The URL can be used to link to this page

SR-410-021 (3) ATTACHMENT A Planning Commission staff report, dated September 11, 2002 CP:JT:AS:PF:BL:f:\plan\share\pc\stfpt\99\99drLlantana.doc Planning Commission Meeting: September 11, 2002 Santa Monica, California TO: The Honorable Planning Commission FROM: Planning Staff SUBJECT: Development Review Permits 99-010 and Reduced Parking Permit 99-003 Development Review Permits 99-011 and Reduced Parking Permit 99-004 Address: 3030 Olympic Boulevard (Lantana East) (DR 99-010; RPP 99-003) 3131 Exposition Boulevard (Lantana South) (DR 99-011; RPP 99-004) Applicant: Lantana Hines Development Property Owner: Lantana North & South Hines Development INTRODUCTION Development Review Permits (DR) and Reduced Parking Permits (RPP) to allow the construction of two studio buildings on noncontiguous parcels which are under common ownership. Approval of DR 99-010 and RPP 99-003 would allow construction of a new three-story, 64,105 square foot entertainment production/post-production studio building with a two-level 438-space subterranean parking garage at 3030 Olympic Boulevard (Lantana East). The Reduced Parking Permit would allow up to 120 of the parking spaces to be in tandem. Approval of DR 99-011 and RPP 99-004 would allow construction of a new three-story, 152,721 square foot entertainment production/post-production studio building with a two- level 665-space subterranean parking garage at 3131 Exposition Boulevard (Lantana South). The Reduced Parking Permit would allow up to 57 of the parking spaces to be in tandem. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared that examines the potential environmental impacts of the proposed projects. The projects would generate significant and unavoidable traffic impacts at four intersections, three street segments and would increase the amount of through traffic in the residential neighborhood south of Exposition Boulevard. Recommended Action: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the following actions: 1. Adopt a resolution certifying the Environmental Impact Report; 2. Continue Development Review Permit application 99-010 and Reduced Parking Permit application 99-003 for Lantana East to enable the applicant to redesign the project consistent with the environmentally superior reduced project alternative. Adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations and Mitigation Monitoring Program will be evaluated with the redesigned project; and 3. Deny Development Review Permit 99-011 and Reduced Parking Permit 99-004 for Lantana South. Permit Streamlining Expiration Date: 180 days from certification of the Environmental Impact Report, pursuant to Government Code Section 65950. SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION The Lantana East site, located at 3030 Olympic Boulevard, has 1,370’ of frontage on the south side of Olympic Boulevard, 128’ of frontage on Stewart Street and contains 7.26 acres. The subject site is currently developed with two and three story entertainment studio buildings (Lantana West and Center) containing 251,906 square feet of floor area with 632 parking spaces. The Lantana South site, located at 3131 Exposition Boulevard, has 726’ of frontage on th the 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. Adjacent uses are: ? North, across Olympic Boulevard, single and two story office, entertainment production and a private school, LMSD (Light Manufacturing Studio) District; ? South, across Exposition Boulevard, one and two story, single and multi-family units, R1, (Single-Family Residential) and R2 (Low Density Multiple Residential) Districts; ? East, single story industrial, automobile service and TV production, LMSD (Light Manufacturing Studio) District; ? West, Across Stewart Street, single and two story entertainment production facilities, LMSD (Light Manufacturing Studio) District; and ? The 100’ wide MTA Public Transportation right-of-way which separates the sites, is used for temporary parking and a temporary television stage set, in the LMSD (Light Manufacturing Studio) District; Zoning District: LMSD (Light Manufacturing Studio District) Land Use District: Specialty Office District Parcel Area: 7.26 Acres, Lantana East, Center & West 4.99 Acres, Lantana South 12.25 Acres Total PROJECT DESCRIPTION Both project sites 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 space). Parking will be provided in 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. The subject project is referred to as Lantana East. The following discretionary approvals have been requested for Lantana East: Development Review Permit 99-010 to permit building in excess of 30,000 square feet in the LMSD (Light Manufacturing Studio District) and Reduced Parking Permit 99-003 to allow 120 parking spaces to have tandem access with valet service Lantana South Lantana South would contain 30,543 square feet of office/editing space and 122,177 square feet of production space, totaling 152,721 square feet. Parking will be provided by a two level, 575-space subterranean parking garage plus 14 surface spaces for a total of 589 spaces. With existing IMAX surface parking, the site would provide a total of 665 parking spaces. The following discretionary approvals have been requested for Lantana South: Development Review Permit 99-011 to permit building in excess of 30,000 square feet in the LMSD and Reduced Parking Permit 99-004 to allow 57 parking spaces in Lantana South to have tandem access with valet service. MUNICIPAL CODE CONFORMANCE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE With approval of the Reduced Parking Permits, the design of both projects would comply with the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan as shown in Attachments A for Lantana East and Attachment B for Lantana South. HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY STATUS The subject properties are not listed in the City’s Historic Resources Inventory. RENT CONTROL STATUS The subject site is commercial property exempt from Rent Control. FEES Pursuant to Mitigation Measure REC-1, the project shall pay a parks mitigation fee in the amount of $120,212.64, 25% of which is attributed to Lantana East and 75% of which is attributable to Lantana South ($30,053 East and $90,159 South). This fee is based on the size of the buildings as proposed. If the size of the project changes, the fee would be adjusted in proportion to the decrease in floor area. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 9.04.20.20.080, within 15 days after the subject application was determined to be 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 site, 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 Angeles Times. A copy of the notice is contained in Attachment C. The applicant also held at least three meetings where adjacent neighbors were invited to review project plans and discuss the proposal. The applicant was informed of the subject hearing date in writing on August 22, 2002. The applicant submitted evidence that the on-site sign was updated on August 13, 2002. ANALYSIS Background The Lantana East project site is currently used as a surface parking lot containing 218 spaces for the Lantana Center building. As shown on the Site Orientation map (Page BD-2 of Attachment G), the Lantana East site would be the third building of a three building entertainment production campus: Lantana East, Center and West. The Lantana Center building was converted to entertainment production from a manufacturing use in the 1989. Lantana West, which received approval of DR 97-019 and VAR 99-006 in June 1999,was completed in 2001. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was certified for the Lantana West project on June 16, 1999. The Lantana South site was previously used for a public utility maintenance yard (GTE), an industrial truck terminal, truck maintenance, as well as a film equipment storage lot on the eastern portion of the site. Shortly after acquiring the property, the applicant converted the industrial maintenance building to the current IMAX film production and film distribution building pursuant to Administrative Approval 99-013, which was issued on April 13, 1999. Most of the area that had been used for truck parking and storage was converted to the current 157 space surface parking lot. There are no Code violations on either property. The Lantana South and East projects are separated by the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s (MTA) Transportation right-of-way (see the Site Orientation map contained in Attachment G). Even though these projects are on separate parcels of land, they are directly related by common ownership/applicant, are in close proximity to each other the applications for the two projects have been processed concurrently and the projects will be developed within the same relative time period. Consequently, the proposed project for purposes of CEQA analysis consists of the Lantana East and South projects in combination. Project Design Lantana East The proposal will add a third building to the eastern portion of the 7.28-acre site along Olympic Boulevard. The proposed building would be setback 20’ from Olympic Boulevard, 24.6’ from the east property line and 94.08’ from the property line abutting the MTA right-of-way. It will have 60’ of separation from the Lantana Center building. The three-story building provides 2 levels of subterranean parking containing 383 parking spaces. Roof parapet screen walls are provided to screen roof mounted mechanical equipment as well as future equipment associated with entertainment production facilities, such as antennas for electronic media. The contemporary façade is articulated by changes in wall plane, balconies, recessed windows and the use of different finish materials and colors. Varied roof parapet lines also enhance the building’s contemporary design. Interior plans will be developed in the future based on tenant needs. The building is designed to accommodate a single or multiple tenants. The primary pedestrian entrances are from the subterranean parking garage and the south parking lot. There is no pedestrian access from Olympic Boulevard. A secondary pedestrian entrance/emergency exit is located on the east side of the building. Surface parking will also be located between the building and the MTA right-of-way. The 20’ front yard setback eliminates existing parking and provides for landscaping. The setback and landscaping enhances the project’s appearance from the street and 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. Vehicle access to Lantana East parking will be from a wider driveway at the current location, which is located between the proposed building and the existing Lantana Center building. The existing landscaped median dividing eastbound and westbound traffic on Olympic Boulevard prohibits left turns in or out of the site. An additional driveway is located between Lantana Center and West, with a third driveway on Stewart Street. These driveways primarily provide access to the Lantana Center and West buildings. Lantana South The proposal will add a second building to the east half of the 4.99-acre site along Exposition Boulevard. The new U-shaped building will be setback 40’ from Exposition Boulevard, 31.5’ from the east property line and 17.2’ from the rear property line. It will have over 43’ of separation from the IMAX building. The 3-story building steps down to 2-stories adjacent to Exposition Boulevard. Two levels of subterranean parking will provide 589 spaces. Roof parapet screen walls are provided to screen roof mounted mechanical equipment as well as future equipment associated with entertainment production facilities, such as antennas for electronic media. The building is designed in a “U” shape, with a center courtyard that faces the IMAX building to the west. The “U” shape, façade articulation, varied roof height and the shape of the barrel roof enhances the building’s contemporary design. Interior plans will be developed in the future based on tenant needs. The building is designed to accommodate a single or multiple tenants. The primary pedestrian entrance is from the subterranean parking garage. This is intended to encourage employees and visitors to use the parking garage and discourage on-street parking. The building will also have an entrance on the east façade near the south east corner. Other entrances face the center courtyard. Required parking for the IMAX building will be maintained on-site. However, the surface parking adjacent to the proposed site will be relocated to the subterranean garage. Although the driveway crosses from the IMAX lot to the east driveway, the 40’ building setback and elimination of parking provides ample room for landscaping. The setback and landscaping enhances the project’s appearance from the street and buffers it from the residential uses on the south side of Exposition Boulevard. The landscaped front setback and reduced surface parking is also consistent with General Plan Policy 3.3.15, to reduce the visibility of surface parking. Vehicle access to the proposed parking garage will be from a driveway at the eastern portion of the site. This access point is relatively close to Centinela Avenue. The close proximity will encourage employees and visitors to access the site via Centinela Avenue and Exposition Boulevard, but will not entirely eliminate traffic from traveling through the adjacent residential neighborhood to the south. Neighborhood traffic incursion is discussed in more detail in the EIR section of this report. A second driveway is located at the west end of the site, at Dorchester Avenue, and provides access to the IMAX building and the Verizon/GTE maintenance yard. 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. Landscaping Lantana East Landscaping is proposed along the Olympic Boulevard street frontage, as well as along the east property line and in the driveway medians. The project will provide 4,264 square feet of landscaping which exceeds Code requirements. Lantana South Landscaping is proposed along the Exposition Boulevard street frontage, as well as in front of the building, in the center courtyard and along the south property line. The project will provide 6,011 square feet of landscaping which exceeds Code requirements. If these applications are approved, details of the landscape design will be reviewed and approved by the Architectural Review Board prior to the issuance of building permits. Development Review/Neighborhood Compatibility Lantana East The proposed project would replace a surface parking lot with a contemporary building. The proposed campus building is compatible with the two existing buildings and would further improve the site’s “garden office or campus” environment. One and two story office, private school, entertainment production and industrial buildings characterize development across Olympic Boulevard to the north, and across Stewart Street to the west. Staff believes that the overall design, height, mass and location of the proposed building on the lot is compatible with the adjacent development and uses. The building’s size and mass is reduced by a combination of factors, including its 20-foot street setback; 24 and 60 foot separations from adjacent buildings; landscaping along Olympic Boulevard and the 117-foot width of Olympic Boulevard. While the overall design of Lantana East 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. Traffic impacts cannot be mitigated to an acceptable level. The project is located within an area of the City already heavily impacted by traffic. Five 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. The addition of the proposed project would exacerbate these conditions On top of these current conditions, the EIR estimates that the proposed projects would generate approximately 1,966 daily trips (513 to and from Lantana East). Approximately 292 trips would occur during the AM peak hour (78 to and from Lantana East), and 243 trips would occur during the PM peak hour (72 to and from Lantana East).As discussed in the EIR, the existing collector and arterial roadway system cannot accommodate the additional traffic that would be generated by this project. The Reduced Project Alternative would reduce adverse impacts with respect to transportation and traffic by over 70 %. Because a number of intersections and road segments are operating at undesirable levels of service, even the reduction in size would not reduce impacts to levels that are no longer significant. Accordingly, both the proposed project and reduced size alternative would result in unavoidable adverse environmental impacts. Although traffic impacts would still be significant at 4 intersections, staff can support a Statement of Overriding Considerations for approval of the environmentally superior Lantana East reduced project alternative because the project is the type of use envisioned in the Code and LUCE; the location of Lantana East on Olympic Boulevard precludes traffic incursion into the residential neighborhood south of Exposition Boulevard; and conditions requiring free employee parking will further ensure protection of the residential neighborhood. Lantana South The north side of Exposition Boulevard is developed with industrial and entertainment production facilities. The building for the Verizon maintenance yard is located adjacent to the street, extends most of the way to Stewart Street and provides limited architectural interest. An eight-foot high chain-link fence along the street frontage and a 20’ to 25’ high brick building characterize development east of the site. The eastern portion of the subject site is currently a fenced movie equipment storage lot. The proposed 2 to 3 story contemporary building is compatible with the IMAX building and development along the Olympic/Exposition Light Manufacturing Studio District corridor. One and two story homes and apartments characterize development across Exposition Boulevard to the south. The remainder of the neighborhood, which extends to the Santa Monica, I-10 Freeway, is single-family homes. This low-density neighborhood is considered to be a sensitive land use. Staff believes that the overall design, height, mass and location on the lot of the proposed building is generally compatible with the adjacent residential neighborhood. In addition to the 60-foot width of Exposition Boulevard, the building will be setback another 40 feet, providing over 100 feet of distance from residential front yards to the front of the building. While the front setback will have a driveway for on-site circulation, parking will not be allowed in front of the new building. Replacing a surface parking lot with the proposed 40-foot landscaped setback softens the appearance of the building. Although most of the proposed building is 3- stories, the front portion steps down to 2-stories. The combination of building setback and lower front facade reduces the apparent mass of the proposed building when viewed from the residential front yards. The Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance reserve a 100-foot wide strip of land that runs east to west between Lantana East and Lantana South for public transportation uses. The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) owns this transportation right-of-way. The right-of-way was developed and used for both passenger and freight transportation in the past. The MTA is completing plans to convert the rail right-of-way to a bus transit corridor, known as the Exposition Right-of-Way. Ultimately, the Exposition Right-of-Way is intended to be developed with a light rail public transportation system. The proposed project would screen the residential neighborhood from view of the Exposition Right-of- Way. Although the overall design of Lantana South is generally compatible with the adjacent residential neighborhood, it will generate additional traffic and parking impacts that would adversely impact the residential neighborhood. The project is located within an area of the City already heavily impacted by traffic. On top of these current conditions, the EIR estimates that the proposed projects would generate approximately 1,966 daily trips (1,453 to and from Lantana South). Approximately 292 trips would occur during the AM peak hour (214 to and from Lantana South), and 243 trips would occur during the PM peak hour (171 to and from Lantana South). Five 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. 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. While the applicant redesigned the project to reduce traffic and parking impacts, traffic impacts cannot be mitigated to an acceptable level. As discussed in more detail in the EIR, the existing collector and arterial roadway system cannot accommodate the additional traffic that would be generated by this project. There is inadequate right-of-way width or other constraints that do not allow additional traffic lanes or signal improvements to mitigate anticipated impacts. This impact is particularly acute on Centinela Avenue and at the intersection of Exposition Boulevard and Centinela Avenue, which is the route Lantana South and East would use to access the Route I-10 freeway. 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 to them. As a result, many drivers trying to reach or leave the Lantana South site would cut-through the residential neighborhood to avoid the intersection of Centinela Avenue and Exposition Boulevard. Some neighbors have suggested blocking access to the residential streets from Exposition Boulevard to prevent cut-through traffic. The City’s Neighborhood Traffic Program specifically discourages the use of street closures to divert traffic to other local streets. While these measures can benefit some residents, they can also negatively impact others. Allowing turns onto and off of Exposition Boulevard only at Stewart Street and Centinela Avenue would also eliminate convenient access points to some residents. This would increase traffic at the remaining open intersections, as well as increasing vehicle miles traveled. Unlike Lantana East, staff cannot support the EIR reduced project alternative for Lantana South. Given the location of Lantana South on Exposition Boulevard, directly across from residential neighborhood, there are no physical barriers, such as Olympic Boulevard or the MTA right-of-way that will preclude traffic and parking intrusion into the neighborhood. With the approval of the requested Reduced Parking Permit to allow some of the parking spaces in tandem, the number of spaces would exceed City requirements. As discussed in the Reduced Parking Permit section of this report, the project will provide adequate on-site parking. As proposed, the project would charge a parking fee. Despite having adequate on-site parking capacity, employees would likely use public parking in the adjacent neighborhood to avoid paying to park in the parking garage. The residential neighborhood is already impacted from employees of other nearby businesses that have inadequate on-site parking. Requiring free parking for employees would mitigate this concern by removing the financial disincentive to park in the garage which otherwise provides convenient access to all floors of the building. 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 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. There are no feasible mitigation measures to prevent Lantana South traffic from driving through 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 adverse 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. Parking The Lantana East project will add 64,105 square feet of floor area to the site which currently has 251,906 square feet of building area (Lantana West and Center). The construction of the proposed building would eliminate some of the existing surface parking spaces that currently serve the adjacent Lantana Center building. 218 parking spaces that are required for the Lantana Center building will be provided in the new subterranean garage. City parking regulations require 1 parking space per 300 square feet of gross floor area for office uses (including production editing) and 1 space per 400 square feet of gross floor area for studio production areas. As shown in the acompanying parking summary table, the new building requires 168 parking spaces for a total project requirement of 386. The project will provide 438 parking spaces which exceeds Code requirements by 52 spaces. The Olympic campus will provide 853 total parking spaces (Lantana East 438, Center 83, West 331). The Lantana South project will add 152,721 square feet of floor area to the site which currently has a 65,007 square foot building. The construction of the proposed building would eliminate some of the existing surface parking spaces that currently serve the adjacent IMAX building. The 178 parking spaces that are required for the IMAX building will be provided in the new subterranean garage. As shown in the acompanying parking summary table, with the proposed mix of office/editing to production floor area the new building requires 407 parking spaces for a total site requirement of 585. The project will provide 589 parking spaces which exceeds Code requirements by 80 spaces. The Exposition campus will provide 665 total parking spaces (Lantana South 589, IMAX 76). 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 Reduced Parking Permit 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 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. Vehicle access to and from Lantana East is limited to Olympic Boulevard. Pedestrian access to the residential area north of Nebraska Avenue is less likely from either project because there is not a convenient access route and the ¼ mile distance is a deterrent. However, Lantana South is located adjacent to the residential neighborhood south of Exposition Boulevard. As such, employees and visitors of Lantana South have convenient access to the neighborhood. There is no vehicle access between Lantana East and South because the sites are separated by the MTA public transportation right- of-way. However, the MTA right-of-way is open and pedestrians from Lantana East can conveniently cross to and from Lantana South and into the adjacent residential neighborhood. As part of the project, a fee would be charged for parking. To avoid paying for on-site parking, some employees at either site may use on-street parking in the adjacent residential neighborhoods. 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. Free parking would mitigate impacts on limited on-street parking resources and would reduce traffic incursion into the adjacent residential neighborhoods. The Lantana East and South building occupants will need to comply with the City’s Transportation Management Plan Ordinance by using other incentives, such as locating rideshare, van pools and bicycling parking in preferential areas. Lockers, showers and security for bicycle parking should be provided to encourage non-motorized transportation. A group of residential neighbors have contacted the City with their intentions to request the establishment of a preferential parking district to abate the current incursion of employee parking into the neighborhood. Approximately 726 feet of on-street (curb) parking is available on Exposition Boulevard in front of the Lantana South project site. Since the Lantana projects would have sufficient on-site parking, this on-street parking resource could be included in the potential preferential parking district to increase the number of on-street parking spaces that are available to residents that obtain permits, and further discourage employees from parking on-street. 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. CEQA Analysis An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared for the proposed project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Notice of 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 __). 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 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 following environmental impacts would have a significant impact on the environment. However, adoption of the recommended mitigation measures will reduce impacts to less than significant levels: Aesthetics ? Introduction of new sources of light and glare Construction Effects ? Disruption of sidewalks and roadways, construction related air emissions Geology ? Potential for seismically induced ground shaking, liquefaction and settlement ? Potentially unsafe conditions associated with construction of the subterranean parking structure. Land Use ? Introduction of new sources of light and glare into residential neighborhood. Noise ? Impacts from construction and additional vehicles within area. Transportation/Traffic ? Overflow of parking onto adjacent roadways; increase in vehicular movement accessing the site. Neighborhood Effects ? Construction related traffic, air emissions; and traffic; introduction of new sources of construction related light and glare. As discussed below, significant, unavoidable and adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated are identified by the EIR in the areas of Traffic/Circulation and traffic related Neighborhood Effects. 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 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 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. The above referenced 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 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. These measures would result in negative impacts to the area, including impact to the residential neighborhood context, and impact 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 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 full discussion of the 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 East is limited to Exposition Boulevard, which is a local street. Residential land uses exist to the south of the Lantana South site and it is probable that some project traffic from Lantana South would utilize 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 neighborhood: Yorkshire Avenue, Dorchester Avenue, Warwick th 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 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 use Dorchester Avenue and other residential roadways for freeway access. This increased use of residential streets would likely 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, some traffic would likely cut through the 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. The source of some of the existing cut-though traffic is from Olympic Boulevard. Instead of traveling east on Olympic Boulevard to Centinela Avenue, the cut-through traffic uses Stewart Street, Exposition Boulevard and adjacent residential streets to reach Centinela Avenue and the freeway on-ramps. The proposed signal improvements that are necessary to mitigate traffic impacts from the project on Exposition Boulevard and the adjacent neighborhood could increase traffic delays for southbound Centinela Avenue. This could cause additional traffic to be diverted from Olympic Boulevard across Stewart Street and through the residential neighborhood. Synchronizing the proposed Exposition/Centinela traffic signal with the existing signals at Olympic/Centinela and the westbound I-10 on-ramp/Centinela is necessary to increase traffic capacity on Centinela Avenue, which will encourage traffic to stay on Olympic Boulevard to Centinela Avenue and would mitigate potential cut-through traffic. Pursuant to traffic mitigation from projects under construction east of Centinela Avenue, the City of Los Angeles expects to complete additional improvements to Centinela Avenue from Olympic Boulevard to Pico Boulevard prior to occupancy of the subject project. However, those improvements do not include a signal at Exposition Boulevard / Centinela Avenue, and the City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation has advised City staff that they will not permit the installation of a traffic signal at Exposition and Centinela Avenue. 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. While these measures can benefit some residents, they 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. 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 less than 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 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. The following alternatives to the proposed project were analyzed in the EIR in compliance with CEQA requirements: 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 project size of 216,826 square feet to approximately 130,000 square feet. The Lantana East building would be reduced from three to two stories, and about 3,000 feet of the second story (15% of that currently proposed) eliminated to provide a step-back of the building front as viewed from the street. The first floor would retain its current footprint of 19,500 square feet and the second floor would be reduced to 19,000 square feet. 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 East would include a single story subterranean parking structure and provide 387 parking spaces. Lantana South would also be reduced from three to two stories. The first floor would contain 52,500 square feet and the second floor would be reduced to 39,000 square feet. The second floor would be stepped back from the street. 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. Lantana South would include a single-story subterranean parking structure, with a total of 365 parking spaces. Maximum building height would be reduced to 35 feet. 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. Mixed Use Project — This alternative would include similar sized structures at the two sites, but with a different mix of uses. Lantana South would contain 135,000 square feet of post-production studio space and 20-40 artist live/work studio units in a separate building (EIR Figure 7-1). Individual unit size would range from 875 square feet to about 1,700 square feet and could include one- to three-bedroom units. The residential portion of Lantana South would be a 3-story building that is buffered by an open courtyard from the studio. The studio building would be a uniform three stories in height. The underground parking structure for Lantana South would be the same as that proposed for the project. It is assumed that the parking needs for the types of uses proposed in this alternative would generate parking needs similar to those of the proposed project. The Lantana East building would be the same as that proposed under the project, but would contain 54,000 square feet of studio use and 10,000 square feet of servicing or repair type uses as permitted under Section 9.04.08.35.020. Uses envisioned include small restaurants less than 500 square feet), photography studio, architects office, homeless shelter, or health clubs with childcare facilities. The Lantana East building would be three stories high with the same two-level, subterranean parking garage. The Mixed Use alternative would incrementally increase impacts in one issue area and may increase or decrease impacts in two issue areas depending on the actual behavior of site residents under this alternative. 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 allow the on-site uses to continue. Because the site would not be redeveloped, 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 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. Late Comment on the DEIR The California Department of Transportation (CALTRANS) submitted a second comment on the Draft EIR after the submittal deadline prescribed by CEQA. The comment letter advises the City that CALTRANS believes that an additional left turn lane at the westbound I-10 freeway off-ramp at Centinela Avenue is also needed to mitigate traffic impacts on the westbound I-10 freeway off-ramp at Centinela Avenue. Adverse traffic impacts at this intersection were identified in the Draft EIR. However, the proposed second left turn off-ramp lane will also require a second northbound lane on Centinela Avenue for exiting traffic to turn onto. Although there is adequate room to add the proposed second left turn lane to the freeway off-ramp, Centinela Avenue does not have sufficient width without eliminating on-street parking. Centinela Avenue is in the City of Los Angeles and they must approve any change in the right-of-way’s design. This proposal was reviewed with the City of Los Angeles. The LADOT indicated that they would not allow implementation of the proposed mitigation measure because it would displace parking along the east side of Centinela Avenue. Accordingly, impacts at this intersection are still considered significant and unavoidable. The CALTRANS letter also indicates that the projects must comply with urban runoff and oversize-transport regulations. Standard project conditions address both of these issues. The comment letter is contained in Attachment F. 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 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 reduced alternative project. Although traffic impacts would still be significant at 4 intersections, staff can support a Statement of Overriding Considerations for approval of the environmentally superior, reduced Lantana East project alternative because the above noted type of use is envisioned in the Code and LUCE from the development would outweigh the reduced impacts. SUMMARY AND 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 that are preferable to the existing surface parking lots. Their shape and overall mass are compatible with adjacent development and land uses. A number of 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. 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 this project. 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 traffic 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 result, there are no feasible measures to reduce traffic impacts on Centinela Avenue and four other intersections to acceptable levels. Other than the No Project alternative, the EIR identified the Reduced Project Alternatives as the environmentally superior alternative. The Reduced Project Alternative would reduce adverse impacts with respect to transportation and traffic, but even the reduction in size would not reduce impacts to levels that are no longer significant. 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; will pay the parks mitigation fee; 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, staff cannot support adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations and approval of the projects as proposed. However, 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 motorists approaching or departing do not have convenient access to the residential neighborhood south of Exposition Boulevard. Significant traffic incursion into the residential neighborhood from Lantana East is unlikely, and providing free employee parking will mitigate potential employee parking impacts. As a result, staff believes Lantana East is 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. Further, given this location, the project is consistent with 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. The Reduced Project Alternative would also reduce adverse traffic impacts by over 70 % the affected collector and arterial streets. However, because a number of intersections and road segments are currently operating at undesirable levels of service, even the reduction in size would not reduce impacts to levels that are no longer significant. Staff, therefore, can support the Lantana East reduced project alternative because, although traffic impacts would still be significant at 4 intersections, the project is the type of use envisioned in the Code and LUCE. A reduced project that is also consistent with the purpose and Land Use goals for this area of the City outweighs the remaining environmental impacts. While staff supports the reduced project alternative for Lantana East, because of its location on Exposition Boulevard, the reduced project alternative for Lantana South would still have adverse impacts on the residential neighborhood to the south. Exposition Boulevard is a local street which serves the residential neighborhood to the south. As discussed in the traffic and neighborhood sections of this report and the EIR, the project is within an area of the City already heavily impacted by traffic. 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 or 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 intersection of Exposition Boulevard and Centinela Avenue, which is the route Lantana South would use to access the Route I-10 freeway or arterial streets. As a result, traffic on Centinela Avenue and Exposition Boulevard would be adversely impacted, causing many drivers to try to reach or leave the Lantana South site by cutting-through the residential neighborhood to avoid the intersection of Centinela Avenue and Exposition Boulevard. Even the reduced project alternative for Lantana South will not reduce traffic and neighborhood impacts to a level that benefits from the reduced project size would outweigh adverse impacts on the adjacent residential neighborhood. Alternatives Other than the recommended action, the Planning Commission may: ? Deny Lantana East and Lantana South based upon findings; or ? Approve Lantana East and Lantana South as requested based upon findings, adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations and conditions of approval; or ? Approve Lantana South and deny Lantana East based upon findings, adoption of a Statement of Overriding Consideration and conditions of approval; or ? Approve the environmentally superior reduced project alternative for Lantana East and Lantana South based upon findings, adoption of a Statement of Overriding Consideration and conditions of approval; or ? Approve the environmentally superior reduced project alternative for Lantana South, and deny Lantana East, based upon findings, adoption of a Statement of Overriding Consideration and conditions of approval; or ? Require redesign of either or both projects for additional Planning Commission consideration. RECOMMENDATION Planning staff recommends that the Commission take the following actions: 1. Adopt the Resolution contained in Attachment F certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report; 2. Continue Development Review Permit application 99-010 and Reduced Parking Permit application 99-003 to enable the applicant to redesign the project consistent with the environmentally superior reduced project alternative. A Statement of Overriding Considerations and Mitigation Monitoring Program will be evaluated with the redesigned project; and 3. Deny Development Review Permit application 99-011 and Reduced Parking Permit application 99-004 based on the following findings: Development Review Permit Findings – DR99-011, Lantana South 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. Five 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. 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 right-of-way width or 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 intersection of Exposition Boulevard and Centinela Avenue. 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 further complicated 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. Five 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. 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. 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 adverse 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. Reduced Parking Permit Findings – RPP 99-004, Lantana South 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 Trevino, AICP, Planning Manager Amanda Schachter, Principal Planner Paul Foley, Senior Planner Bruce Leach, Associate Planner Attachments: A. Municipal Code and General Plan Conformance – Lantana East B. Municipal Code and General Plan Conformance - Lantana South C. Notice of Public Hearing D. Notice of Availability E. Resolution Certifying the Final EIR F. Correspondence from the Public G. Project Plans and Photographs of Properties and Surrounding Sites H. Final EIR F:plan\share\PC\strpt\99\99drLantana.doc ATTACHMENT A (Lantana East) MUNICIPAL CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE LAND USE CATEGORY MUNICIPAL CODE PROJECT ELEMENT Large floor Permitted Use Entertainment production Entertainment production area tech & related facilities studio office (SMMC 9.04.08.35.020(b)(9) & (10) Height of Building 45’ 45’ 37.75’ roof (Policy 1.8.7)(SMMC 9.04.08.35.050(a)(2))40.5–44.1’ parapet/screening Number of Stories 4 stories 3 stories (SMMC 9.04.08.35.050(a)(2)) FAR N/A 1.0 1.0 FAR 1369.57’ x ir233’ = 316,196 316,011’ / 316,196’ = 0.99 s.f. West 53,083 Center 198,823 (SMMC 9.04.08.35.050(b)) East 64,105 Building Height N/A The following are allowed to project above the height limit: Projections Parapets & safety rails < 42” Below 45’ height limit Elevator shafts < 14’ r 3.75’ above roof Stair enclosures < 14’ hl 4.1’ above hl (10.6’ above roof) Required building equipment & 3.5’-10.6’ above roof. screening as needed. (SMMC 9.04.10.02.030) 20’ from Olympic Blvd Setbacks N/A No other setback required Front Olympic Blvd = 20’ because the project is not Side Side (south) = 94.08’ adjacent to a residential use. Rear Rear (east) = 24.6’ ( SMMC 9.04.08.35.050(h)) Building Volume N/A Any portion of the building 55,787 cf provided between 31’ & 45’ shall Envelope provide 9’ average setback. 282 x 9’ x 6.75’ = 17,132 cf required (SMMC 9.04.10.02.040) Parking Access N/A Shall use alley access & No alley access is available. minimize the size & number of Two driveways on Olympic curb cuts for accessBoulevard are needed for high . volume to east and west (SMMC 9.04.10.08.090(a)(1) & (5)) garages. Parking Space Number N/A Editing/office = 1 sp/300 s.f. Production = 1 sp/400 s.f. Total provided = 438 E/O 9,616 s.f. /300 = 32.05 spaces West 331 (50 in tandem) P 54,489 s.f. /400 = 136.22 spaces Center 83 Sub total 168 East 438 (120 in tandem) Spaces removed = 218 For site 853 Required project = 386 LAND USE CATEGORY MUNICIPAL CODE PROJECT ELEMENT West & center 415 Required Olympic site 801 (SMMC 9.04.10.08.040) Compact Parking % N/A A maximum of 40% may be compact. 99 proposed 438+418=856 x 40% = 342 allowed 120 existing 219 total (SMMC 9.04.10.10.08) (25.6%) Tandem N/A Up to 20% of the required parking spaces may be 120 new tandem spaces tandem access with the 50 existing Lantana West approval of a reduced parking 170 proposed permit. (19.9%) 438 East 83 Center 331 West 853 total 853 x 20% = 170.6 spaces (SMMC 9.04.20.26.030) Transportation N/A Developments generating >10 Applicant will develop an Management p.m. peak period VT, or over Emission Reduction Plan & 100,000 s.f. shall develop a obtain City approval prior to City approved Emission issuance of building permits. Reduction Plan. (SMMC 9.16.120) Bicycle Parking N/A Bicycle parking spaces = 5% 5 spaces of the required parking spaces. 15 long term spaces 386 x 5% = 19.3 total 20 total provided 50% (10) long term spaces (SMMC 9.04.10.08.050(a). Carpool/Vanpool N/A 10% of parking spaces in new Parking buildings in excess of 50,000 39 vanpool spaces provided s.f. shall be Car/Vanpool spaces. 386 x 10%= 38.6 Car/Van Pool spaces (SMMC 9.04.10.08.050(b) Electric Vehicle N/A One electric recharge space is Recharge Spaces required 1 space provided (9.16.120 & Green Bldg) Loading Spaces N/A 40,001 to 80,000 s.f. = 3 sp 3 loading space provided (SMMC 9.04.10.10.030(e)) Trash Area N/A The EPWM Director shall determine the size & approve 667 s.f. the trash/recycling design on (Lantana Center & East) projects over 40,000 s.f. (SMMC 9.04.10.02.151(d) Mechanical Equipment N/A All mechanical equipment Parapets/walls will screen roof Screening extending more than 12” top mechanical equipment. above the roof parapet must be screened from view. Total area not to exceed 30% 30% (6,822 / 22,818) (SMMC 4.12.150 & 9.04.10.02.140+) Location of Mechanical N/A Cannot be located on the side There are no adjacent LAND USE CATEGORY MUNICIPAL CODE PROJECT ELEMENT Equipment of any building which is residential uses. Exterior adjacent to a residential use equipment will be roof on the adjoining parcel mounted behind parapet walls. (SMMC 4.12.150 & 9.04.10.02.180). Landscaping Urban Design 10% of surface parking area 4,264 sq. ft. provided Policies 3.4.9 (12.8%) requires 33,250 x 10% = 3,325 sq. ft. landscape (SMMC 9.04.10.04.070) setbacks Special Office District General Plan The visibility of surface parking Design Standards Policy 1.8.8, is minimized by landscaping, Urban Design setbacks and locating it in the Objectives side yard with no parking 3.4 and between the new building and Urban Design the street. Policies 3.3.15, 3.3.16 A 5’ wide landscape buffer is and 3.4.9. provides along the street & transportation right-of-way. Reduce the Additional landscaping is visibility of surface parking, provided adjacent to the by requiring that building. Landscaping in the buildings or court between the building landscaping form wings and IMAX building a specified percentage of the provides usable open space & street façade on a “campus” environment. major arterials. 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. ATTACHMENT B (Lantana South) MUNICIPAL CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE LAND USE CATEGORY MUNICIPAL CODE PROJECT ELEMENT Large floor Permitted Use Entertainment related facilities Entertainment production area tech & (SMMC 9.04.08.35.020(b)(9) & (10)studio office Height of Building 45’ 45’ 39.01’ roof, (Policy 1.8.7)(SMMC 9.04.08.35.050(a)(2))41.7’–43.1’ parapet/screening Number of Stories 4 stories 2 to 3 stories (SMMC 9.04.08.35.050(a)(2)) FAR N/A 1.0 1.0 FAR 379.995’ x 726’ = 275,876.4 217,728’ / 217,794’ = 0.999 s.f. (SMMC 9.04.08.35.050(b)) Building Height N/A The following are allowed to project above the height limit: Projections Parapets & safety rails < 42” Below 45’ height limit Elevator shafts < 14’ r 3.3” above roof Stair enclosures < 14’ hl 4.8’ above hl (10.75’ above roof) Required building equipment & 7.2’ above 45’ height limit. screening (SMMC 9.04.10.02.030) Building Volume N/A Any portion of the building 326,800 cf provided between 31’ & 45’ shall Envelope provide 9’ average setback from street frontage. 335.8’ x 9’ x 8’ = 24,176 cf (SMMC 9.04.10.02.040) Parking Access N/A Shall use alley access & No alley access is available. minimize the size & number of West driveway is necessary for curb cuts for accessaccess to Verizon property. . East driveway is needed for (SMMC 9.04.10.08.090(a)(1) & (5)) high volume. Parking Space Number N/A Editing/office = 1 sp/300 s.f. Production = 1 sp/400 s.f. Total provided = 665 IMAX 76 South 589 (57 in tandem) E/O 30,544 s.f. /300 = 101.81 spaces For site 665 P 122,177 s.f. /400 = 305.44 spaces Sub total 407.25 Existing building = 178 spaces 585 Total spaces required = (SMMC 9.04.10.08.040) Compact Parking % N/A A maximum of 40% may be compact. 182 proposed 665 x 40% = 266 allowed (28%) (SMMC 9.04.10.10.08) Tandem N/A Up to 20% of the required parking spaces may be 57 tandem spaces proposed LAND USE CATEGORY MUNICIPAL CODE PROJECT ELEMENT tandem access with the (8.5%) approval of a Reduced Parking Permit. 585 x 20% = 117 spaces (SMMC 9.04.20.26.030) Transportation N/A Developments generating >10 Applicant will develop an Management p.m. peak period VT, or over Emission Reduction Plan & 100,000 s.f. shall develop a obtain City approval prior to City approved Emission issuance of building permits. Reduction Plan. (SMMC 9.16.120) Bicycle Parking N/A Bicycle parking spaces = 5% 10 spaces of the required parking spaces. 10 long term spaces 407 x 5% = 20.3 total 20 total 50% (10) long term spaces (SMMC 9.04.10.08.050(a). Carpool/Vanpool N/A 10% of parking spaces in new Parking buildings >50,000 s.f. shall be 41 vanpool spaces designated Car/Vanpool spaces. 407 x 10%= 40.6 Car/Van Pool sp (SMMC 9.04.10.08.050(b) Electric Vehicle N/A One electric recharge space is Recharge Spaces required 1 space (SMMC 9.16.120 & Green Bldg) Loading Spaces N/A 120,001 to 160,000 s.f. = 5 sp 5 loading space (SMMC 9.04.10.10.030(e)) Trash Area N/A The EPWM Director shall determine the size & approve 1,140 s.f. the trash/recycling design on projects over 40,000 s.f. (SMMC 9.04.10.02.151(d) Mechanical Equipment N/A All mechanical equipment Parapets/walls will screen roof Screening extending more than 12” top mechanical equipment. above the roof parapet must be screened from view. Total area not to exceed 30% 19% (8,937 / 47,154) (SMMC 4.12.150) Location of Mechanical N/A Cannot be located on the side There are no adjacent Equipment of any building which is residential uses. Exterior adjacent to a residential use equipment will be roof on the adjoining parcel mounted behind parapet walls. (SMMC 4.12.150 & 9.04.10.02.180). Landscaping Urban Design 10% of surface parking area. 6,011 sq. ft. (34%) Policies 3.4.9 17,800 x 10% = 1,780 sq. ft. requires landscape setbacks (SMMC 9.04.10.04.070) Special Office District General Plan The visibility of surface parking Policy 1.8.8, is minimized by landscaping, LAND USE CATEGORY MUNICIPAL CODE PROJECT ELEMENT Design Standards Urban Design setbacks and locating it in the Objectives side yard with no parking 3.4 and between the new building and Urban Design the street. Policies 3.3.15, 3.3.16 A 5’ wide landscape buffer is and 3.4.9. provides along the street & transportation right-of-way. Reduce the Additional landscaping is visibility of surface parking, provided adjacent to the by requiring that building. Landscaping in the buildings or court between the building landscaping form wings and IMAX building a specified percentage of the provides usable open space & street façade on a “campus” environment. major arterials. 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. ATTACHMENT B Draft Planning Commission Statements of Official Action City of Santa Monica City Planning Division PLANNING COMMISSION STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL ACTION PROJECT CASE NUMBER: Development Review 99-010 Reduced Parking Permit 99-003 LOCATION: 3030 Olympic Boulevard APPLICANT: Lantana North Hines Development PROPERTY OWNER: Lantana North Hines Development CASE PLANNER: Bruce Leach REQUEST: Approval of DR 99-010 and RPP 99-003 to allow construction of a new three-story, 64,105 square foot entertainment production/post-production studio building with a two-level 438-space subterranean parking garage (the Lantana East project). The Reduced Parking Permit would allow up to 120 of the parking spaces to be in tandem. CEQA STATUS: An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared that examined the potential environmental impacts of the proposed projects pursuant to CEQA requirements. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION 9/11/02 Date. Approved based on the following findings and subject to the conditions below X Denied. Other. EFFECTIVE DATES OF ACTIONS IF NOT APPEALED: 9/25/02 EXPIRATION DATE OF ANY PERMITS GRANTED: N/A LENGTH OF ANY POSSIBLE EXTENSION OF EXPIRATION DATES: Any request for an extension of the expiration date must be received in the City Planning Division prior to expiration of this permit. N/A FINDINGS : 4. 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. 5. 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 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. 6. 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 2. 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. VOTE Ayes: Brown, Clarke, Dad, 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. _____________________________ _____________________________ Darrell Clarke, Chairperson Date F:plan\share\pc\stoa\99\99dr010Lantana East.doc City of Santa Monica City Planning Division PLANNING COMMISSION STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL ACTION PROJECT CASE NUMBER: DR 99-011 RPP 99-004 LOCATION: 3131 Exposition Boulevard APPLICANT: Lantana South Hines Development PROPERTY OWNER: Lantana South Hines Development CASE PLANNER: Bruce Leach REQUEST: Approval of DR 99-011 and RPP 99-004 to allow construction of a new three-story, 152,721 square foot entertainment production/post-production studio building with a two-level 665-space subterranean parking garage (the Lantana South project). The Reduced Parking Permit would allow up to 57 of the parking spaces to be in tandem. CEQA STATUS: An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared that examined the potential environmental impacts of the proposed projects pursuant to CEQA requirements. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION 9/11/02 Date. Approved based on the following findings and subject to the conditions below X Denied. Other. EFFECTIVE DATES OF ACTIONS IF NOT APPEALED: 9/25/02 EXPIRATION DATE OF ANY PERMITS GRANTED: N/A LENGTH OF ANY POSSIBLE EXTENSION OF EXPIRATION DATES: Any request for an extension of the expiration date must be received in the City Planning Division prior to expiration of this permit. N/A FINDINGS : 7. 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. 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 with an increase in Average Daily Trips (ADT) of 20.8% on Exposition Boulevard between Stewart Street and Centinela Avenue, and 66.7% on Warwick Avenue between Virginia Avenue and Exposition Boulevard. 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 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. 8. 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. 9. 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 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. 10. 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 – RPP 99-004, Lantana South 3. 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. VOTE Ayes: Brown, Clarke, Dad, 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. _____________________________ _____________________________ Darrell Clarke, Chairperson Date F:\PLAN\SHARE\pc\stoa\99\99dr011lantanastoa rev: 11/2001 ATTACHMENT C Minutes of the September 11, 2002 Planning Commission Meeting (Item 5A) F:plan\share\council\strpt\02\Appeal LantanaMinutes.htm M I N U T E S SPECIAL MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA WEDNESDAY, September 11, 2002 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:00 P.M. ROOM 213, CITY HALL 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 5-A. Development Review Permit (DR) 99-010 & Reduced Parking Permit (RPP) 99-003,Lantana East, 3030 Olympic Boulevard would allow the removal of surface parking and the construction of a 64,105 square foot, three-story, 45’ high, entertainment studio building with a two-level, subterranean parking garage. In addition to replacing 218 existing parking spaces that will be displaced by the proposed building, Lantana East will provide 220 new parking spaces (438 spaces total). Development Review Permits (DR) 99-011 & Reduced Parking Permit (RPP) 99-004,Lantana South, 3131 Exposition Boulevard , would allow the removal of surface parking and the construction of a 152,721 square foot, three-story, 45’ high, entertainment studio building with a two-level, subterranean parking garage. In addition to replacing 178 existing parking spaces that will be displaced by the proposed building, Lantana South will provide 487 new parking spaces (665 spaces total). The 100-foot wide Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) public transportation corridor separates the non-contiguous parcels. A Development Review Permit (DR) is required for buildings in excess of 30,000 square feet in the LMSD (Light Manufacturing Studio District). A Reduced Parking Permits (RPP) can allow up to 20% of the parking spaces to be arranged in tandem. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for the projects pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. The EIR examined impacts of the proposed project on the City's environment. The EIR identified significant and unavoidable traffic impacts. The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) prepared for the proposed project is available on the City’s web site http://www.santa-monica.org/ (on the Planning and Community Development web page). 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 Reference Section, at the office of the City Clerk and at the City Planning Division Public Counter Room 111 in City Hall. DR 99-010, RPP 99-03, 3030 Olympic Boulevard & DR 99-011, RPP 99-004, 3131 Exposition Boulevard APPLICANT/ PROPERTY OWNER: Lantana Hines [Planner: Bruce Leach] Development. Prior to the staff report, the Commission made their ex parte disclosures regarding the project. Chair Clarke asked staff for the window of time for disclosure on this project. Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum stated that the window begins with the filing of the application. Associate Planner Leach stated that the projects were filed in September 1999. Commissioner Dad disclosed that she has friends who live near the project site, but they have never discussed the proposed project. Commissioner Hopkins disclosed that she drives by the site and had been offered a tour of the site approximately two to three months ago, but did not go on the tour. Chair Clarke disclosed that he met with the developer, Doug Holte, approximately three years ago to hear an overview of the proposed projects and potential upgrades to Olympic Boulevard. Commissioner Johnson and Moyle had nothing to disclose. Commissioner Olsen asked counsel if all written materials, including videos, are considered evidence. Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum answered in the affirmative and that all such communications should be disclosed. Commissioner Olsen then disclosed that he has received many written materials, including pamphlets, and a video regarding the proposed projects, but never opened and read or viewed the materials. He further disclosed that had received communications from a resident, Mitchell Block, in late 1999 or early 2000, regarding issues of parking and how the production space is to be utilized. Chair Clarke disclosed that he had also received “The Lantana Story” video, but had not viewed it. He then explained the Commission’s disclosure rule to the audience. Associate Planner Bruce Leach gave the staff report, which included a recommendation to certify the Environmental Impact Report (EIR), deny the Lantana South project and approve a reduced Lantana East project. Commissioner Dad asked staff for the dates the EIR was initiated and the date of the draft document. Mr. Leach stated that the Draft EIR was circulated on February 25, 2002. Commissioner Dad expressed confusion about when the traffic counts were done and if they are from the draft Master Environmental Assessment (MEA), the adopted MEA or some other source. The City’s consultants, Mike Gialketsis of Rincon Consultants, and Brian Marchetti of Kimley-Horn Associates, responded to Commissioner Dad’s question. Mr. Marchetti explained that the traffic base counts were taken in 1999 and updated to 2000 by adding two percent per year growth factors and including current cumulative project approvals. Commissioner Moyle asked staff about a reference on page seven of the staff report regarding daily trip generation and how the numbers are figured. Mr. Leach stated that the new trips are determined by the new use. Commissioner Moyle asked staff about a reference on page thirteen of the staff report stating the new use would generate approximately 2000 trips. Mr. Leach stated that the figure should read 1,966 trips, which is the figure arrived at by reanalyzing the statistics between the draft and final EIRs. Commissioner Moyle asked for confirmation that the original figure was a conservative estimate that was then reduced. Mr. Leach answered in the affirmative. Commissioner Olsen commented on Levels of Service (LOS) for the existing streets adjacent to the proposed project as found on page thirteen of the staff report. He asked if these numbers were updated with the two-percent increase. Mr. Leach answered in the affirmative. Mr. Gialketsis explained the way the traffic data is analyzed for the EIR, including the timeline. Commissioner Olsen commented that some of the intersection figures seem generous for current conditions. He questioned the LOS rating of “C” for the intersections of Centinela Avenue and Olympic Boulevard, and Stewart Street and Olympic Boulevard. He related that his experience has been that Stewart Street northbound backs up to Pico Boulevard from Olympic Boulevard and Olympic Boulevard eastbound backs up to Cloverfield Boulevard during peak hours. He asked staff about the projected LOS for 1999/2000. Mr. Leach explained that the 1999 figures were adjusted by two-percent a year to the year 2002 and include additional developments from the cumulative projects list. He directed the Commission’s attention to Table 12 in the EIR. Commissioner Olsen commented that the Commission is being asked to take on faith that the base data is accurate. He then questioned staff about the parking requirement calculations for office space versus production space. Ms. Frick stated that trip generation rates are based on office space calculations and parking calculations are based on the Code requirement of one space per 400 square feet. Commissioner Olsen asked staff who defines what is “production space.” Ms. Frick stated that the nature of the use is the determining factor, i.e. if the project is presented as entertainment use, then production space calculations are used. Commissioner Olsen commented on his experience working in the entertainment field and the reality of how space termed as “production space” is actually used in contrast to code assumptions. He then asked staff how use of the space is verified after an approval is granted. Mr. Leach stated that tenant improvement plans identify office spaces for producers, payroll and other non-production space uses. He further stated that uses will be segregated to fit the approval square footage for the project. Commissioner Johnson commented on mitigation measures cited on page 18 of the staff report which stated that the Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT) will not permit the widening of Centinela Avenue. He asked staff to what degree the widening of Centinela Avenue would mitigate the significant impacts should LADOT reverse their decision. Mr. Leach stated that it would help the traffic congestion on Centinela Avenue and would add a dedicated left turn lane. Commissioner Johnson asked if the Centinela Avenue widening is a closed issue. Mr. Leach stated that staff considers this issue closed. Commissioner Johnson asked staff about the California Department of Transportation (CalTrans) position regarding the two off-ramps from the westbound I-10 (Santa Monica) Freeway at Centinela Avenue. Mr. Leach stated that a late comment was received from CalTrans (page 18 of the staff report) regarding southbound traffic on Centinela. The mitigation measure asks for a combination right turn/through lane and CalTrans has stated they will not permit this mitigation as they want to keep the dedicated freeway exit lane. Commissioner Johnson asked how much the mitigation measures would improve the impacts. Mr. Leach stated that mitigation measures would result in a less than significant impact. Chair Clarke asked staff how far beyond the site were intersections analyzed for the traffic portion of the EIR. Mr. Leach stated that there is an exhibit in the traffic analysis section citing the intersection. For the record, Mr. Leach stated that intersections were analyzed as far west as Twentieth Street at the I-10 Freeway and Olympic Boulevard; to Bundy Drive in the east; to Ocean Park Boulevard in the south and to Colorado Avenue at Stewart Street, Twenty-Sixth Street and Wilshire Boulevard to the north. Chair Clarke commented that it is interesting that adjacent intersections in the City of Los Angeles and the I-10 Freeway were ignored. Mr. Leach stated that the I-10 Freeway was analyzed and determined to have only 2/10ths of 1% impact on the proposed project. Chair Clarke commented on the timing of trips and that employees of the proposed use do not work regular hours. Mr. Leach stated that ITE standard for office use was used to determine trip generation for this project because it was deemed appropriate to use the higher impact numbers. Chair Clarke asked staff about page eight of the staff report, specifically the section regarding blocking through traffic on Exposition Boulevard and the City’s position against this proposal. The City’s Transportation Planning Manager, Lucy Dyke stated that changing the traffic circulation around a specific project is beyond what an applicant can accomplish. She stated that circulation changes would require updating the Circulation Element and extensive analysis. Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum expressed agreement with Ms. Dyke and stated that State law preempts motor vehicle circulation and can only be amended by ordinance. Commissioner Johnson asked if the applicant investigated off-site parking to lessen the impact. Mr. Leach stated that this was not discussed however such a request would require a variance and the off-site parking would need to be between 300-feet and 1000-feet of the project site to be permitted by code. Chair Clarke commented that there are alternative ways to reach the project site. Mr. Leach stated that there is a standard condition of approval that requires all sites with 50 or more employees to have a Transportation Management Demand Plan for their employees which includes offering bus tokens and providing bicycle parking. Commissioner Hopkins asked staff if the one per 300 square foot for office space figure can be used to calculate parking need instead of the 1/400 for production use per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines. Mr. Leach stated that the general office figure could have been used, however that is not what was cited on the application. Commissioner Olsen asked staff if the consultants reviewed other entertainment facilites, such as the MGM/Sony Studios in Culver City. He commented that Sony built an enormous structure on their lot even though they have fewer employees. He stated that Paramount Studios in Hollywood did a similar project, which included buying adjacent properties to serve their parking needs. Mr. Leach stated that no such analysis was done. Commissioner Olsen asked additional questions regarding how the use of space is determined for a production studio. Ms. Frick stated that staff must rely on the percentage of square footage presented for office and production space given by the applicant in the application and that those figures must be identified on the plans. As for trip generation, Ms. Frick stated that staff looks at the ratio between office and production square footage. Commissioner Hopkins commented that the floor plans do not specify different uses. Ms. Frick responded to an earlier query by Commissioner Moyle regarding the different results for trip generation. She stated that the baseline numbers were th achieved using the ITE 4 Edition Manual, while the later figures were achieved th by using the 6 Edition Manual. Commissioner Dad commented that it is a pleasure to be dealing with all parts of a project at one time instead of in a piecemeal fashion. Chair Clarke informed the Commission of the applicant’s request to increase their allotted time to speak from fifteen minutes to thirty minutes because they are presenting two projects at one time. The Commission discussed the request and Chair Clarke asked the applicant if they could do their presentation in less time. The applicant’s representative, Mr. Holte, stated he may be able to do his presentation in 20 to 25 minutes. The Commission discussed the amended request, then Commissioner Dad made a motion to permit the public their regular four minutes to speak and the applicant twenty minutes to speak. Commissioner Moyle seconded the motion, which was approved by voice vote with Commission Johnson voting in the negative. The applicant’s representative, Doug Holte of Lantana Hines, was present to give a presentation on the proposed projects. Also present was Dale Goldsmith, the applicant’s attorney. Commissioner Olsen asked about peak hour traffic figures. Mr. Goldsmith stated that according to empirical studies done for Fox Studios, using exit polls, it was determined that the uses do not generate high trip volumes during peak hours. Commissioner Olsen stated that he belongs to the Producer’s Guild of America and he has a different view of traffic trips generated. He stated that support personnel arrive and depart at regular hours. He further stated the he would be interested in seeing the empirical studies. He concluded his remarks by saying that the Commission approves a building and parking based on “reduced need” of physical space. Mr. Holte stated that the City has a stringent policy for determining parking need, which is based on occupancy of the space per Director Frick. He explained that the building is designed for production work with a “thinner plate” than would be used for convention office space. He further explained that the Lantana campus attracts studio uses and general office uses do not want to use their facilities. Commissioner Olsen asked about a new tenant, Universal Music. Mr. Holte stated that this tenant is in the older Lantana Center building. Commissioner Olsen asked if this is a music studio. Mr. Holte stated that he was unsure of the actual use. Commissioner Johnson commented on the Raliegh Studios in Manhattan Beach with their sound stages and truck traffic. Mr. Holte stated that the current context of Lantana has sound stages and screening rooms, however the truck uses on the site have been eliminated with only small van deliveries currently occurring on-site. He also stated the IMAX has moved to digital delivery and believes other tenants will be moving in that direction also. Commissioner Johnson commented that satellite dishes may have a negative impact on the neighborhood. Mr. Holte stated that the new structures will have adequate parapet height to shield dishes from view. The project architect, Steven Ehrlich, stated that dish sizes are shrinking with new technology and the parapets should hide satellite dishes. Mr. Holte added for the record that the proposed parking exceeds what is required by code. Chair Clarke stated that following the public comment, the applicant’s team will have three minutes to respond. The following members of the public addressed the Commission regarding the proposed projects: 1. Jim Coleman, who also spoke for Chelsea Coleman (5 minutes) 2. Mitchell Block, who also spoke for Ritz Felkner, Patricia Morey, and Don Birkett (7 minutes) 3.Marcia Zimmer 4.Keith Kaucher, also spoke for Bill Chatting (5 minutes, against) 5.Rick Moore, also spoke for Yvonne Guy and Chris Ito (6 minutes) 6.Robert Lee Giego 7.Yvonne Teruya 8.Myrna Duran 9.Michael Tarbet, also spoke for Carolyn Birkett, Cynthia Bruce, Louise Ito, Gina Masolini, and Bryon Felkner (9 minutes) [The Commission took a break from 10:00 p.m. to 10:30 p.m.] 10.Isabel Aranda 11.Maggi Kelley 12.Stephanie Lipner 13.Martin Wassell 14.Linda Gordon 15.Susan Healy Keene 16.Steve Martinez 17.Karen Moreno The applicant’s traffic consultant, Tom Gaul of Kaku Associates, responded to traffic concerns raised by the public. Mr. Goldsmith also responded to the public comment. Commissioner Olsen asked Mr. Goldsmith if he knew the number of lanes currently on Centinela Avenue between Olympic Boulevard and the I-10 Freeway. Mr. Goldsmith stated that the number of plan is generally one lane each direction. Chair Clarke asked Mr. Goldsmith where construction is now occurring on Centinela Avenue. Mr. Goldsmith stated that it is occurring half way between Olympic Boulevard and the freeway and there is a separate construction project at the freeway ramp. Mr. Holte stated for the record that he is disappointed that all the neighbors to the project were not included in the mailings and open houses sponsored by Lantana Hines. Chair Clarke commented on the traffic problems relating to access to the I-10 Freeway, how this can be addressed and asked the applicant for comments on staff’s comments on the situation. Mr. Holte stated that staff’s recommendation to reduce the size of Lantana East is tantamount to a denial and is not feasible. He commented that the traffic numbers are “mind-numbing” and that he is concerned with the traffic problems reported by neighbors on Warwick Avenue. He stated that Lantana Hines has encouraged meetings with neighbors all along. He also stated that the trucking company formerly on the proposed Lantana East site has been removed. He commented that this is more than a quality of life issue and that there are no alternatives that do not have associated traffic impacts. He stated that Centinela Avenue needs work. He also stated that Lantana Hines has brought many jobs to the City. He concluded by saying that, no threat intended, a return to the prior uses of the site would be worse for the neighborhood. Chair Clarke asked about the EIR alternative for a mixed use or live-work project. Mr. Holte stated that such a project would increase peak hour trips. He suggested there may be a way to restrict cut-through traffic. Chair Clarke thanked Mr. Holte for his responses, then closed the public hearing. Commissioner Olsen raised the issue of traffic, specifically why some large projects in West Los Angeles, such as the e-Toys building at Olympic Boulevard and Bundy Drive, and an adjacent large office building across Bundy Drive, were not identified in the traffic counts. He expressed concern that these project will have an impact on Santa Monica when they are fully leased. The EIR consultant, Mike Gialketsis, commented on the overall EIR process and how cumulative projects are addressed. He stated that at the beginning of the process, the most current cumulative projects list is used, then it is adjusted when the Notice of Preparation is released. He stated that the list used for the proposed projects include fifty projects near the project addresses. Commissioner Olsen stated that he understands the process, however the projects he cited will have an impact on Centinela Avenue as an access route to the I-10 Freeway. He then commented on the LOS figures. Mr. Gialketsis explained how the analysis was done for the EIR, including the running of computer models utilizing physical capacity of the street and which show a ripple effect from I-10 Freeway ramps. Commissioner Olsen commented that Stewart Street is an alternate route used by citizens to head south toward Marina Del Rey and Los Angeles International Airport. Commissioner Dad stated that intersections do not stand alone and are affected by other intersections. Mr. Gialketsis stated that traffic count data is entered into a model that includes road configurations. Commissioner Dad stated that the Commission needs “real life impacts,” and different information. Ms. Frick stated that the models reveal problems that impact intersections, including unmitigatable neighborhood impacts. She further stated that this project will have significant impacts, specifically traffic back-ups into the neighborhood, and that impact is the basis for the recommendation to deny Lantana East. Commissioner Hopkins commented on traffic impacts, specifically flow rates, number of vehicles, and “thru-put.” The EIR traffic consultant, Mr. Marchetti, stated that this information can be found in the appendix of the EIR and that the models indicate specific “choke” points that need changing. The City’s Transportation Planning Manager, Lucy Dyke, explained that the methodology used to determine the traffic impacts shows a “snapshot in time,” and points to mitigation measures. She stated that the methodology adopted by the City meets the requirements of CEQA law. Commissioner Hopkins asked for the name of the methodology and the date of adoption. Ms. Dyke stated it is the Highway Capacity Manual and it was adopted in 1992. Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum explained that CEQA does not expect technical perfection and recognizes that the data is a snapshot in time (from when the Notice of Preparation is released). He stated that the EIR has identified intersections that would be impacted by the new projects and many can not be mitigated, therefore a Statement of Overriding Consideration would be needed. Commissioner Olsen stated that the EIR is right on target regarding the traffic impacts of the proposed projects. He stated that in order to approve the projects, the Commission would need to adopt a Statement of Overriding Consideration, which would require certain findings. Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum stated that a Statement of Overriding Consideration, then a balance between benefits and risks must be established. Commissioner Olsen stated that the community benefits would be funding for parks and a bus stop site, which are not, in his opinion, great enough benefits to approve the projects. He expressed the opinion that the projects as represented would “be a fatal blow to the neighborhood.” He also expressed the opinion that the traffic counts are in error and that the proposed production use would generate far greater traffic than is predicted. He proposed that the EIR be certified and both projects denied. Commissioner Dad stated that she has problems with the EIR, specifically the date of the traffic counts are not cited. She also asked why the traffic data is not based on the MEA traffic counts. Ms. Frick stated that traffic counts are taken throughout the City and become a baseline for analysis while the MEA is being prepared. Commissioner Dad stated that there was testimony that the traffic counts were not based on the MEA counts. Ms. Frick stated that counts were taken in 1999 as the basis for the MEA and those figures were adjusted with an assumed 2% growth rate for the year 2000. She further stated that some of the intersections with problems are unsignalized and would not be part of the standard traffic counts. She concluded by saying that the Notice of Preparation date freezes the information to a specific point in time. Commissioner Hopkins commented that the Commission is having problems with the traffic count numbers versus the reality of the neighborhood. Ms. Frick reexplained how the traffic counts were adjusted for traffic increase over time. Commissioner Hopkins asked if there are solutions to the “choke points” cited in the EIR. Ms. Frick stated that this discussion belongs with Commissioner Dad’s discussion item on MEA traffic issues. Commissioner Hopkins expressed her concern for the residential neighborhood and their traffic problems. Ms. Dyke stated that certain intersections and road conditions are beyond the City’s control, specifically Centinela Avenue (where the traffic signals are controlled by LADOT) and I-10 Freeway access, which is under the jurisdiction of CalTrans. Commissioner Olsen made a motion to deny both projects and certify the EIR. Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion. Commissioner Dad expressed her support for the motion, including certifying the EIR. Commissioner Moyle asked whether the EIR considered the completion of the Arboretum projects and Water Garden Phase II. Ms. Dyke stated that the projects were forecasted, but not counted as existing in the EIR. Commissioner Moyle asked if the Arboretum projects were completed. Ms. Frick stated that they are completed but may not be fully occupied. Commissioner Dad stated that it is important to maintain the integrity of the neighborhood and that she appreciates staff’s analysis on this project. Chair Clarke commented on the jobs/housing balance in Santa Monica and that the success of creating more jobs results in more traffic. Commissioner Hopkins commented on her dilemma with the project, specifically that the infrastructure in the neighborhood has been exceeded and a reality check is needed. She stated that she likes the project, that it is well designed and the developer is active in the community. She stated she is disappointed that projects are being denied. Chair Clarke expressed his agreement with the comments made by Commissioner Hopkins. Following counsel from staff, Commissioner Olsen made his motion into multiple motions. The first motion is to certify the EIR. Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion. The motion to certify the EIR was approved by the following vote: AYES: Clarke, Dad, Johnson, Moyle, Olsen; NOES: Hopkins; ABSENT: Brown. Commissioner Olsen made a motion to deny DR 99-010 and RPP 99-003 with findings including the public testimony and EIR traffic analysis. Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion. The motion to deny DR 99-010 and RPP 99-003, was approved by the following vote: AYES: Clarke, Dad, Johnson, Moyle, Olsen; NOES: Hopkins; ABSENT: Brown. Commissioner Olsen made a motion to deny DR 99-011 and RPP 99-004 with findings including the public testimony and EIR traffic analysis. Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion The motion to deny DR 99-011 and RPP 99-004, was approved by the following vote: AYES: Clarke, Dad, Johnson, Moyle, Olsen; NOES: Hopkins; ABSENT: Brown. ACTION: EIR Certified; DR 99-010, RPP 99-003 (3030 Olympic Boulevard) and DR 99-011, RPP 99-004 (3131 Exposition Boulevard), denied. 9.ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 1:25 a.m. on Thursday, September 12, 2002. APPROVED: October 2, 2002 ATTACHMENT D Appeal Statements Electric version of attachment is not available for review. Document is available for review at the City Clerk’s Office and the Libraries. ATTACHMENT E Public Hearing Notice NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE SANTA MONICA CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Appeal 02-016 (Lantana East) Appeal 02-017 (Lantana South) 3030 Olympic Boulevard 3131 Exposition Boulevard APPLICANT: Lantana Hines Development Appellant: Lantana Hines Development PROPERTY OWNER: Lantana Hines Development A public hearing will be held by the City Council to consider the following request: Appeal of the Planning Commission’s Decision to Deny Development Review Permit (DR) 99-010 & Reduced Parking Permit (RPP) 99-003, Lantana East and DR 99-011 & RPP 99-004, Lantana South. DR 99-010 & RPP 99-003, Lantana East, 3030 Olympic Boulevard would allow the removal of surface parking and the construction of a 64,105 square foot, three-story, 45’ high, entertainment studio building with a two-level, subterranean parking garage. In addition to replacing 218 existing parking spaces that will be displaced by the proposed building, Lantana East will provide 220 new parking spaces (438 spaces total). The Reduced Parking Permits (RPP) would allow up to 20% of the parking spaces to be arranged in tandem. DR 99-011 & RPP 99-004, Lantana South, 3131 Exposition Boulevard, would allow the removal of surface parking and the construction of a 152,721 square foot, three-story, 45’ high, entertainment studio building with a two-level, subterranean parking garage. In addition to replacing 178 existing parking spaces that will be displaced by the proposed building, Lantana South will provide 487 new parking spaces (665 spaces total). An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for the projects pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. The EIR examined impacts of the proposed project on the City's environment. The EIR identified significant and unavoidable traffic impacts. The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) prepared for the proposed project is available on the City’s web site www.santa-monica.org (on the Planning and Community Development web page). DATE/TIME: TUESDAY, November 12, 2002, AT 6:45 p.m. LOCATION: City Council Chambers, Second Floor, Santa Monica City Hall 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, California HOW TO COMMENT The City of Santa Monica encourages public comment. You may comment at the City Council public hearing, or by writing a letter. Written information will be given to the City Council at the meeting. Address your letters to: City Clerk Re: 02 Lantana Appeal 1685 Main Street, Room 102 Santa Monica, CA 90401 MORE INFORMATION If you want more information about this project or wish to review the project file, please Bruce Leach, Associate Planner contact at (310) 458-8341, or by e-mail at bruce- leach@santa-monica.org. The Zoning Ordinance is available at the Planning Counter during business hours and on the City’s web site at www.santa-monica.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 Big Blue Bus Lines numbered 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10 serve City Hall. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65009(b), if this matter is subsequently challenged in Court, the challenge may be limited to only those issues raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Santa Monica at, or prior to, the public hearing. ESPAÑOL Esto es una noticia de una audiencia pública para revisar applicaciónes proponiendo desarrollo en Santa Monica. Si deseas más información, favor de llamar a Carmen Gutierrez en la División de Planificación al número (310) 458-8341. APPROVED AS TO FORM: ___________________________ JAY M. TREVINO, AICP Planning Manager f:\plan\share\council\notices\2002\02appealLantana ATTACHMENT F Resolution Certifying the FEIR RESOLUTION NO. ___ (CCS) (City Council Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ON THE LANTANA ENTERTAINMENT PRODUCTION STUDIO EXPANSION PROJECTS LOCATED AT 3030 OLYMPIC BOULEVARD AND 3131 EXPOSITION BOULEVARD WHEREAS, a Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report was issued on May 17, 2000; and WHEREAS, a Notice of Completion of a Draft Environmental Impact Report was published on February 25, 2002 in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the City of Santa Monica CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the Draft Environmental Impact Report was circulated for a 45-day period which ended on April 15, 2002; and WHEREAS, on August 29, 2002, the Final Environmental Impact Report was published; and WHEREAS, on September 11, 2002, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing, reviewed and certified the Final Environmental Impact Report in its decision-making process; and WHEREAS, on September 24, 2002, the Planning Commission’s decision to deny Development Review Permit 99-010 (Lantana East) and Development Review Permit 99-011 (Lantana South) was appealed by the project applicant. Although the Planning Commission voted to certify the Final Environmental Impact Report, the City Council is now the decision-making body and it must certify the Environmental Impact Report prior to taking action on the proposed project that is being considered under the appeal; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the contents of the Final Environmental Impact Report in its decision-making process; and WHEREAS, on November 12, 2002 the City Council, as Lead City Agency, reviewed the Final Environmental Impact Report, NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final Environmental Impact Report on the Lantana Entertainment Production Studio Expansion Projects located at 3030 Olympic Boulevard (Lantana East) and 3131 Exposition Boulevard (Lantana South) prior to acting on the project. SECTION 2. The City Council certifies that the Final Environmental Impact Report for the project was presented to the City Council, that the Final Environmental Impact Report for the project was completed in full compliance with State law and City CEQA Guidelines, that there was adequate public review of the Draft Environmental Impact Report, that it has considered all comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report and responses to comments, that the Final Environmental Impact Report adequately discusses all significant environmental issues, that the Final Environmental Impact Report reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City, and that the City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final Environmental Impact Report in its decision-making process prior to acting on the project. SECTION 3. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution, and thenceforth and thereafter the same shall be in full force and effect. APPROVED AS TO FORM: ________________________ MARSHA J. MOUTRIE City Attorney th Adopted and approved this 12 day of November, 2002. I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. ____ was duly adopted at a th meeting of the City Council on the 12 day of November, 2002 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: _________________________ City Clerk FF:plan\share\council\strpt\02\appealLantana EIRreso.doc ATTACHMENT G Correspondence 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 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 I 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.