SR-410-021 (2)
PCD:SF:JT:AS:PF:BL:f:\plan\share\council\strpt.02\AppealLantana2
Council Mtg: November 12, 2002 Santa Monica, California
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: City Staff
SUBJECT: Certification of a Final Environmental Impact Report Prepared in
Conjunction with Two Proposed Entertainment Studio Projects at 3030
Olympic Boulevard and 3131 Exposition Boulevard and Appeal of
Planning Commission Denial of Development Review Permits 99-010 and
99-011; Reduced Parking Permits 99-003 and 99-004 Related to Both
Studio Projects. Applicant/Appellant: Lantana North & South Hines
Development.
INTRODUCTION
This report recommends that the City Council take the following actions:
1. Certify the Final Environmental Impact Report prepared for the proposed studio
projects at 3030 Olympic Boulevard and 3131 Exposition Boulevard; and
2. Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s denial of Development
Review Permit 99-010 and Reduced Parking Permit 99-003 for the entertainment
studio project at 3030 Olympic Boulevard; and
3. Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s denial of Development
Review Permit 99-011 and Reduced Parking Permit 99-004 for the entertainment
studio project at 3131 Exposition Boulevard.
BACKGROUND
The applicant/appellant proposes two entertainment studio projects in the Olympic
Corridor area of the Light Manufacturing Studio zoning district. The projects are referred
to as the “Lantana East” and the “Lantana South” projects. Lantana East is located at
3030 Olympic Boulevard, consists of a 7.26 acre site with 1,370 feet of frontage on
Olympic Boulevard and 128 feet of frontage on Stewart Street. The subject site is
currently developed with two and three story entertainment studio buildings (Lantana
1
West and Center) containing 251,906 square feet of floor area with 632 parking spaces.
Lantana South is located at 3131 Exposition Boulevard, has 726’ of frontage on the
th
north side of Exposition Boulevard, between 34 Street and Dorchester Avenue and
contains 4.99 acres. The subject site is currently developed with a two-story, 65,007
square foot film production and distribution building (IMAX), a surface parking lot and a
film equipment storage lot. The sites are separated by the Los Angeles County
Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s (MTA) 100-foot wide, light rail transportation
corridor. Both projects would replace surface parking lots with new three-story,
contemporary design buildings for entertainment production/post-production studio uses.
Lantana East
Lantana East would contain a total of 64,105 square feet of building area (9,616 square
feet of office/editing space and 54,489 square feet of production/post production space).
Parking will be provided within a two level, 383-space subterranean parking garage in
addition to 55 surface spaces for a total of 438 spaces. With the existing surface and
subterranean parking that will be retained, the Lantana East, West and Center site would
provide a total of 853 parking spaces.
Lantana South
Lantana South would contain 30,543 square feet of office/editing space and 122,177
square feet of production/post production space, totaling 152,721 square feet. Parking
will be provided within a two level, 575-space subterranean parking garage plus 14
surface spaces for a total of 589 spaces. Including the existing IMAX surface parking,
the site would provide a total of 665 parking spaces.
2
The applicant proposes to incorporate a number of Green Building standards, including
maximizing natural lighting, natural ventilation from operable windows, permeable
paving and the use of materials that eliminate or minimize the discharge of chemicals or
gases into the environment.
The following discretionary approvals have been requested for Lantana East and South:
Lantana East
Development Review Permits (DR) 99-010 is required to permit buildings in excess of
30,000 square feet in the LMSD (Light Manufacturing Studio District) and Reduced
Parking Permits (RPP) 99-003 is required to allow 120 parking spaces to have tandem
access with valet service.
Lantana South
Development Review Permits (DR) 99-011 is required to permit buildings in excess of
30,000 square feet in the LMSD (Light Manufacturing Studio District) and Reduced
Parking Permits (RPP) 99-004 is requested to allow 57 parking spaces to have tandem
access with valet service. The environmental impacts of both projects were analyzed in
a single Environmental Impact Report (Attachment I).
On September 11, 2002, the Planning Commission certified the Environmental Impact
Report and denied the requested Development Review and Reduced Parking Permits
for both projects. The Draft Statements of Official Action for the Lantana East and
3
Lantana South projects are contained in Attachment B.
On September 24, 2002, the applicant appealed the Planning Commission decisions
contending that the findings made by the Planning Commission were not supported by
evidence in the record. The appeal statement is contained in Attachment D.
Since the Planning Commission hearing, the appellant and the residents of the affected
neighborhood located to the south of the projects have held discussions regarding ways
in which the traffic impacts may be mitigated. It is anticipated that the appellant and the
residents will address the results of these discussions in presentations to the Council
during the public hearing.
This hearing by the City Council is de novo. Consequently, all issues related to the
project are now before the Council. Although the Planning Commission certified the
EIR, the environmental document is also before the Council. Therefore, the City
Council should re-certify the EIR prior to taking action on the proposed projects. While
the EIR identifies 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 make findings related to each of the
identified significant effects and adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations. A
Statement of Overriding Considerations is a determination by the Council that the
economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits of the proposed project outweigh
the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts.
4
DISCUSSION
Planning Commission Action
On September 11, 2002, The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the
project. Of the seventeen members of the public that spoke, six supported and eleven
opposed the project. Opposition testimony focused principally on increased traffic
created by the project in an already congested area of the city. Most of the opposition
speakers live in the neighborhood adjacent to Lantana South and indicated that the
proposed projects would exacerbate existing unacceptable traffic conditions in and
adjacent to their residential neighborhood. In addition to public testimony, three
speakers submitted photographs showing substantial traffic backed-up on Centinela
Avenue between Exposition Boulevard and the I-10 Freeway and on Virginia Avenue
and Exposition Boulevard at Centinela Avenue.
In denying the project, the Planning Commission’s primary concern was the project’s
impact on traffic circulation in the area. Although Planning Commissioners discussed
the merits of production studio projects in the Olympic Corridor, the inability to resolve
additional traffic impacts on the adjacent residential neighborhood, which is already
impacted with substantial traffic problems dominated their comments.
The Commission also discussed the staff recommendation to approve the reduced
project alternative for Lantana East. However, the applicant advised the Commission
that they considered the reduced project alternative infeasible and requested that the
Commission only consider both projects as proposed.
5
Based on the evidence before the Planning Commission, the Commission was unable
to make the findings necessary for approval of the development review permit and
Statement of Overriding Consideration for the project. Consequently, the Commission
denied the project on a 5-1 vote (one member was absent). The Planning Commission
voted to adopt a resolution to certify the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR);
however, since the City Council is now the decision-making body it must certify the EIR
prior to taking action on the proposed project that is being considered under the appeal.
The Planning Commission’s Statement of Official Action is contained in Attachment B
and the hearing Minutes are contained in Attachment C.
Development Review Permit / Neighborhood Compatibility
Lantana East
The proposal will add a third building to the eastern portion of the 7.28-acre site along
Olympic Boulevard. While the overall design of Lantana East itself is generally
compatible with adjacent development and uses, it will generate additional traffic and
parking impacts that would adversely impact the neighborhood and area traffic. As
discussed in the EIR and in this staff report, the existing collector and arterial roadway
system cannot accommodate the additional traffic that would be generated by this
project. The project is not compatible with the neighborhood because of the increased
traffic impacts.
Lantana South
The proposal will add a second building to the east half of the 4.99-acre site along
Exposition Boulevard. Although from a design perspective, Lantana South is generally
6
compatible with the adjacent residential neighborhood, the project will generate
additional traffic and parking impacts that would adversely impact the residential
neighborhood. As discussed in the EIR, the existing collector and arterial roadway
system cannot accommodate the additional traffic that would be generated by this
project. Accordingly, the project is not compatible with the adjacent residential
neighborhood.
Reduced Parking Permit
As shown in the following table, both projects would exceed the number of parking
spaces required by City parking standards. However, some of the spaces would be
provided in tandem with valet service pursuant to the request for a Reduced Parking
Permit.
Parking Summary
Office/
Production Parking for Parking Total
Editing Total Spaces + Surplus
(1 sp/400 Existing Code New Spaces
(1 sp/300 Provided Spaces
sq.ft.) buildings Building Required
sq.ft.)
633 853 for site
Lantana
9,616 54,489 168 801 +52
Lantana
East
West & Lantana East
Center438
665 for site
Lantana
30,543 122,178 178 407 585 +80
South
Lantana South
589
SMMC Section 9.04.20.26.030 (c) allows commercial and industrial uses to provide up to
20% of the required parking in a tandem arrangement provided the development
requires 250 or more parking spaces and an attendant is on duty during business hours.
Including retained parking spaces at Lantana West and Center, the site will have 853
total spaces. The applicant has requested a Reduced Parking Permit that would allow
7
120 of the parking spaces in Lantana East’s garage to be arranged in tandem. The
Lantana West garage has 50 tandem spaces. Including Lantana West, the site would
have 170 tandem spaces, which represents 19.9% of the 853 total spaces.
Lantana South proposes 57 tandem spaces. The 57 spaces represent 8.5% of the total
665 spaces. Parking attendants are necessary to ensure that the tandem capacity is
used appropriately and efficiently during business hours. Both projects comply with the
Reduced Parking Permit criteria.
Free Employee Parking
Residential districts are located north of Nebraska Avenue and south of Exposition
Boulevard. These residential streets are already impacted from overflow parking that is
generated by other industrial and commercial uses in the area. Impact on these limited
on-parking resources is an issue the EIR identifies as a potentially significant
environmental impact for both the Lantana East and South projects.
Although the City usually promotes the use of paid parking to encourage ridesharing
and alternative transportation, in this case providing free parking to employees of
Lantana East and South would encourage employees to use on-site parking. As
discussed in Section 4.10, Transportation/Traffic and Section 4-11, Neighborhood
Effects of the EIR, providing free parking to the employees of Lantana South and East
to encourage on-site parking, and reserving the public street parking currently available
on Exposition Boulevard in front of Lantana South for residents if a preferential parking
district is adopted in the future would mitigate impacts on neighborhood parking.
8
Consistency with the General Plan
Both projects are located in the Light Manufacturing and Studio District (LMSD) Zone.
The underlying Land Use Element designation of the General Plan for the LMSD Zone
is “Special Office District.” Both projects are consistent with the criteria of the LMSD
Zoning Ordinance. Both buildings minimize the use of surface parking and provide
landscaping along the street frontages. This design concept is consistent with General
Plan Policy 3.3.15, to reduce the visibility of surface parking by requiring that buildings
or landscaping form a specified percentage of the street façade on major arterials and
Policy 3.4.9 to require landscaped open space visible from the street, including
landscaped setbacks from the street, in order to create a “garden office” or “campus”
environment. Encourage usable open space. The proposal will replace two surface
parking lots with contemporary buildings. The proposed buildings would become the
final buildings on each of the Lantana studio campuses. The proposed campus
buildings are compatible with the existing building and would further improve the
“garden office / campus” environments of both sites.
Lantana East
Traffic from Lantana East will not impact the residential neighborhood in the same way,
or to the degree of significance as Lantana South because vehicle access to Lantana
East is limited to Olympic Boulevard and does not have convenient access to the
residential neighborhood south of Exposition Boulevard. Since significant traffic
incursion into the residential neighborhood from this project is unlikely and providing
free employee parking will mitigate potential employee parking impacts, Lantana East is
9
consistent with General Plan Objective 3.2, which calls for the protection of the scale
and character of residential neighborhoods that are adjacent to commercial areas and
Circulation Element Objective 4.2 to protect the environment on local residential streets
by minimizing the intrusion of vehicular traffic and parking into residential
neighborhoods.
Lantana South
Unlike Lantana East, Lantana South is located adjacent to a residential neighborhood.
The only street access to Lantana South is Exposition Boulevard, which also provides
access to residents along its south frontage and four local streets into the residential
neighborhood. During peak traffic periods it is more convenient to drive through this
residential neighborhood and avoid traffic congestion at the intersection of Centinela
Avenue and Exposition Boulevard. There are no feasible mitigation measures to prevent
Lantana South traffic from driving through the residential neighborhood. Since additional
traffic incursion into the residential neighborhood from this project is likely, Lantana
South is inconsistent with General Plan Objective 3.2, which calls for the protection of
the scale and character of residential neighborhoods that are adjacent to commercial
areas and Circulation Element Objective 4.2 to protect the environment on local
residential streets by minimizing the intrusion of vehicular traffic and parking into
residential neighborhoods.
CEQA STATUS
An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for the proposed project in
accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Notice of
10
Availability of 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 February 25, 2002 for the public review period, which closed on April 15, 2002. A
total of 11 comment letters on the draft EIR were received. These comment letters, as
well as the response to comments, are included in Appendix E of the Final EIR
(Attachment I). The California Department of Transportation (CALTRANS) submitted a
second comment on the Draft EIR after the submittal deadline prescribed by CEQA.
The response to the CALTRANS comment letter is contained in Response to Late
Comment section in the Planning Commission Staff Report, Attachment A.
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, Notice of Preparation (NOP), responses to the NOP, and scoping
discussions with CALTRANS, Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LA DOT) and
City staff.
The environmental study determined that the proposed project would have minimal, or
no impacts on eight environmental categories. Because potential effects on these
impacts were found not to be significant, extensive analysis of these impacts is not
required or provided in the EIR:
Biological Resources Mineral resources
Cultural Resources Public Services
Hazards and Hazardous Materials Utilities
Hydrology and Water Quality Agricultural Resources
The IS/NOP identified potentially significant impacts on the following issue areas
11
associated with the construction and/or operation of the proposed project, which are
addressed in detail in the EIR:
Aesthetics/Light & Glare Population and Housing
Air Quality Recreation
Construction Effects Shadow
Geology, Soils, and Hydrology Transportation/Circulation
Land Use Neighborhood Effects
Noise
The EIR analyzed the issues referenced above and identified potentially significant
environmental impacts, including site-specific and cumulative effects of the project in
accordance with the provisions set forth in the CEQA Guidelines. The EIR also
recommends feasible mitigation measures, where possible. To be feasible, the
mitigation measure must eliminate or reduce the adverse effect so that its impact would
be considered less than significant pursuant to City and CEQA significance criteria. The
EIR recommends mitigation measures that will reduce impacts to less than significant
levels for the following impact areas:
Aesthetics Noise
Construction Effects Transportation/Traffic
Geology Neighborhood Effects
Land Use
However, as discussed below, not all of the significant, unavoidable and adverse
impacts in the areas of Traffic/Circulation and traffic related Neighborhood Effects can
be mitigated.
Traffic/Circulation
The project site is bordered on the north by Olympic Boulevard (an arterial), and is
generally bordered on its other three sides by Stewart Street (a collector), Exposition
Boulevard (a local street), and Centinela Avenue (a collector). Major freeways near the
12
site include Interstate 10 (Santa Monica Freeway) to the south and Interstate 405 (San
Diego Freeway) to the east.
The proposed projects would generate approximately 1,967 average daily trips. The
increase in vehicles traveling on the surrounding roadway network would result in
significant and unavoidable impact to 4 intersections and two street segments in the
project vicinity while impacts to 7 intersections could be reduced to less than significant
levels by improving roadway capacity.
The proposed projects, taken individually or as a whole, will generate traffic impacts that
are considered significant and unavoidable to the following intersections and street
segments:
Intersections
?
Centinela Ave. at Exposition Blvd. (L.A. intersection)
?
Centinela Ave. at I-10 westbound on/off ramp (S.M. & L.A. intersection)
?
Centinela Ave. at Pico Blvd.
?
Olympic Blvd. & Bundy Dr. (L.A. intersection)
Local Streets
?
Exposition Blvd. between Centinela Ave. & Stewart St.
?
Warwick Avenue between Exposition Blvd. & Virginia Ave.
Although operational traffic from either project would adversely impact the residential
neighborhood to the south of Exposition Boulevard, traffic from Lantana East would not
have the same impact as Lantana South due to its location on Olympic Boulevard.
There is no vehicle access between Lantana East and South because they are
13
separated by the MTA right-of-way. Traffic incursions from Lantana East would be
minimal because vehicle access to and from Lantana East is limited to Olympic
Boulevard and access to the residential neighborhood south of Exposition Boulevard is
less than convenient. Accordingly, traffic impacts from Lantana East would be at a much
lower intensity compared to impacts from Lantana South, which is adjacent to
Exposition Boulevard, Warwick Avenue and the residential neighborhood. However,
Lantana East and South would have similar impacts on other intersections and collector
street segment.
These impacts are significant and unavoidable because inadequate right-of-way width
makes mitigation measures that would increase capacity infeasible. In the case of the
roadways that are in the City of Los Angeles or under CALTRANS jurisdiction, those
agencies will not allow the improvements and the City does not have the ability to
implement such improvements outside the City of Santa Monica’s jurisdiction. Some
significant intersection impacts within the City, could be mitigated by adding a turn lane
to one or more intersection approaches; however, this type of improvement would
require the removal of on-street parking and/or narrowing of the sidewalk to
accommodate physical widening of the street. As detailed below, these measures would
result in negative impacts to the area, including impacts to the residential neighborhood
context, and to pedestrian access through and around the area.
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
14
in an area where parking is at a premium for nearby residents and businesses. 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 full discussion of the extent and scope of traffic impacts and mitigation measures
can be found on pages 4.10-1 through 4.10-22 of the EIR. Additional traffic analysis is
provided in the Response to Comments from the public on the Draft EIR (includes the
comment letters) which is contained in Appendix E of the Final EIR.
Neighborhood Effects
Both the proposed Lantana East and South projects may result in short-term effects on
surrounding neighborhoods during the construction period in the areas of air quality,
noise, and truck parking and queuing. These are considered to be significant, but
mitigable. Long-term effects to surrounding residential neighborhoods from traffic and
employee parking are considered to be significant. As discussed in the parking section
of this report, providing free employee parking would mitigate impacts that are related to
employees parking in the residential neighborhood.
The project trip assignment identified by the traffic report is primarily to the east and
almost exclusively on the arterial and collector roadways. However, vehicle access to
Lantana South is limited to Exposition Boulevard, which is a local street. Residential
land uses exist to the south of the Lantana South site and project traffic from Lantana
15
South would use the residential streets to gain access to and from the regional arterial
and freeway system. There are four north/south residential streets between Stewart
Street and Centinela Avenue that provide access to the adjacent residential
th
neighborhood: Yorkshire Avenue, Dorchester Avenue, Warwick Avenue and 34 Street.
Additional residential areas lie further south on Stewart Avenue, along direct traffic
routes that connect the project site to Pico Boulevard and Ocean Park Boulevard. The
Lantana South building would use two of the three existing driveways onto Exposition
Boulevard. The west driveway would primarily serve the existing Verizon/GTE
maintenance yard and IMAX building and is aligned with Dorchester Avenue. Cars
exiting the new parking garage from this driveway could then conveniently use
Dorchester Avenue and other residential roadways for freeway access. This increased
use of residential streets would occur during peak traffic periods when the intersection
of Exposition Boulevard and Centinela Avenue is most impacted. To mitigate this
potential impact, on-site circulation at Lantana South could be redesigned to restrict
vehicles exiting the new parking garage from using the westerly driveway.
The existing driveway at the middle of the lot is proposed to be removed and traffic to
and from the new building would use the east driveway, which is relatively close to
Centinela Avenue (approximately 320’). Since most employees and visitors would
approach the site from the Santa Monica Freeway via Centinela Avenue, the proximity
of the east driveway would encourage drivers to use Exposition Boulevard to reach
Centinela Avenue, rather than cutting through the residential neighborhood. However,
heavy cross traffic makes it difficult to enter Centinela Avenue from Exposition
Boulevard during peak traffic periods. As a result, additional traffic would cut through the
16
residential neighborhood to avoid excessive stacking and delays at this intersection. A
traffic signal at the Exposition/Centinela intersection is recommended to mitigate this
impact.Signalization of this intersection would allow for more efficient access to and
from the Lantana South site via Centinela and Exposition. However,Centinela Avenue
is in the City of Los Angeles and they must approve any right-of-way improvements.
This proposal was reviewed with the City of Los Angeles. The LADOT indicated that
they would not allow implementation of the proposed mitigation measure. Accordingly,
these impacts are considered significant and unavoidable.
Commenter’s on the Draft EIR suggested blocking residential streets to resolve the cut-
through traffic problem. Exposition Boulevard is a local street; it is intended to provide
access to residents along the south side of the street and other neighborhood streets.
Restricting access from Exposition Boulevard into the residential neighborhood would
prevent cut-though traffic. However, the City’s neighborhood traffic program specifically
discourages the use of street closures to divert traffic. While these measures reduce
traffic on some local streets, they also redistribute traffic to other local streets. Such
measures can benefit some residents, but can also negatively impact others. Allowing
turns onto and off of Exposition Boulevard only at Stewart Street and Centinela Avenue
would also block convenient access points to some residents. This would increase
traffic at the remaining open intersections, as well as increasing vehicle miles traveled.
Changing street circulation requires additional traffic study and amendment of the
General Plan Circulation Element.
17
Although operational traffic from either project would adversely impact the residential
neighborhood to the south of Exposition Boulevard, traffic from Lantana East would not
have the same impact as Lantana South due to its location on Olympic Boulevard.
There is no vehicle access between Lantana East and South because they are
separated by the MTA right-of-way. Traffic incursions from Lantana East would be
minimal because vehicle access to and from Lantana East is limited to Olympic
Boulevard and access to the residential neighborhood south of Exposition Boulevard or
north of Nebraska Avenue is not convenient. While any cut-through traffic is considered
significant, traffic impacts from Lantana East would be at a much lower intensity
compared to impacts from Lantana South, which is adjacent to Exposition Boulevard,
Warwick Avenue and the residential neighborhood.
The full discussion of neighborhood impacts and mitigation measures can be found on
pages 4.11-1 through 4.11-10 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
18
of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations,
jurisdictional boundaries, and whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control or
otherwise have access to the alternative site.
In compliance with CEQA, the EIR analyzed the following alternatives:
?
No Project
?
Reduced Project Size
?
Mixed Use Project
?
Alternative Site
?
Environmentally Superior 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 Project Alternative, which results in a reduction in adverse impacts with
respect to transportation/traffic effects, but does not reduce them to a level where they
are less than significant.
Reduced Project Size
This alternative would have the same basic development footprint as the proposed
project, but would reduce the total floor area by approximately 40%. Under this
alternative, overall building area of both buildings would be reduced from the proposed
19
project size of 216,826 square feet to approximately 130,000 square feet. The Lantana
East building would be reduced to two-stories. Under this alternative, Lantana East
would contain 5,775 square feet of office space and 32,725 square feet of production
space for a total of 38,500 square feet.
Lantana South would also be reduced to two-stories. The first floor would contain
52,500 square feet and the second floor would be reduced to 39,000 square feet.
Lantana South would contain approximately 18,300 square feet of office space and
73,200 square feet of production space for a total of 91,500 square feet, a reduction of
60,500 square feet over that of the proposed project.
This project alternative would result in reduced impacts, however significant and
unavoidable traffic and neighbor effects would remain for both, or either project, but to a
lesser degree.
Statement of Overriding Considerations
Public benefits derived from the project include: a prominent, well designed project that
implements City urban design policies to create an architecturally distinctive gateway
along one of the City’s prominent boulevards; payment of a parks mitigation fee; and
development of a project that exceeds Green Building standards to qualify as a Lead
Pilot Project. However, as proposed, staff cannot support a Statement of Overriding
Considerations for approval of the projects as required by CEQA since the proposed
projects (together, or individually) have significant and unavoidable environmental
20
impacts that outweigh these benefits.
Staff does believe that, because of its location on Olympic Boulevard, the reduced
project alternative for Lantana East would not have the same traffic impacts on
Exposition Boulevard and the residential streets to the south as would the Lantana
South project. Although traffic impacts would still be significant at 4 intersections, the
magnitude of these impacts would be greatly reduced, and consequently, staff can
support a Statement of Overriding Considerations for approval of the environmentally
superior, reduced Lantana East project alternative. As previously discussed, the
applicant informed the Planning Commission not to consider the reduced project
alternative considered.
Staff notes that the applicant/appellant forwarded to staff findings for a Statement of
Overriding Considerations.
Appeal Analysis
The appeal statement of the applicant/appellant, which covers the appeals of the
Planning Commission denial of both the Lantana East and Lantana South projects
states that “the findings made by the Planning Commission in denying the application
were not supported by the evidence in the record.” Staff disagrees. The EIR, Staff
Report and testimony and photographic evidence submitted by the public supports the
Planning Commission’s decision. The applicant/appellant believes that the proposed
projects provide benefits that outweigh the adverse environmental impacts that would
be generated by the projects and have submitted a list of project benefits with their
21
Appeal Statement that they believe would justify a Statement of Overriding
Considerations that would allow the City Council to approve both projects. The appeal
statement of the applicant/appellant is contained in Attachment D.
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 number 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 and all recognized neighborhood groups
at least ten consecutive calendar days prior to the hearing and published in the
“California” section of the Los Angeles Times. A copy of the notice is contained in
Attachment E. Additionally, the applicant held at least three meetings in the IMAX
building to present the projects to the neighbors.
Conclusion
Both projects are consistent with the intent and purpose of the LMSD area. Both buildings
are setback from the street and incorporate “Office Garden” design features. Their shape
and overall mass are compatible with adjacent development and land uses. A number of
22
Green Building standards, including maximizing natural lighting, natural ventilation from
operable windows and permeable paving are proposed. With the approval of Reduced
Parking Permits, both projects comply with all city Zoning Ordinance regulations and are
consistent with the policies of the General Plan.
However, the proposed projects, taken individually or as a whole, will generate traffic
impacts that would adversely impact a number of streets and intersections. As
discussed in the traffic and neighborhood sections of the EIR, the project is within an
area of the City already heavily impacted by traffic. Traffic impact would be particularly
acute on Centinela Avenue and Exposition Boulevard. As a result, many drivers stuck in
traffic on Centinela Avenue and Exposition Boulevard would cut-through the residential
neighborhood to avoid the intersection of Centinela Avenue and Exposition Boulevard
and traffic backed up on Centinela Avenue at the I-10 westbound on and off ramps.
All traffic impacts cannot be mitigated to an acceptable level. As discussed in the EIR,
the existing collector and arterial roadway system cannot accommodate the additional
traffic that would be generated by these projects. There is inadequate right-of-way width
or other constraints that do not allow additional traffic lanes or signal improvements to
mitigate anticipated impacts. Traffic impacts would be particularly acute on Centinela
Avenue between Olympic Boulevard and the I-10 freeway, which is the route that
employees and visitors to Lantana East and South would use to and from the freeway.
Implementing potential improvements on Centinela Avenue is further complicated
because Centinela Avenue is located in the City of Los Angeles which has determined
that potential improvements that could reduce impacts are not acceptable to them. As a
23
result, there are no feasible measures to reduce traffic impacts on Centinela Avenue
and four other intersections to acceptable levels.
Both the proposed project and reduced size alternative would result in unavoidable
adverse environmental impacts. Therefore, neither project can be approved unless a
Statement of Overriding Considerations is adopted. The public benefits derived from the
project would be that: the project is well designed and will use Green Building
standards. Weighed against the fact that the projects would have significant traffic
impacts which affect the nearby arterial, collector and local streets and the adjacent
residential neighborhood, the Planning Commission and staff cannot support adoption
of a Statement of Overriding Considerations
and approval of the projects as proposed.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT
The recommendation presented in this report does not have any budget or fiscal impact
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City 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 Development Review Permit application 99-010 and Reduced Parking
Permit application 99-003 for the Lantana East; and;
3. Deny Development Review Permit application 99-011 and Reduced Parking
Permit 99-004 for the Lantana South project.
24
FINDINGS
:
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FINDINGS – Lantana East (DR 99-010)
1. The physical location, size, massing, and placement of the proposed structure on
the site and the location of the proposed uses within the project are not
compatible with and does not relate harmoniously to surrounding sites and
neighborhoods, in that the proposed 3-story, 64,105 square foot entertainment
production facility, with 438 parking spaces, is located on Olympic Boulevard, an
arterial street, between Stewart Street and Centinela Avenue. The project is
within an area of the City already heavily impacted by traffic. The project itself
would generate approximately 513 daily vehicle trips. Approximately 78 trips
would occur during the AM peak hour, and 72 trips would occur during the PM
peak hours. The project’s traffic would result in significant and unavoidable
impacts to five intersections and two street segments. Four of the intersections
are projected to be at level of service (LOS) F, (failure, where backups in traffic
may restrict or prevent movement of vehicles out of the intersection approaches).
As identified in the EIR, the existing local, collector and arterial roadway system
cannot accommodate the additional traffic that would be generated by this
project. There is inadequate right-of-way width and other constraints that do not
allow additional traffic lanes or signal improvements to mitigate anticipated
impacts. Traffic impact would be particularly acute on Centinela Avenue and at
the intersection of Exposition Boulevard and Centinela Avenue, and Centinela
Avenue and the I-10 Freeway. This is the route Lantana East traffic would use to
access the Route I-10 freeway and other arterial streets. Implementing potential
improvements on Centinela Avenue is not feasible because Centinela Avenue is
located in the City of Los Angeles and the Los Angeles Department of
Transportation has determined that potential improvements that could reduce
impacts are not acceptable. As a result, traffic on Centinela Avenue and
connecting streets including Exposition Boulevard and Virginia Avenue would be
adversely impacted.
2. The rights-of-way cannot accommodate autos and pedestrians, including parking
and access, in that the proposed project is located within an area of the City
already heavily impacted by traffic. Four of the seven intersections are projected
to be at level of service (LOS) F, (failure, where backups in traffic may restrict or
prevent movement of vehicles out of the intersection approaches) without the
addition of the proposed project. In addition to these existing conditions, the EIR
estimates that the proposed project would generate approximately 513 daily trips.
Approximately 78 trips would occur during the AM peak hour, and 72 trips would
occur during the PM peak hour from Lantana East. As identified in the EIR, the
existing local, collector and arterial roadway system cannot accommodate the
additional traffic that would be generated by this project. This impact is
particularly acute on Centinela Avenue and at the intersection of Exposition
Boulevard and Centinela Avenue. This is the route Lantana East would use to
access the Route I-10 freeway. There is inadequate right-of-way width or other
constraints that do not allow additional traffic lanes or signal improvements to
mitigate anticipated impacts. Implementing potential improvements on Centinela
25
Avenue is further complicated because Centinela Avenue is in the City of Los
Angeles and the Los Angeles DOT has determined that potential improvements
that could mitigate impacts are not acceptable.
3. The Lantana East project would result in significant effects on the environment
which cannot be eliminated or substantially lessened and these significant
environmental effects are not acceptable due to overriding considerations. More
specifically, this project has significant, unavoidable traffic impacts. Although the
public benefits from the project would include a prominent well designed project
that implements City urban design policies to create architecturally distinctive
gateway and development of a project that exceeds Green Building standards to
qualify as a Lead Pilot Project, the significant and unavoidable traffic impacts
outweigh these benefits. Consequently, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15092(b),
the project cannot be approved.
Reduced Parking Permit Findings – RPP 99-003, Lantana South
1. Approval of the Reduced Parking Permit is contingent on the production studio
project being approved pursuant to Development Review Permit 99-010. Since
Development Review Permit 99-010 is denied, Reduced Parking Permit 99-003
is also denied.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FINDINGS – Lantana South (DR 99-011)
1. The physical location, size, massing, and placement of the proposed structure on
the site and the location of the proposed uses within the project are not
compatible with and does not relate harmoniously to surrounding sites and
neighborhoods, in that the proposed 3-story, 152,721 square foot entertainment
production facility, with 665 parking spaces, is located on Exposition Boulevard, a
local street, adjacent to a residential neighborhood. The project is within an area
of the City already heavily impacted by traffic. The project itself would generate
approximately 1,453 daily vehicle trips. Approximately 214 trips would occur
during the AM peak hour, and 171 trips would occur during the PM peak hours.
The project’s traffic would result in significant and unavoidable impacts to five
intersections and two street segments. Four of the intersections are projected to
be at level of service (LOS) F, (failure, where backups in traffic may restrict or
prevent movement of vehicles out of the intersection approaches). The proposed
project would also have significant and unavoidable adverse impacts on two
street segments, increasing Average Daily Trips (ADT) by 20.8% on Exposition
Boulevard, 66.7% on Warwick Avenue and 22.2% on Virginia Avenue. As
identified in the EIR, the existing local, collector and arterial roadway system
cannot accommodate the additional traffic that would be generated by this
project. There is inadequate right-of-way width and other constraints that do not
allow additional traffic lanes or signal improvements to mitigate anticipated
impacts. Traffic impact would be particularly acute on Exposition Boulevard and
Centinela Avenue and at the intersections of Exposition Boulevard and Centinela
Avenue and Centinela Avenue and the I-10 Freeway onramp and off-ramp. This
is the route Lantana South would use to access the Route I-10 freeway and
26
arterial streets. Implementing potential improvements on Centinela Avenue is not
feasible because Centinela Avenue is located in the City of Los Angeles and the
Los Angeles Department of Transportation has determined that potential
improvements that could reduce impacts are not acceptable. As a result, traffic
on Centinela Avenue and Exposition Boulevard would be adversely impacted,
causing many drivers to try to access or leave the Lantana South site by cutting-
through the residential neighborhood to avoid the intersection of Centinela
Avenue and Exposition Boulevard.
2. The rights-of-way cannot accommodate autos and pedestrians, including parking
and access, in that the proposed project is located within an area of the City
already heavily impacted by traffic. Four of the seven intersections are projected
to be at level of service (LOS) F, (failure, where backups in traffic may restrict or
prevent movement of vehicles out of the intersection approaches) without the
addition of the proposed project. In addition to these existing conditions, the EIR
estimates that the proposed project would generate approximately 1,453 daily
trips. Approximately 214 trips would occur during the AM peak hour, and 171
trips would occur during the PM peak hour from Lantana South.The proposed
project would increase Average Daily Trips (ADT) by 20.8% on Exposition
Boulevard, 66.7% on Warwick Avenue and 22.2% on Virginia Avenue. As
identified in the EIR, the existing local, collector and arterial roadway system
cannot accommodate the additional traffic that would be generated by this
project. This impact is particularly acute on Centinela Avenue and at the
intersection of Exposition Boulevard and Centinela Avenue, and Centinela
Avenue and the I-10 Freeway. This is the route Lantana South would use to
access the Route I-10 freeway. There is inadequate right-of-way width or other
constraints that do not allow additional traffic lanes or signal improvements to
mitigate anticipated impacts. Implementing potential improvements on Centinela
Avenue is further complicated because Centinela Avenue is in the City of Los
Angeles and the Los Angeles DOT has determined that potential improvements
that could mitigate impacts are not acceptable. As a result, many drivers trying to
access or leave the Lantana South site would cut-through the residential
neighborhood to avoid the intersection of Centinela Avenue and Exposition
Boulevard.
3. The Lantana South project is generally consistent with the Municipal Code, but is
not consistent with the General Plan, in that Lantana South is located adjacent to
a residential neighborhood. The only street access to Lantana South is
Exposition Boulevard, a local street which also provides access to residents
along its south frontage and four local streets into the residential neighborhood.
The project is within an area of the City already heavily impacted by traffic. The
project itself would generate approximately 1,453 daily vehicle trips.
Approximately 214 trips would occur during the AM peak hour, and 171 trips
would occur during the PM peak hours. The proposed project would increase
Average Daily Trips (ADT) by 20.8% on Exposition Boulevard, 66.7% on
Warwick Avenue and 22.2% on Virginia Avenue. As identified in the EIR, the
existing local, collector and arterial roadway system cannot accommodate the
additional traffic that would be generated by this project. There is inadequate
27
right-of-way width and other constraints that do not allow additional traffic lanes
or signal improvements to mitigate anticipated impacts. Traffic impact would be
particularly acute on Exposition Boulevard and Centinela Avenue and at the
intersections of Exposition Boulevard and Centinela Avenue and Centinela
Avenue and the I-10 Freeway on and off ramps. This is the route Lantana South
would use to access the Route I-10 freeway and arterial streets. Implementing
potential improvements on Centinela Avenue is not feasible because Centinela
Avenue is located in the City of Los Angeles and the Los Angeles Department of
Transportation has determined that potential improvements that could reduce
impacts are not acceptable. As a result, traffic on Centinela Avenue and
Exposition Boulevard would be adversely impacted, causing many drivers to try
to access or leave the Lantana South site by cutting-through the residential
neighborhood to avoid the intersection of Centinela Avenue and Exposition
Boulevard. There are no feasible mitigation measures to prevent Lantana South
traffic from driving trough the residential neighborhood. During peak traffic
periods it will be more convenient to drive through this residential neighborhood
to avoid traffic congestion at the intersection of Centinela Avenue and Exposition
Boulevard. Since a significant level of traffic volume will intrude into the
residential neighborhood from this project, Lantana South is inconsistent with
General Plan Objective 3.2, which calls for the protection of the scale and
character of residential neighborhoods that are adjacent to commercial areas and
Circulation Element Objective 4.2 to protect the environment on local residential
streets by minimizing the intrusion of vehicular traffic and parking into residential
neighborhoods.
4. The Lantana South project would result in significant effects on the environment
which cannot be eliminated or substantially lessened and these significant
environmental effects are not acceptable due to overriding considerations. More
specifically, this project has significant, unavoidable traffic impacts. Although the
public benefits from the project would include a prominent well designed project
that implements City urban design policies to create architecturally distinctive
gateway and development of a project that exceeds Green Building standards to
qualify as a Lead Pilot Project, the significant and unavoidable traffic impacts
outweigh these benefits. Consequently, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15092(b),
the project cannot be approved.
Reduced Parking Permit Findings – Lantana South (RPP 99-004)
1. Approval of the Reduced Parking Permit is contingent on the production studio
project being approved pursuant to Development Review Permit 99-011. Since
Development Review Permit 99-011 is denied, Reduced Parking Permit 99-004
is also denied.
Prepared by: Suzanne Frick, Director
Jay M. Trevino, AICP, Planning Manager
Amanda Schachter, Principal Planner
Paul Foley, Senior Planner
28
Bruce Leach, Associate Planner
City Planning Division
Planning and Community Development Department
Attachments
A. Planning Commission staff report, dated September 11, 2002
B. Draft Planning Commission Statements of Official Action
C. Minutes of the September 11, 2002 Planning Commission Hearing
D. Appeal Statements
E. Public Hearing Notice
F. Resolution certifying the FEIR
G. Correspondence
H. East and West Project Plans with Photographs of Project Sites and Surrounding
Properties
I. Final Environmental Impact Report
bl:jt:SF
F:\Pland\Share\Council\Strpt\02\AppealLantana1
July 5, 2007
29