 feet 35 feet
Number of Stories
East Project CM2 -2 stories 3 stories
West Projecf CM3 - 3 stories 4 stories
(no limitation on
stories if project is
minimum 50%
residential)
Residential Uses in Permitted, except Both the East and West
Commercial Zones within 50' of front Projects have retail uses
property line at within the front 50' of the
ground floor and ground floor (subject to
with separate and Zoning Ordinance text
secure entrance and amendment approval),
exit to residential separate and secure
uses, separate access to residential units,
refuse recycle areas separate refuse/recycle
and minimum of 50 areas and a minimum of 50
sq. ft. of private sq. ft of private open space
open space. per unit
Mezzanine N/A Intermediate level No mezzanine proposed.
open to space
below. May not
exceed 1 /3 of room
28
~~~~9
CATEGORY LAND USE
ELEMENT MUNICIPAL CODE PROJECT
floor area.
Projections Into Balconies may Second floor baiconies of
Yard project 4' into the the East Project project 4'.
required rear yard of
the East Project
Building Height Total area of the East Project: building height
Projections building height projections equal 24% of
projects cannot roof area.
exceed 25% of the
roof area. West Project: building
height projections equal
22% of roof area.
Elevator Shaft May extend 14 feet EastProject: elevatorshaft
above the roofline extends 13' above the
roofline.
West Project: elevator shaft
extends 8'6" above the
roofline.
Stairwells May extend 14 feet East Projeet: stairwell
above the maximum enclosures extend 8' above
height allowed in the the maximum height of the
CM district. district.
West Project: stairwell
enclosures extend 8'6"
above the maximum height
of the district.
Mechanical May extend 12' None proposed at e~ither
Equipment above the maximum project.
Rooms/Enclosures height of the district
Parapets Legally required East Project: 42" parapet
parapets may provided.
extend a maximum
of 3'6° above the west Project: 48" parapet
. . ..,. , . . . . . .. . . . . . . ~ . . . .. .
29
~JO
CATEGORY LAND USE
ELEMENT MUNICIPAL CODE PROJECT
maximum height of shown (must be reduced
the district. to 42")
Building Volume Any portion of a West Project:
Envelope structure between Main Street - 10,836 cu. ft.
31' and 45' in height provided.
at the street frontage
must be setback an Bicknell Avenue - 5,400 cu.
addition average of ft. provided.
9'.
Bay Street - 6,192 cu. ft.
East Project: no provided.
portion of structure
is above 31'. Neilson Way - 10,800 cu.
ft. provided.
Wesf Project:
Main Street - 9 x 4 x
284 = 10,224 cu. ft.
Bicknell Avenue - 9
x 4 x 136 = 4,896
cu. ft.
. Bay Street - 9 x 4 x
152 = 5,472 cu. ft.
Neilson Way -'9 x 4
x 276 = 9,936 cu. ft.
F.A.R. CM2 - 1.5 East Project (CM2): 1.15
(residential square
footage discounted west Project (CM3): 1.49
at 50%}
CM3 - 2.Q
(residential square
footage discounted
at 50%)
Parking Access Alley access is No alley exists at either
encouraged when project.
alley exists
Parking Space Commercial: retail East Projecf: 87 spaces
Number space - 1 space per provided.
30
R:~3~.
CATEGORY LAND USE
ELEMENT ~UNICIPAL CODE PROJECT
300 square feet of
floor area; West Project: 288
provided.
Residential: studio
units - 1 space; 1
bedroom units - 1.5
spaces; 2 or more
bedroom units - 2
spaces per unit
1 visitor spaces per
5 units.
East Project:
6,533 sq. ft. retail ~
space = 22 spaces;
5 - 1 bedroom units
= 7.5 spaces:
21 - 2 bedroom
units = 42 spaces;
26 units = 5 visitor
spaces_
Total spaces
required = 77.
West Project:
12,282 sq. ft retail
space = 41 spaces;
2 - studio units = 2
spaces;
2 - 1 bedroom units
= 3 spaces;
42 - 1 bedroom plus
study = 84 spaces;
58 - 2 bedroom
units = 116 spaces, '
3 - 3 bedroom units
3~ ~~~32
CATEGORY LAND USE
ELEMENT MUNICIPAL CODE PROJECT
= 6 spaces;
107 units = 21 visitor
spaces.
Total spaces
required = 273.
Compact Parking % NIA A maximum of 40% East Project: 11 spaces.
of the commercial
and residential West Project: 25 spaces.
visitor spaces may
be compact.
East Project: 11
spaces may be '
compact (27 x .4)
West Project: 25
spaces may be
compact (62.3 x .4)
Bicycle Parking N/A 4 bicycle parking Bicycle parking must be
spaces required at added to parking areas in
both project sites. compliance with Code.
CarpoolNanpool N/A Required of all new None provided.
Parking commercial and
industrial buildings in
excess of 50,000
square feet. Not
required of either
project.
Loading Spaces N/A 1 space required for Each project provides 1
buildings with 3,000 loading space.
to 15,000 square
feet of commercial
space. Each project
requires 1 loading
space.
Trash Area N/A East Project East Project: 9.5' x 13'area
buildings between provided for commercial
10,000 and 20,000 tenants separate from a
32
'~L33
CATEGORY ~AND USE
ELEMENT MUNICIPAL CODE PROJECT
square feet require 248 square feet area for
248 square foot residents.
refuse/recycle area
with separate
commercial and
residential areas in
mixed use buildings.
West Project: Mixed- West Project: 248 square
use projects with 40 foot refuse/recycle area
or more units or provided for commercial
more than 40,000 tenants; 307 square foot
square feet are area provided for residents.
subject to approval
by the Solid Waste
Management
Division
Mechanical N/A All mechanical No roof top mechanical
Equipment equipmentextending equipment shown on roof
Screening more than 12' above plans for either project.
the roof parapet
must be screened
from view.
Location of N/A Cannot be located None shown at either
Mechanical on the side of any project.
Equipment building which is
adjacent to a
residential use on
the adjoining paracl.
Landscaping N/A Landscaping equal
to 1.5 times the
street frontage must
be provided adjacent
to each public street
right-of-way .at both
sites.
East Project: East Project:
Main Street - 120' Main Street - 189 sq. ft.
frontage requires provided.
33 t~~~4
CATEGORY ~ND USE MUNICIPAL CODE PROJECT
ELEMENT
180 sq. ft. of
landscaping. Bicknell Avenue - 321 sq.
Bicknell Avenue - ft. provided.
150' of frontage
requires 225 sq. ft.
of landscaping.
Wesf Project:
Main Street - 301' of
Main Street - 467 sq. ft.
frontage requires Provided.
452 sq. ft of
landscaping.
Bay Street - 177' of Bay Street - 274 sq. ft.
frontage requires provided.
266 sq. ft. of
landscaping. Neilson Way -- 497 sq. ft.
Neilson Way - 303' provided.
of frontage requires
455 sq. ft. of gicknell Avenue - 256 sq.
landscaping. ft. provided.
Bicknell Avenue -
152' of frontage
requires 228 sq. ft.
of landscaping.
Private Open Space N/A Minimum of 50 Residential units within both
square feet per unit projects provide private
required. open space in excess of
that required by Code.
Affordable Housing Obligation may be Applicant has elected to
Production Program fulfilled by one of pay the affordable housing
four methods: production fee.
, - Provide affordabfe
units on-site.
- Provide affordable
units within '/4 of
project site.
- Payment of an
affordable housing
34
3~
CATEGORY LAND USE MUNICIPAL CODE PROJECT
ELEMENT
production fee.
- Acquiring of land
for affordable
housing.
3s ~ ~a~~36
ATTAC H M E N T B
Planning Commission Statements of Official Action,
Dated December 5, 2001
i~ ~ J ~
6-D
~
~..
PLANNING COMMISSION
~;tY of STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL ACTION
sa,.ta Man~c~W
PROJECT
CASE NUMBER: Development Review Permit 99-013; Conditional Use
Permit 01-016; Text Amendment 99-010; and Vesting
Tentative Parcel Map 25566
LOCATION: 2012-2024 Main Street
APPLICANT: Calstar Equities, Inc. _
CASE P~ANNER: Paul Foley, Senior Planner
REQUEST: Application for a Development Review Permit, Conditional
Use Permit, Text Amendment and Vesting Tentative Parcel
Map 25566 to allow the construction of a mixed use, 4-story
35' high building with 136,694 square feet of floor area
including 124,412 square feet of residential use and 12,281
square feet of commercial use at the ground floor. The
proposed building includes 107 residential units and a three
level subterranean parking garage with 288 parking
spaces.
CEQA STATUS: An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for the
project in compliance with the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA}. The Environmental Impact Report
was not certified by the Planning Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
December 5, 2001 Date
Approved
X Denied DR 99-013, CUP 01-016, TA 99-010 and VTPM 25566 based
1
~~38
on the findings listed below.
Other.
EFFECTIVE DATES OF ACTION IF NOT APPEALED:
December 20, 2001
December 20, 2001
December 20. 2001
December 16, 2001
Development Review Permit 99-013
Conditional Use Permit 01-016
Text Amendment 99-010
Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 25566
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PERMIT FINDINGS
The Planning Commission cannot find that the physical location, massing and
placement of proposed structures on the site and the location of proposed uses
within the project are compatible with and relate harmoniously to surrounding sites
and neighborhoods. The proposed project, a four story, 136,694 square foot mixed-
use development with 288 parking spaces within 3 levels of subterranean parking is
not consistent with the pattern of development in the area and overwhelms the
nature of the neighborhood. No other development in the North Main Street area
has a similar parcel size, encompasses an entire city block and dominates its street
fronts in the manner of the West project. North Main Street is generally
characterized by 1 and 2 story developments on 60' wide parcels. Those
developments on parcels wider than 60' are generally are not greater than 3-stories
in height, including the buildings at the corner of Pico Boulevard. The taller buildings
along North Main Street are on 50' parcels including 1918 Main Street (3-stories)
and 2110 Main Street (3-stories). To the west of the project site along Neilson Way,
there is a 3-story, multi-family building at 2021 Ocean Avenue with 78 units. This
building has frontage on 3 streets and shares the block with the 2-story Bayside
Hotel which also has street frontage on 3 sides. However, 2021 Ocean Avenue has
36% fewer units than the proposed project. These two buildings have less mass at
the street fronts and are set back from Neilson Way 20' to 60' from the sidewalk,
whereas the proposed project provides minimal set backs to accommodate small
landscaped areas.
2. The Planning Commission cannot find that the proposed project is generally
consistent with the Municipal Code and General Plan in that the intent of mixed-use
development, as stated in Land Use Element Policy # 1.2.1 is to provide a better
transition between commercial and adjacent residential uses. Land Use Objective
3.2 calls for the protection of the scale and character of residential neighborhoods
that are adjacent to commercial areas. Land Use Policy 3.2.2 states that there
should be an appropriate transition where commercial uses abut residential areas.
2
~. ^ r
J.
The proposed project is not consistent with these Land Use Element objectives and
policies.
The proposed project does not provide a sensitive transition to adjacent buildings
and uses. The proposed building has extensive street frontages which dominate the
area, including approximately 300 linearfeet along Main Street. This frontage gives
the impression of a large, single use building and does not have a village-like
character with multiple storefronts. The ground floor of the building has minimal
setbacks from the public right-of-way, which is particularly noticeable along Neilson
Way where the surrounding existing buildings are set back further from the street.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS
1. The Planning Commission finds that the proposed use would impair the integrity
and character of the district in which it is to. be established or located, in that the
proposed project is a four story, 136,694 square foot mixed-use development with
288 parking spaces within 3 levels of subterranean parking which is not consistent
with the pattern of development in the area and overwhelms the neighborhood. No
other development in the North Main Street area has a similar parcel size,
encompasses an entire city block and dominates its street fronts in the manner of
the West project. North Main Street is generally characterized by 1 and 2 story
developments on 60' wide parcels. Those developments on parcels wider than
60'are generally are not greater than 3-stories in height, including the buildings at
the corner of Pico Boulevard. The taller buildings along North Main Street are on 50'
parcels including 1918 Main Street (3-stories) and 2110 Main Street (3-stories). To
the west of the project site along Neilson Way, there is a 3-story, multi-family
building at 2021 Ocean Avenue with 78 units. This building has frontage on 3
streets and shares the block with the 2-story Bayside Hotel which also has street
frontage on 3 sides. These projects are oriented toward the west and Ocean
Avenue and are set back from Neilson Way 20' to 60' from the public right-of-way.
The proposed project provides minimal set backs to accommodate small
landscaped areas.
The West Project also does not provide a sensitive transition to adjacent buildings
and uses. The proposed building has extensive street frontages which dominate the
area, including approximately 300 linear feet along Main Street. This frontage gives
the impression of a large, single use building and does not have a village-like
character with multiple storefronts. The ground floor of the building has minimal
setbacks from the public right-of-way, which is particularly noticeable along Neilson
Way where the surrounding existing buildings are set back further from the street.
2. The Planning Commission finds that the physical location or placement of the use
on the site is not compatible with and does not relate harmoniously to the
surrounding neighborhood, in that the proposed project is, a four story, 136,694
square foot mixed-use development with 288 parking spaces within 3 levels of
3
~~~ ~0
subterranean parking which is not consistent with the pattern of development in the
area and overwhelms the neighborhood. No other development in the North Main
Street area has a similar parcel size, encompasses an entire city block and
dominates its street fronts in the manner of the West project. North Main Street is
generally characterized by 1 and 2 story developments on 60' wide parcels. Those
developments on parcels wider than 60' are generally are not greater than 3-stories
in height, including the buildings at the corner of Pico Boulevard. The taller buildings
along North Main Street are on 50' parcels including 1918 Main Street (3-stories)
and 2110 Main Street (3-stories). To the west of the project site along Neilson Way,
there is a 3-story, multi-family building at 2021 Ocean Avenue with 78 units. This
building has frontage on 3 streets and shares the block with the 2-story Bayside
Hotel which also has street frontage on 3 sides. These projects are oriented toward
the west and Ocean Avenue and are set back from Neilson Way 20' to 60' from the
public right-of-way. The proposed project provides minimal set backs to
accommodate small landscaped areas.
TEXT AMENDMENT FINDINGS
The proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance is inconsistent in principle with
the goals, objectives and policies, land uses and programs specified ir~ the adopted
General Plan in that Land Use Plan Objective 3.2 calls for the protection of the
scale and character of residential neighborhoods that are adjacent to commercial
areas. The proposed text amendment is associated with a development, the West
Project, which is inconsistent with this Land Use objective. The West Project is also
inconsistent with Land Use Objective 3.4 that requires that development enhance
the image and unique character of the commercial and residential districts and
residential neighborhoods in the City. No other development in the Main Street area
has a similar parcel size or mass, encompasses an entire city block or dominates
and overwhelms the nearby neighborhood and commercial street frontage in the
manner of the West project. The existing buildings along the west side of Neilson
Way are set back between 20' and 60' f~om the public right-of-way, whereas the
proposed project overwhelms the Neilson Way street front with minimal set backs
that accommodate small landscaped areas. Likewise, there are no landscaped
areas between the residential units and the sidewalk along Bay Street to soften the
transition between building and sidewalk for the pedestrians and residents along
that street.
VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP FINDINGS
The Planning Commission cannot find that the proposed subdivision, together with
its provision for its design and improvements, is consistent with applicable general
and specific plans as adopted by the City of Santa Monica, in that Land Use
Element Policy # 1.2.1 states that development should provide a better transition
between commercial and adjacent residential uses. Land Use Objective 3.2 calls
for the protection of the scale and character of residential neighborhoods that are
4
~1
adjacent to commercial areas. Land Use Policy 3.2.2 states that there should be an
appropriate transition where commercial uses abut resideritial areas. These policies
and objectives are also stated in the Main Street Master Plan, which was adopted in
1991 and set in place the vision for the Main Street area. The intent of the Main
Street Master Plan was to create a village-like atmosphere within the Main Street
Commercial District.
The improvements associated with the proposed subdivision are not consistent with
these policies. The East project is 3-stories (p~us subterranean square footage and
parking), with ground floor and subterranean commercial space and 26 units with
150' of frontage along Bicknell Avenue. Given the neighborhood context, the
proposed East project is inconsistent with the scale and massing of nearby
structures and, in general, with the pattern of development in the nearby area. In
addition, the proposed development is placed along the south side property line on
Bicknell Avenue with minimal setbacks. This contrasts with the existing resid,ential
buildings that are set back between 10' and 15' from the front property line along
the north side of Bicknell Avenue. As a result, the project provides limited transition
into the residential neighborhood along the north side of Bicknell Avenue.
The proposed West project is also inconsistent with these Land Use paficies and is
out of character and scale and with the nearby residential neighborhood. . No other
development in the Main Street area has a similar parcel size or mass,
encompasses an entire city block or dominates the street frontage in the manner of
the West project. The existing buildings along the west side of Neilson Way are set
back befinreen 20' and 60' from the public right-of-way, whereas the proposed
project overwhelms the Neilson Way street front with minimal set backs that
accommodate small landscaped areas. Likewise, there are no landscaped areas
between the residential units and the sidewalk along Bay Street to soften the
transttion between building and sidewalk for the pedestrians and residents along
that street.
The visual mass of the finro projects, particularly when Iooking north at Main Street
and Bicknell Avenue where the building design includes prominent corner elements,
creates a gateway-like atmosphere along the Main Street streetscape. Further, this
design is not conducive to nor consistent with the village-like atmosphere intended
for the district. This type of massing would be more appropriate if located at the
north and south ends of Main Street to serve as an entrance to the Main Street
district.
5
~~ ~ ~ ~~
c~
VOTE
Ayes: Brown, Dad, Clarke, Hopkins, Johnson, Moyle, Olsen
Nays: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
NOTICE
If this is a final decision not subject to further appeal under the City of Santa Monica
Comprehensive Land Use and Zoning Ordinance, the time within which judicial review of
this decision must be sought is governed by Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6, which
provision has been adopted by the City pursuant to Municipal Code Section 1.16.010.
I hereby certify that this Statement of Official Action accurately reflects the final
determination of the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Monica.
,
Kelly Ols n, Chairperson
F:\PLAN\SHARE\PC\STOAS~2001 \99dr013.wnorthmainst. DOC
l f ~~~
D e
6
,~~~~
PROJECT
CASE NUMBER: Development Review Permit 00-002; Conditional Use
Permit 01-017 and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 25566
LOCATION: 2021-2029 Main Street
APPLICANT: Calstar Equities, Inc.
CASE PLANNER: Paul Foley, Senior Planner
REQUEST: Application for a Development Review Permit and
Conditional Use Permit to allow the construction of a mixed
use, 3-story 27' high building with 34,839 square feet of
floor area including 28,306 square feet of residential use
and 6,533 square feet of commercial use at the ground
floor. The proposed building includes 26 residential units
and a two level subterranean parking garage with 87
parking spaces.
CEQA STATUS: An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for the
project in compliance with the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA). The Environmental Impact Report
was not certified by the Ptanning Commission,
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
December 54 2001 Date.
Approved.
X Denied DR 00-002; CUP 01-017 and ~VTPM 25566 based on the
findings listed below.
Other.
1
~4~
EFFECTIVE DATES OF ACTION IF NOT APPEALED:
December 20. 2001 Development Review Permit 00-002
December 20, 2001 Conditional Use Permit 01-017
December 16. 2001 Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 25566
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PERMIT FINDINGS
The Planning Commission cannot find that the physical location, massing and
placement of proposed structures on the site and the tocation of proposed uses
within the project are compatible with and relate harmoniously to surrounding s'ites
and neighborhoods. The proposed East Project is not consistent with the pattern of
development in the area and overwhelms the neighborhood. The proposed project,
a three story, 34,839 square foot mixed-use development with 87 parking spaces
within 2 levels of subterranean parking is not consistent with the pattern of
development in the area and overwhelms the nature of the neighborhood. The north
side of Bicknell Avenue in the 200 block is dominated by 1 and 2-sto~ residential
structures on 50' wide parcels that contain befinreen 4 and 7 units. There is one
exception at 229 Bicknell Avenue, a 3-story, 25 unit building on a 100' parcel. The
placement of the proposed 27' tall development along the south side property line at
Bicknell Avenue contrasts with the location of existing buildings on this residential
street. The residential development pattern consists of buildings that are set back
between 10' and 15' from the property line. The project provides some landscaping
and building articulation. Along this elevation, design modifications are required to
establish a transition into the residential neighborhood.
The residential frontage along the south side of Bicknell Avenue is dominated by 1
and 2-story, single and multi-family dwellings with 1 to 14 units on primarily 30 to 60
foot parcels. The commercial frontage at Main Street contains a 2 and 3 story
commercial building, both with 50' of frontage on Bicknell Avenue. The east side of
Main Street north of the East project site is dominated by single story commercial
structures.
2, The Planning Commission cannot find that the proposed project is generally
consistent witti the Municipal Code and General Plan in that the intent of mixed-use
development, as stated in Land Use Element Policy # 1.2.1 is to provide a better
transition between commercial and adjacent residential uses. . Land Use Objective
3.2 calls for the protection of the scale and character of residential neighborhoods
that are adjacent to commercial areas. Land Use Policy 3.2.2 states that there
should be an appropriate transition where commercial uses abut residential areas.
These policies and objectives are also stated in the Main Street Master Plan, which
was adopted in 1991 and set in place the vision for the Main Street area. The intent
2
~45
of the Main Street Master Plan was to create a village-like atmosphere within the
Main Street Commercial District. Neither of the projects is consistent with these
Land Use Element objectives and policies nor the vision of the Main Street Master
Plan.
The proposed project extends the commercial uses and residential units to the
south property line in an area where front yard setbacks of at least approximately
10' exist. This placement of the building produces a mass of building at the property
line that is not a sensitive transition to the residential uses to the east of the project
site which are set back from the sidewalk.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS
The Planning Commission finds that the proposed use would impair the integrity
and character of the district in which it is to be established or located, in that the
mixed-use project, which is 81 % residential, is a three story, 34,839 square foot
development with 87 parking spaces within 2 levels of subterranean parking tha# is
not consistent with the pattern of development in the area and overwhelms the
neighborhood. The north side of Bicknell Avenue in the 200 block is dominated by 1
and 2-story residential structures on 50' wide parcels that contain between 4 and 7
units. There is one exception at 229 Bicknell Avenue, a 3-story, 25 unit building on a
100' parcel. The placement of the proposed development extends the 27' structure
to the south side property line along Bicknell Avenue which is in contrast to the
existing buildings that are set back befinreen 10' and 15' from the public right-of-way
along the north side of Bicknell Avenue. The project provides no transition along
the north side of Bicknell Avenue with the front yards of the existing residential
buildings which are located east of the project site.
The residential frontage along the south side of Bicknell Avenue is dominated by 1
and 2-story, single and multi-family dwellings with 1 to 14 units on primarily 30 to 60
foot parcels. The commercial frontage at Main Street contains a 2 and 3 story
commercial building, both with 50' of frontage on Bicknell Avenue. The east side of
Main Street north of the East project site is dominated by single story commercial
structures.
In contrast, the East Project is 3-stories (plus subterranean square footage and
parking), with ground floor and subterranean commercial space and 26 units with
150' of frontage along Bicknell Avenue. Given the neighborhood context, the
proposed East project is inconsistent with the scale and massing of nearby
structures and, in general, with the pattern of development in the nearby area, In
addition, the proposed development is placed along the south side property line on
Bicknell Avenue with minimal setbacks. This contrasts with the existing residential
buildings that are set back between 10' and 15' from the front property line along
the north side of Bicknell Avenue. As a result, the project provides limited transition
into the residential neighborhood along the north side of Bicknell Avenue.
3
~~~'~~
2. The Planning Commission finds that the physical location or placement of the use
on the site is not compatible with and does not relate harmoniously to the
surrounding neighborhood, in that that the mixed-use project, which is 81 %
residential, is a three story, 34,839 square foot development with 87 parking spaces
within 2 levels of subterranean parking that is not consistent with the pattern of
development in the area and overwhelms the neighborhood. The north side of
Bicknell Avenue in the 200 block is dominated by 1 and 2-story residential
structures on 50' wide parcels that contain befinreen 4 and 7 units. There is one
exception at 229 Bicknell Avenue, a 3-story, 25 unit building on a 100' parcel. The
placement of the proposed development extends the 27' structure to the south side
property line along Bicknell Avenue which is in contrast to the existing buildings that
are set back befinreen 10' and 15' from the public right-of-way along the north side of
Bicknell Avenue. The project provides no transition along the north side of Bicknell
Avenue with the front yards of the existing residential buildings which are located
east of the project site.
The residential frontage along the south side of Bicknell Avenue is dominated by 1
and 2-story, single and multi-family dwellings with 1 to 14 units on primarily 30 to.60
foot parcels. The commercial frontage at Main Street contains a 2 and 3 story
commercial building, both with 50' of frontage on Bicknell Avenue. The east side of
Main Street north of the East project site is dominated by single story commercial
structures.
In contrast, the East project is 3-stories (plus subterranean square footage and
parking), with ground floor and subterranean commercial space and 26 units with
150' of frontage along Bicknell Avenue. Given the neighborhood context, the
proposed East project is inconsistent with the scale and massing of nearby
structures and, in general, with the pattern of development in the nearby area. In
addition, the proposed development is placed along the south side property line on
Bicknell Avenue with minimal setbacks. This contrasts with the existing residential
buildings that are set back befinreen 10' and 15' from the front property line along
the north side of Bicknell Avenue. As a result, the project provides limited transition
into the residential neighborhood along the north side of Bicknell Avenue.
VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP FINDINGS
The Planning Commission cannot find that the proposed subdivision, together with
its provision for its design and improvements, is consistent with applicable general
and specific plans as adopted by the City of Santa Monica, in that Land Use
Element Policy # 1.2.1 states that development should provide a better transition
between commercial and adjacent residential uses. Land Use Objective 3.2 calls
for the protection of the scale and character of residential neighborhoods that are
adjacent to commercial areas. Land Use Policy 3.2.2 states that there should be an
appropriate transition where commercial uses abut residential areas. These policies
4
'~~~~
and objectives are also stated in the Main Street Master Plan, which was adopted in
1991 and set in place the vision for the Main Street area. The intent of the Main
Street Master Plan was to create a village-like atmosphere within the Main Street
Commercial District.
The improvements associated with the proposed subdivision are not consistent with
these policies. The East project is 3-stories (plus subterranean square footage and
parking), with ground floor and subterranean commercial space and 26 units with
150' of frontage along Bicknell Avenue. Given the neighborhood context, the
proposed East project is inconsistent with the scale and massing of nearby
structures and, in general, with the pattern of development in the nearby area. In
addition, the proposed development is placed along the south side property line on
Bicknell Avenue with minimal setbacks. This contrasts with the existing residential
buildings that are set back between 10' and 15' from the front property line along
the north side of Bicknell Avenue. As a result, the project provides limited transition
into the residential neighborhood along the north side of Bicknell Avenue.
The proposed West project is also inconsistent with these Land Use policies and is
out of character and scale and with the nearby residential neighborhood. . No other
development in the Main Street area has a similar parcel size or mass,
encompasses an entire city block or dominates the street frontage in the manner of
the West project. The existing buildings along the west side of Neilson Way are set
back between 20' and 60' from the public right-of-way, whereas the proposed
project overwhelms the Neilson Way street front with minimal set backs that
accommodate small landscaped areas. Likewise, there are no landscaped areas
befinreen the residential units and the sidewalk along Bay Street to soften the
transition befinreen building and sidewalk for the pedestrians and residents along
that street.
The visual mass of the two projects, particularly when looking north at Main Street
and Bicknell Avenue where the building design includes prominent corner elements,
creates a gateway-like atmosphere along the Main Street streetscape. Further, this
design is not conducive to nor consistent with the village-like atmosphere intended
for the district. This type of massing would be more appropriate if located at the
north and south ends of Main Street to serve as an entrance to the Main Street
district.
VOTE
Ayes: Brown, Dad, Clarke, Hopkins, Johnson, Moyle, Olsen
Nays: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
5
'~~ ~~
NOTICE
If this is a final decision not subject to further appeal under the City of Santa Monica
Comprehensive Land Use and Zoning Ordinance, the time within which judicial review of
this decision must be sought is governed by Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6, which
provision has been adopted by the City pursuant to Municipal Code Section 1.16.010.
I hereby certify that this Statement of O~cial Action accurately reflects the final
determination of the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Monica.
~
Kelly Ols , Chairperson
F:\PLAN\SHARE\PC\STOAS12001 \OOdr002. northmainst. DOC
6
te
~~9
ATTACHMENT C
Appeai Statement
Electronic version of attachment is not available for review.
Document is available for review at the City Clerk's Office
and the Libraries.
50
> "
.. f, f
~ .. t~ ~~~~ ~~... .~. ~ ~ ~ S.&'~ ~ ~~"V,~ .~.~. ~ •v, ~~~~
CHRISTOPHER M. HARDING
THOMAS R. LARMORE
KENNETH L. KUTCHER
KEVIN V. KOZAL
LAURIE LIEBERMAN
DANIEL TELLALIAN
R PRGzE.S`-."s;4NAL s~f~"Pi7~F=1TEdN
A~f'YE7RIVCYS fa'I` f_,e.1Pd
December 13, 2001
1250 SIXTH STREET, SUiTE 300
SANTA MONiCA, CALIFORNIA 90401-1602
TELEPHONE (310I 393-1007
FACSIMILE (310) 458-1959
WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL:
(310) 451-2968
DIRECT E-MAIL ADDRESS:
harding@hlkklaw.com
Santa Monica City Council
1685 Main Street, Room 102
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Re; DRP Nos. 99-013 and 00-002; CUP Nos. 01-016 and 01-017
TA No. 99-010; VTPM No. 99-020; FEIR No. 00-004
Property Addresses: 2012-2024 and 2021-2029 Main Street
Applicant: Howard A. Jacobs (Calstar Equities, Inc.)
Our File No. 760.11
Dear Councilmembers:
This letter is submitted as an attachment to applicant Howard Jacobs' two
appeals in the above-referenced matters, which challenge the Planning Commission's
decisions concerning two proposed mixed-use projects proposed for the former Pioneer
Boulangerie sites on Main Street: 2012-2024 Main Street ("West Project") and 2021-
2029 Main Street ("East Project"). This letter explains Mr. Jacobs' reasons for these
appeals.
INTRODUCTION
These projects comply with all of the City's development standards including
those governing their height, density and uses. Indeed, these projects make only very
limited use of the City incentives encouraging rental housing on Main Street -- they
contain approximately 70,000 square feet less residential space than these City
incentives would allow. Under both the Zoning Ordinance and State Housing Law, the
City cannot deny these, projects because they are "too big" or "too massive."
The City's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance contain various programs and
regulations designed to encourage and facilitate these two projects. The City cannot
deny these projects without violating its own General Plan and Zoning Ordinance.
Denying these projects would also violate State Housing Law, which requires cities to
comply with their own development regulations when reviewing proposed housing
projects, and also requires cities to implement the housing element of their general plan
(e.g., the City's Housing Element program encouraging and facilitating new housing in
its commercial districts).
~a~5 ~
i
HARDING, LARMORE, KUTCHER & KOZAL
n raorESSiowLL cor~oawnoa
ATfORNEYS AT LAW
Santa Monica City Council
December 13, 2001
Page 2
Any City concerns about project design can easily be addressed through City
requests for design modification consistent with standard City practice. In fact, City
Staff has acknowledged that its design concerns, as expressed in the Staff Report, can
be satisfied in this manner. (See Planning Commission Staff Report for Agenda Item
7-A, December 5, 2001, pp. 4& 20.) The applicant has indicated his willingness to
make design changes to address City design concerns with the understanding that such
changes cannot be used as an excuse for reducing the overall size of these projects
(and thus their economic viability) given these projects' compliance with all City
regulations governing their size.' -
II.
GROUNDS FOR APPEAL
A. The Proiect-Specific Applications.
Mr. Jacobs is appealing the Planning Commission's denial of afl of his project-
specific applications for these two projects. These applications consist of DRP No. 99-
013 and CUP No. 01-016 for the West Project and DRP No. 00-002 and CUP No. 01-
017 for the East Project. The grounds for these appeals are as follows:
1. The Commission abused its discretion, acted contrary to the law, acted in an
unfair manner, acted contrary to City incentives for housing in commercial zoning
districts (including Main Street), and acted contrary to City practice by denying these
applications because (a) these projects comply with all of the City's development
standards, and (b) Mr. Jacobs' indicated his willingness to make design changes that
would not materially reduce these projects' size to address any design concerns of the
Planning Commission. In this regard:
• The Commission did not object to the mixture of uses in these projects, with
limited ground floor pedestrian-oriented commercial uses in compliance with
the Zoning Ordinance requirement for such uses and rental housing in
comptiance with the Zoning Ordinance's incentives for such housing in the
CM zoning district.
' Under the circumstances, the City is precluded by both State Housing Law and
the Zoning Ordinance from forcing a reduction in the size of these projects. Nonethe-
less, the applicant voluntarily presented design changes to the Commission at its
December 5th hearing that would reduce the overall unit count in the West Project by
seven (from 107 units to 100 units) and modestly reduce the overall square footage of
both projects.
~52
~
HARDING, LARMORE. KUTCHER & KOZAL
Santa Monica City Council
December 13, 2001
Page 3
• These projects comply in all respects with the Zoning Ordinance's many
requirements for their development including the Zoning Ordinance's
standards concerning height, density, setbacks, stepbacks, parking,
landscaping, and private open space.
• These projects, as submitted, comply with the City's General Plan
Although the Staff Report wrongly indicated these projects do not comply with
several provisions of the City's General Plan, the Staff Report acknowledges
that, with design modifications, these projects can be brought into compliance
with the General Plan. Moreover, the applicant indicated during the
Commission's hearing a willingness to make design modifications to address
Staff's concerns as well as any concerns expressed by the Planning
Commission during its public hearing on these projects. In fact, the applicant
suggested design modifications to address City Staff's concerns as
expressed in the Staff Report, even though the applicant only became aware
of these concerns a few days before the Planning Commission's hearing
when the Staff Report was released to the public.
Under the circumstances, the Commission's denial was contrary to City policy
encouraging new housing in the City's commercial zoning districts in general
(see Program 1.a of the Housing Element) and on Main Street in particular
(see Zoning Ordinance Section 9.04.08.28.060(a)(4)). This is especially so
given that the applicant made very limited use of the City's rental housing
density incentives for Main Street (proposing 70,000 square feet less rental
housing than these incentives would allow) and the size of these projects is
deemed by the Zoning Ordinance to be compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood. See Zoning Ordinance Section 9.04.20.14.040(a).
2. Insofar as the Commission denied these projects because they concluded the
projects were too large, the Commission abused its discretion and acted unlawfully. As
the Staff Report to the Commission confirmed, these projects comply with all relevant
Zoning Ordinance standards including those regulating height and density. Indeed, the
FAR for these two projects is substantially less than the Zoning Ordinance allows --1.49
compared to a Zoning Ordinance standard of 2.0 for the West Project and 1.15
compared to a Zoning Ordinance standard of 1.5 for the East Project. These two
project could be increased in size -- by an additional 61,517 square feet of residential
space in the West Project and an additional 12,630 square feet in the East Project --
and still meet the Zoning Ordinance's FAR standards. Thus, Zoning Ordinance Section
9.04.20.14.040(a) deems the size of these two projects to be compatible with the
~~'~ 5 3
;~
','_
~IARDING, LARMORE, KUTCHER & KOZAL
Santa Monica City Council
December 13, 2001
Page 4
neighborhood. The Commission effectively ignored this Zoning Ordinance provision in
denying these projects on grounds that they were too large.
3. Insofar as the Commission denied these projects due to concerns about their
"massing," the Commission abused its discretion and acted contrary to the law in the
following respects:
• The applicant indicated a willingness to redesign these projects to address
the Commission's massing concerns (consistent with the State Housing
Law and Zoning Ordinance parameters addressing project size); and
• As used by the Commission and the Staff in its Staff Report, the term
"massing" is, in fact, a code word for "size." Because these projects
comply with the City's governing height limits and have substantially less
floor area than the Zoning Ordinance allows, the Commission's
determination to deny these projects because they are too massive for the
neighborhood conflicts with Zoning Ordinance Section 9.04.20.14.040(a).
This Zoning Ordinance provision deems the size of these projects to be
compatible with the surrounding neighborhood because they satisfy the
General Plan's height and density standards.
4. Insofar as the Commission denied these projects because they concluded the
projects were too tall, the Commission abused its discretion and acted unlawfully. Both
of these projects comply with the governing height limits in the zoning districts in which
they are located (27 feet for the East Project and 35 feet for the West Project). The fact
that they may contain more stories than some neighboring buildings is not legally
relevant. The Zoning Ordinance precludes the City from denying these projects
because of their number of stories sinice they comply with the Zoning Ordinance's
height limits measured in feet. In this regard, Zoning Ordinance Section
9.04.08.28.060(a)(4) provides: "There shall be no limitation on the number of stories of
any structure whose floor area contains more than 50% residential uses as long as the
height does not exceed the maximum number of feet... ." under the Zoning Ordinance.
(Emphasis added.) These projects great~y exceed the 50% residential use threshold.
5. In denying these two projects, the Commission violated a series of City
policies and regulations encouraging and facilitating rental housing in the City's
commercial zoning districts including on Main Street. See, e.g., Housing Element
Program 1.a and Zoning Ordinance Section 9.04.08.28.060(a)(4). These policies and
regulations effectively require the City to either approve the projects as submitted
because they comply with all City zoning standards or, alternatively, provide the
applicant with an opportunity to redesign them to address the Commission's design
~~
~
HARDING, LARMORE, KUTCHER & KOZAL
A Pw+crc~vu~.~
Santa Monica City Council
December 13, 2001
Page 5
concerns. By failing to provide the applicant with either option, the Commission acted to
discourage and inhibit housing at these commercial sites, contrary to the above-
referenced City policies and regulations which encourage and facilitate such housing.
6. Insofar as the Commission denied these finro projects based upon the Staff
Report's claim that the projects do not comply with several, highly general provisions of
the City's Land Use Element, the Commission abused its discretion and acted
unlawfully. The three policies cited by City Staff -- Land Use Element Policy 1.2.1, Land
Use Element Objective 1.2, and Land Use Element Policy 3.2.2 -- are clearly satisfied
by these two projects. Specifically:
• Land Use Element Policy 1.2.1 provides: "Encourage residential mixed use of
appropriate commercially zoned parcels, in order to provide a better transition
between commercial and adjacent residential uses, to enhance security, and
to increase hours of use in metropolitan areas." Both projects are sxactly the
kind of mixed-use projects envisioned in Land Use Element Policy 1.2.1 as
projects to be encouraged, not denied.
Land Use Element Objective 1.2 provides: "Ensure compatibility of adjacent
land uses, with particular concern for protecting residential neighborhoods."
Both projects clearly satisfy this objective as well. These projects are
essentially residential projects and thus are compatible with nearby residential
neighborhoods. The Zoning Ordinance protects the surrounding
neighborhood by establishing height and floor limits with which these projects
comply. Moreover, the applicant presented design changes to the
Commission that provide additional protection for residential neighbors.
Land Use Element Policy 3.2.2 provides: "Where commercial uses abut
residential areas, there should be an appropriate transition (landscaped
setback or service alley and screen wall)." Here, the "appropriate" transition
for the West Project consists of four City streets (which are much wider than
any service alley). On the East Project, the 20-foot wide driveway will provide
the same "transition" as a service alley. Moreover, the applicant presented an
additional setback from Bicknell Avenue to address the concern raised in the
Staff Report.
• Overall, the Staff Report ignores that the three, quite general Land Use
Element policy statements relied upon by Staff have been implemented by
the Zoning Ordinance's very specific provisions governing height, FAR,
setbacks, stepbacks, and other building features in the CM District.
Compliance with these Zoning Ordinance provisions ensures that these
~~~55
~IARDING, LARMORE, KUTCHER & KOZAL
Santa Monica City Council
December 13, 2001
Page 6
projects satisfy the more general Land Use Element provisions they were
designed to implement.
The Staff Report misconstrues these three proVisions, reading them entirely
out of context with the Land Use Element and the Zoning Ordinance. Both
the Land Use Element and the Zoning Ordinance were designed to add
predictability to the City's project review process by establishing objective
development standards for new development projects. See, e.g., Zoning
Ordinance at p. 40 ("The ordinance is intended to provide predictability for
property owners and developers..."). Denial of projects that satisfy all of the
Land Use Element and Zoning Ordinance objective development standards
based upon more subjective policy language in the Land Use Element is
contrary to the intent of the Land Use Element and Zoning Ordinance.
7. Insofar as the Commission disapproved of the development of these two
multi-lot sites with single projects, the Commission abused its discretion and acted
contrary to the law. Nothing in the General Plan or Zoning Ordinance precludes or
discourages such development, which in terms of parking and traffic circulation is far
superior to piecemeal redevelopment of these two sites.
8. Insofar as the Commission denied these projects because the applicant has
not yet determined how he will comply with the City's Affordable Housing Production
Program ("AHPP"), the Commission abused its discretion and acted unlawfully. Under
the AHPP, the City cannot, in effect, require the applicant to chose a particular AHPP
compliance alternative as a condition to project approval.
9. Insofar as the Planning Commission denied these applications because it
concluded (as suggested in the Staff Report) that the City does not need more market-
rate rental housing, the Commission abused its discretion and act~d unlawfully.
Although the City may satisfy its RHNA fair share for additional housing in the current
planning period (2000-2005), as the California Department of Housing and Community
Development ("HCD") noted its December 3rd findings concerning the City's Housing
Element Update,2 this RHNA fair share is a minimum number and meeting it does not
absolve the City of its continuing responsibility to encourage and facilitate additional
housing (including market-rate rental housing) in accordance with its General Plan and
Zoning Ordinance policies which support this objective. The City is obliged by law to
2 If the City satisfies its RHNA fair share number for the 2000-2005 Planning
Period, it will be the first time the City has satisfied its fair share number since at least
1980. During the 1980s and 1990s, the City fell far short in meeting its RHNA fair
share, thereby creating a serious backlog of unmet housing needs.
~56
:Aa..„
HARDING, LARMORE, KUTCHER & KOZAL
Santa Monica City Council
December 13, 2001
Page 7
implement its Housing Element (see Gov't Code § 65583(c)), which contains a specific
program (i.e., Program 1.a) to encourage and facilitate housing in the City's commercial
zoning districts. City denial of these projects would violate this Housing Element
program.
10. Insofar as the Commission denied these two projects notwithstanding their
compliance with all City objective development standards, the City acted contrary to the
Housing Element's finding that City discretionary review does not constitute a constraint
on new housing development. This Housing Element finding necessarily assumes the
City's discretionary review process does not result in project denial when applicants for
housing projects meet all of the City's objective development standards and are willing
to make design changes to address City design concerns. If the City intends to adopt
such a practice, it must (a) amend its Housing Element's governmental constraints
analysis and submit such an amendment to the California Department of Housing and
Community Development ("HCD") for review and findings in accordance with California
Housing Element Law, and (b) amend Housing Element Program 1.a, which currently
requires the City to encourage and facilitate housing in the City's commercial zoning
districts.
11. The Commission's denial of these projects violated State Housing Law (Gov't
Code § 65589.5(j)) because: (a) these projects comply with all of the City's objective
development standards; and (b) these projects do not create any adverse public health
or safety problems, as confirmed in the FEIR.
12. City denial of these two projects, under the circumstances presented, would
constitute a temporary (and possibly a permanent) taking of the applicant's property
within the meaning of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
Constitution and the comparable provisions of the California Constitution. These
circumstances include, without limitation:
• These properties currently lack any economically viable use and must be
redeveloped in order to be economically viable.
The proposed projects have substantially less adverse environmental
impacts than any of the economically viable alternatives, as confirmed in
the FEIR.
The applicant has proposed two projects that meet all of the City's
objective development standards. Moreover, in response to design
concerns raised by City Staff and the Commission, the applicant has
indicated his willingness to make design changes to address their
- R.,
'- ,~ !
;,
~., ,~ ~
HARDING, LARMORE, KUTCHER & KOZAL
Santa Monica City Council
December 13, 2001
Page 8
concerns. Thus, the City would clearly abuse its discretion under local law
if it were to deny these projects.
Because these projects satisfy all of the City's objective development
standards governing their development, and will not cause any adverse
public health or safety which problems can only be mitigated through
project denial or density reduction, City denial of these projects would
violate State Housing Law.
These projects have been designed to further City policies and regulations
which encourage mixed-use projects (with substantial housing
components) in the City's commercial zoning districts generally, and on
Main Street in particular. In fact, these projects have taken only very
limited advantage of the density bonuses available for rental housing on
Main Street. Consistent with these density bonuses, the West Project's
residential space could be increased by 61,517 square feet (54%) and the
East Project's residential space could be increased by 12,630 square feet
(45%).
The applications for these two projects were deemed complete by mid-
April 2000. Thus, the City has already effected a temporary taking of
these two projects by failing to render a decision on the FEIR in
accordance with CEQA's one-year time limit (Pub. Res. Code
§ 21151.5(a)(1)(A)) and by failing to render decisions on the project
applications within the Zoning Ordinance's one-year time limit (Zoning
Ordinance Section 9.04.20.22.100). See Sunset Drive Corp. v. City of
Redlands, 73 Cal. App. 4th 215, 86 Cal. Rptr. 2d 209 (1999), rev. denied.
Denial of these two projects, notwithstanding their compliance with all
objective City development standards, will at a minimum substantially
extend the time period during which the City effectively denies the
applicant all economicalfy viable use of these properties. Moreover, denial
of these projects is likely to result in a permanent taking of the applicant's
interest in these properties because such project denial is likely to trigger
a foreclosure of the applicant's interests in these properties.
B. Parcel Map.
The applicant also appeals the Commission's denial of his parcel map
application, which is intended to meet the City's requirement that multiple lots being
developed jointly must be legally tied together. Absent the proposed parcel map, a lot
tie agreement will be necessary to senre this same purpose.
tl+-5$
~IARDING, LARMORE, KUTCHER & KOZAL
A PROF6510Nl~L WRPORATON
ATfORNEYS AT LAW
Santa Monica City Council
December 13, 2001
Page 9
To the best of our understanding, neither the Staff nor the Commission has ever
expressed any concerns with the parcel map itself. Rather, the parcel map was denied
based upon concerns about the two projects to which the parcel map relates. Thus, in
concert with approving the applications for these two projects, the City Council should
also approve the parcel map application as well.
C. Zoninq Text Amendment.
The proposed text amendment is intended to address the unique circumstance of
the West Project having four street frontages. As recommended by Staff, the proposed
text amendment would treat Main Street (rather than Bicknell Avenue) as the required
location for the pedestrian-oriented commercial uses and would also treat all four street
frontages as the "front" for design purposes. The Commission did not express any
opposition to the merits of this text amendment, but chose not to recommend it due to
their lack of support for the two projects. The City Council should follow Staff's
recommendation and approve the proposed text amendment.
In addition, the applicant's text amendment application requests clarification that
the CM zoning district's CUP requirement for uses in excess of 7,500 square feet of
floor area does not apply to rental housing. The applicant believes the current Zoning
Ordinance does not require a CUP for rental housing on Main Street regardless of its
size, but Staff disagrees. Rather than debate the meaning of the current Zoning
Ordinance, the applicant is seeking a text amendment that will provide rental housing on
Main Street does not require a CUP regardless of its size. The applicant believes this is
consistent with overall City policies favoring housing in its commercial districts (Program
1.a of the Housing Element) as well as the specific rental housing incentives available
on Main Street (Zoning Ordinance Section 9.04.08.28.060(a)(4)).
D. Planninq Commission's Failure To Certifv The Final Environmental Impact
Report•
The Final Environmental Impact Report ("FEIR") meets the statutory
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), and provides City
decision-makers with the information they need to render an informed judgment
concerning these two projects. Thus, the FEIR deserves certification.
The Planning Commission abused its discretion and acted contrary to the law in
refusing to certify the FEIR. The fact that the Commission disagreed with certain traffic
counts or might have preferred a different traffic methodology does not justify its failure
to certify the FEIR. The FEIR was prepared by a qualified environmental consulting firm
and sub-consultants in accordance with standard City methodology, and using data
supplied by City Staff. The FEIR was prepared consistent with the approach taken in all
~:~~~9
i~-~ `
HARDING, LARMORE, KUTGHER & KOZAL
A PROFESSIONPL CORPORIITON
A7TORNEVS AT LqW
Santa Monica City Council
December 13, 2001
Page 10
City environmental documents, including recent project EIRs which were certified for the
RAND and Target projects.
The Commission's failure to certify the FEIR magnifies the severe hardship
caused to Mr. Jacobs by the City's failure to comply with the time limits set forth in
CEQA for City action. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21151.5(a)(1)(A),
the City was required to take final action on the FEIR within one year of these
applications being deemed complete. This time limit expired in April 2001. Thus, as of
the Commission's hearing on December 5, 2001, the City was already many months
late in meeting its obligations under CEQA with respect to the FEIR.
Under the circumstances, the City Council should reverse the Commission's
failure to certify the FEIR as quickly as possible.
E. Statement Of Overridinq Considerations.
Although the Commission did not address the need for a statement of overriding
considerations due to its denial of these projects and its refusal to certify the FEIR, the
applicant contends it would be an abuse of discretion for the City Council not to approve
a statement of overriding considerations for these two projects. Specifically:
1 The Two Proiects Have Minimal Environmental Impacts.
The Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") comprehensively reviewed the
potential environmental effects of these finro projects and reached conclusions that, as
EIRs go, are quite positive. According to the EIR, the worst that can be said about
these projects is this: in the course of helping the City satisfy its housing production
objectives, these projects will (1) create minor traffic impacts at three intersections and
two related street segments most of which can be mitigated if the City will accept a loss
of five on-street parking spaces (which Mr. Jacobs will replace on-site with an
equivalent amount of parking which Mr. Jacobs will make available to the public unless
the City wishes to issue preferential parking permits for those spaces to nearby
residents, thereby assuring its usage); and (2) create short-term construction-related
noise and air quality impacts typical of all construction projects and which the applicant
is willing to mitigate to the maximum extent feasible.
The EIR also confirms that the proposed projects will have a less significant
impact on the environment than the likely alternative project, which would consist of an
all-commercial development with no housing. In other words, Mr. Jacobs' proposed
projects are environmentally superior to what is likely to occur at these sites if for some
reason his projects do not proceed as planned.
~n
I~ARDING. LARMORE, KUTCHER & KOZAL
~ ~orESSioru~ ca+ror».nor+
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Santa Monica City Council
December 13, 2001
Page 11
Moreover, these projects are less intense than the former Pioneer Boulangerie
operation at these sites. Mr. Jacobs commissioned a traffic study by the respected
consulting firm Linscott, Law & Greenspan, which indicates that the two proposed
projects would generate approximately 20% less daily traffic than the Pioneer
Boulangerie, and significantly less A.M. peak hour traffic as well. Residents of this
neighborhood should appreciate that these two projects will provide convenient
neighborhood services and enhance the pedestrian orientation of Main StreeYs north
end while generating less traffic than the most recent use of these properties.3
Finally, in considering these projects the City Council should keep in mind that
any development of these sites will have significant adverse impacts. See FEIR at
p. 3-58 ("Virtually any development proposal would result in a significant traffic impact
based on the City's significance criteria") and at p. 3-55 ("Each of the other project
alternatives would result in significant and unavoidable impacts."). Mr. Jacobs is
constitutionally entitled to an economically viable use of these properties, which
necessarily requires their redevelopment. Mr. Jacobs' predominantly housing projects
will have the least adverse impact of any of the economically viable alternative projects,
2. A Statement Of Overridinq Considerations Is Warranted For These Two
Pro'ects.
Viewed in this context, we believe a statement of overriding considerations
("SOC") is clearly warranted here. These projects provide substantial environmental
and social benefits which substantially outweigh these projects' very limited adverse
environmenta~ effects and which warrant City Council approval of an SOC. These
benefits include:
(i) Housinq. These projects are consistent with and further the City's core
housing policy objectives as set forth in the City's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance.
Specifically:
• Consistent with Housing Element Program 1.a and Zoning Ordinance
Section 9.04.08.28.060(a)(4), these projects provide substantial new
rental housing units in the CM Main Street Commercial District while
complying with the applicable development standards including those
regulating height and density. In fact, these projects contain substantially
less residential floor area than allowed by the Zoning Ordinance.
3 The FEIR acknowledges: "The proposed project would result in less daily traffic
and less traffic during the peak hours as compared to the use that was formerly located
on the west site." FEIR at p. 3-54.
~~
HARDING, LARMORE, KUTCHER & KOZAL
A Fvr•eeea....~.~ ^^oene~~v..~
Santa Monica City Council
December 13, 2001
Page 12
• These projects will not displace any existing residents.
• These projects make a substantial contribution toward the City's regional
fair share of the need for additional housing. Given the regional and
statewide housing shortage, these projects will assist in meeting the need
for additional housing.
• The City should encourage as much housing as possible on these
commercial sites.
These projects will make a substantial contribution towards the City's need
for affordable housing through compliance with the Affordable Housing
Production Program (Chapter 9.56 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code).
(ii) Environment. These projects will provide substantial environmental
benefits, including:
These projects have been designed as "green" buildings with numerous
environmentally-sensitive features. These include:
~ Photovoltaic svstem which will generate electricity from the sun for use
on site and will offset a significant portion of the projects' electrical
usage.
~ Rooftop qardening which will allow residents to plant and grow
vegetables, herbs and ornamental landscaping.
-~ Dual-glazed insulated windows for energy efficiency and reduction of
noise impact on residents.
~ Architecture utilizing window shadinq to reduce the need for air
conditioning. ~
-~ Recvclinq of the demolished materials currently at the site to the
maximum extent feasible.
~ Utilization of products with recycled content in the new construction to
the maximum extent feasible.
~ Thermal insulation at levels above minimum code requirements to
reduce heating and cooling needs.
~ y ~ ~
HARDING, LARMORE, KUTGHER & KOZAL
Santa Monica City Council
December 13, 2001
Page 13
~ Use of high efficiency fluorescent lightinq in parking garages and other
common areas to reduce energy consumption.
~ Use of photo cel/s and timers on outdoor lighting to reduce
unnecessary energy consumption.
-~ Insulation of hot water pipes to reduce heat loss and wasted energy.
~ Use of hiqh efficiencv water heaters to reduce energy usage.
~ Use of ultra-low flow toilets and,olumbinq fixtures to reduce water
usage.
By including substantial rental housing in a"jobs rich/housing poor"
environment, these projects have regional environmental benefits with
respect to housing, traffic and air quality. In particular, these projects
create more living opportunities in closer proximity to job sites thereby
reducing commuter distances and times and encouraging use of
alternative transportation.
• By creating a more pedestrian-friendly neighborhood environment,
these projects encourage pedestrian rather than vehicular trips.
• Because these projects are predominantly rental housing, they
generate significantly fewer vehicle trips than alternative, economically
viable commercial projects.
(iii) Urban Planninq. These projects serve key City urban planning
objectives, including:
These projects will provide pedestrian-oriented and neighborhood-friendly
uses on the ground floor Main Street frontage in a manner that will
promote and foster the neighborhood's pedestrian atmosphere consistent
with Zoning Ordinance Section 9.04.08.28.070.
Consistent with Land Use Element Policy 1.6.7 and Zoning Ordinance
Section 9.04.20.14.040(a), these projects are "compatible with and relate
harmoniously to surrounding sites and neighborhoods" because the
projects are "consistent with the height and density standards set forth in
the Land Use Element of the General Plan," which establishes allowable
heights and densities for these projects. For the East Project, the
governing standards are a height limit of 27 feet and a FAR of 1.5. For the
t~~63
` ^5;
~~~~~~~~~~a ~1~~~~=~~~~~~, ~~~~ ~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~~
a.m1'~'!„#T'Ca"~.S.if' GP•991iT"~~°FRPP_9~a
Fc'f'f4~.K,:,rdrry'~: AlP~ 6,4~.~`.
Santa Monica City Council
December 13, 2001
Page 14
West Project, the governing standards are a height limit of 35 feet and a
FAR of 2.0.
• These projects will provide an important link between the Civic Center and
the remainder of Main Street to the south.
• These projects serve the City's urban planning objective of generating
mixed-use projects (including ground floor commercial space and housing)
on Main Street and similar commercial streets.
(iv) Fiscal. These projects will generate fiscal benefits for the City including
improved sales tax revenues (both from new commerciaf businesses and the spending
of new residents), property tax revenues, and development fees benefiting local public
schools, community parks, and other public amenities.
(v) Emplovment. These projects will generate significant construction-
related employment as well as long-term employment in the new commercial spaces.
3. The Citv Council Cannot Refuse To Adopt A Statement Of Overriding
Considerations Because Mr. Jacobs Has Not Committed To Provide On-Site
Affordable Housinq Units.
Staff recommended that the Planning Commission not adopt a statement of
overriding considerations in part because it mistakenly believed that Mr. Jacobs had
elected to pay an in-lieu fee under the City's Affordable Housing Production Program
("AHPP") rather than provide "in kind" affordable units. To the contrary, Mr. Jacobs has
made no such election. At the same time, however, the City cannot use CEQA and the
"need" for a statement of overriding considerations to extort on-site affordable housing
units from Mr. Jacobs, as intimated by City Staff during the Planning Commission
hearing. Such action would clearly be unlawful on several grounds including violation of
the United States and California Constitutions, the AHPP, CEQA itself, and the Costa-
Hawkins Rental Housing Act (which, as the City has previously recognized, precludes
the City from compelling inclusion of price-controlled units as a condition for project
approval).
`~~
~
~IAI~DING, LARMORE, KUTGHER & KOZAL
n r~aocESSiow~. coarownnoN
ATfORNEYS AT LAW
Santa Monica City Councii
December 13, 2001
Page 15
III.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the City Council should reverse the Planning
Commission's decision and take the necessary steps to approve these two projects
consistent with its legal obligations under both State and local law.
Sincerely,
~~. ~8,,.,, ~~~ w~~
/
Christopher M. Harding
CMH/jps
760/CORR/CCOUNCIL.1101.CMH
~J
ATTACHMENT D
Public Hearing Notices
E6
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING
BEFORE THE SANTA MONICA CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: APPEAL 01APP-036 OF PLANNING COMMISSIOMS DENIAL DR 99-013
CUP01-016 TM99-020 TA 99-010 AND EIR00-004 FOR A MIXED-USE
PRC?JECT LOCATED AT 2012-2024 MAIN STREET.
APPLICANT/APPELLANT: Calstar Equities, Inc.
PROPERTY OWNER: 2000 Main Street, LLC
WHEN: Tuesday, February 12, 2002
6:45 p.m.
WHERE: City Hall Council Chambers
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, California
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The City Council will conduct a public hearing to consider Appeal 01-036 of the Planning
Commission's denial of applications for Development Review Permit 99-013, Conditional
Use Permit 01-016, Text Amendment 99-010 and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 99-020
proposed to allow construction of a mixed-use building located at 2012-2024 Main Street.
The City Council will also consider certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report
which analyzes the environmental impacts of the proposed project.
The proposed project involves the construction of a mixed-use building with 136,694 square
feet of floor area including 124,412 square feet of residential use and 12,281 square feet of
commercial use at the ground floor. The ground floor commercial use will also be
pedestrian oriented in compliance with Code.
The proposed four-story, 35 foot building will contain a total of 107 residential units (2 single,
42 one-bedroom, 60 two-bedroom and 3 three-bedroom units) with a 288 space, three-level
subterranean parking garage accessed from Bicknell Avenue. The 1.15 acre parcel is
currently developed with an approximately 12,687 square foot vacant bakery and restaurant
building.
Development Review Permit DR 99-013 is required to permit a building in excess of 11,000
square feet in the CM (Main Street Commercial) District. Conditional Use Permit CUP 01-
016 is required to allow the residential use component of the project to occupy more than
7,500 square feet of floor area in the CM district.
A Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment is also under consideration for City Council
consideration as part of the proposed project. The proposed amendment would modify the
speciat project design and development standards for the Main Street Commercial District
related to the location of the front yard.
Vesting Tentative Tract Map 99-020 was filed to merge the existing parcels at the site.
The Final EIR, which consists of the Draft EIR and the responses to comments received
during the comment period on the DEIR, is available at the Main Library and Ocean Park
Branch Reference Sections, at the office of the City Clerk and at the City Planning Division
Public Counter Room 111 in City Hall.
i1~E7
HOW TO COMMENT
You may comment at the City Council public hearing, or by writing a letter. Written
information received before 3:00 p.m. on the Wednesday before the hearing will be given to
the City Council in their packet. Information received after that time will be given to the City
Council prior to the meeting.
Address your letters to: City Clerk
Re: 01 APP-036
1685 Main Street, Room 102
Santa Monica, CA 90401
MORE INFORMATION
For more information about this project, please contact Paul Foley, Senior Planner at (310)
458-8341. Information is also available on the City's web site at www.santa-monica.org.
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 Bus Lines 1, 2, 3
and 7 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
EI Concilio Municipal de la ciudad de Santa Monica tendra una audencia publica para
revisar applicaciones proponiendo desarrollo en Santa Monica. Para mas informacion,
Ilame a Carmen Gutierrez al numero (310) 458-8341.
APPROVED AS TO FORM
~~n~.~~~Qy.~-PAPN /~~9. T~/
Jay M. Trevino, AICP
Planning Manager
F:\PLAN\SHARE\COUNCIL\NOTICES\01 APP036.doc
~;~~8
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING
BEFORE THE SANTA MONICA CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: APPEAL 01APP-037 OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL DR 00-002
CUPp1-017. TM99-020 AND EIR00-004 FOR A MIXED-USE PROJECT
LOCATED AT 2021-2029 MAIN STREET
APPLICANT/APPELLANT: Calstar Equities, Inc.
PROPERTY OWNER: 2000 Main Street, LLC
WHEN: Tuesday, February 12, 2002
6:45 p.m.
WHERE: City Hall Council Chambers
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, California
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The City Council will conduct a public hearing to consider Appeal 01-037 of the Planning
Commission's denial of applications for Development Review Permit 00-002, Conditional
Use Permit 01-017 and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 99-020 proposed to allow construction
of a mixed-use building located at 2021-29 Main Street. The City Council will also consider
certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report which analyzes the environmental
impacts of the proposed project.
The proposed project located involves the construction of a mixed use building with 34,839
square feet of floor area including 28,306 square feet of residential use and 6,533 square
feet of commercial use at the ground floor. The proposed ground floor commercial uses will
be pedestrian oriented uses in compliance with the Main Street Special Commercial District
regulations.
The proposed three-story, 27 foot building will contain a total of 26 residential units (5 one-
bedroom and 21 two-bedroom units) and provide a two-level subterranean parking garage
with 87 parking spaces accessed from Bicknell Avenue. The .41 acre parcel is currently
developed with a surface level parking lot.
Development Review Permit (DR 00-002) is required to permit a building in excess of
11,000 square feet in the CM (Main Street Commercial) District. Conditional Use Permit
CUP 01-017 is required to allow the residential use component of the project to occupy
more than 7,500 square feet of floor area in the CM district.
Vesting Tentative Tract Map 99-020 was filed to merge the existing parcels at the site,
The Final EIR, which consists of the Draft EIR and the responses to comments received
during the comment period on the DEIR, is available at the Main Library and Ocean Park
Branch Reference Sections, at the office of the City Clerk and at the City Planning Division
Public Counter Room 111 in City Hall.
HOW TO COMMENT
You may comment at the City Council public hearing, oF by writing a letter. Written
information received before 3:00 p.m. on the Wednesday before the hearing will be given to
the City Council in their packet. Information received after that time will be given to the City
Council prior to the meeting.
!sLE9
Address your letters to: City Clerk
Re: 01 APP-037
1685 Main Street, Room 102
Santa Monica, CA 90401
MORE INFORMATION
For more information about this project, please contact Paul Foley, Senior Planner at (310)
458-$341. Information is also available on the City's web site at www.santa-monica.org.
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 Bus Lines 1, 2, 3
and 7 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.
ESPAIVOL
EI Concilio Municipal de la ciudad de Santa Monica tendra una audencia publica para
revisar applicaciones proponiendo desarrollo en Santa Monica. Para mas informacion,
Ilame a Carmen Gutierrez al numero (310) 458-8341.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
.~~~r,~,c2 -F~
Jay M. Trevino, AICP
Planning Manager
F:\PLAN\S HARE\COU NCI LINOTICES\01 APP037.doc
~- i 0
ATTACHMENT E
Resolution Certifying the FEIR
~`~71
ATTAC H M E N T F
East and West Project Plans with Photographs of
Project Sites and Surrounding Properties
Electronic version of attachment is not available for review.
Document is available for review at the City Clerk's Office
and the Libraries.
'~6
ATTACHMENT G
Proposed revisions to East and West Project Plans
With Photographs of Project Sites and
Surrounding Properties
Electronic version of attachment is not available for review.
Document is available for review at the City Clerk's Office
and the Libraries.
ATTACHMENT H
Final Environmental Impact Report
Electronic version of attachment is not available for review.
Document is available for review at the City Clerk's Office
and the Libraries.
;.. ~ '~ 8