Loading...
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