Loading...
SR-03-08-2011-7AI 5: ,~~ ~ ~:Ity COUt'1C11 Sanrta Monica' Supplemental Repol"t City Council Meeting: March 8, 2011 Agenda Item: 7-A To: Mayor and City Council From: Eileen Fogarty, Director, Planning & Community Development Department Subject: Supplemental Staff Report Clarifying Wording for Text Amendment 11TA- 001: Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance to Revise Certain Zoning Standards in Order to Implement the Bayside District Specific Plan and Downtown Parking Program and Facilitate Construction of New Municipal Public Parking. Structures Recommended Action Staff recommends that the City Council introduce for first reading Text Amendment 11TA-001, including the attached clarifications and revisions, amending provisions of SMMC Article IX (Zoning Ordinance) related to City-owned public parking structures. Background%Discussion On March 2, 2011 the Planning Commission voted to approve Text Amendment 11TA- 001, with four voting in favor, two against and one absent. The Text Amendment is recommended with the following findings: 1. The proposed amendment is consistent in principle with the goals, objectives,. policies, land uses, and programs specified. in the adopted General Plan in that Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) Goal D11 calls for addressing parking needs comprehensively and Policy D11.2 states that locations of additional parking resources that would mitigate impact on 4th Street should be considered. Additional goals include ensuring that new Downtown buildings contribute to the pedestrian character of downtown and are compatible in scale (D8) and that parking is designed to meet applicable urban design goals and minimize negative impacts on pedestrians, bicyclists and transit users (T25). The proposed text. amendments facilitate design of parking structures needed to achieve these general plan goals. Furthermore, allowing a maximum of 84 feet in height is consistent with Bayside District Specific Plan Policy 4.1.36. 2. The public health, safety, and general welfare require the adoption of the proposed amendment in that this amendment is needed in order to implement the Downtown Parking Program and serve the needs of existing and future land uses in the downtown area as part of an overall multi-modal transportation strategy. 1 City Council Meeting: March 8-,12011 Agenda Item: 'i'"-~ To: Mayor and City Council From: Eileen Fogarty, Director, Planning & Community Development Department Subject: Text Amendment 11TA-001: Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance to Revise Certain Zoning Standards in Order to Implement the Bayside District Specific Plan and Downtown Parking Program and Facilitate Construction of New Municipal Public Parking Structures Recommended Action Staff recommends that the City Council introduce for first reading the attached ordinance amending provisions of SMMC Article IX (Zoning Ordinance) related to City- owned public parking structures. Executive Summary The Downtown Parking Program was adopted in 2006 to provide a phased plan to manage and develop the City's downtown public parking resources. The first phase of the Program, the seismic retrofit of Parking Structures #2 and #4, has been completed. The City is commencing on the next phase of the program, which includes the replacement of existing City-owned parking to achieve efficiencies and address future needs of the Downtown area as part of an overall strategic parking program. Based on the recommendations provided in the 2009 Walker Parking Study, the Council authorized staff in November 2009 to pursue design of a new parking structure to replace Parking Structure #6 at 1431 2"d Street, with the recommendation to consider maximizing the parking supply at this location. The City has contracted with a team consisting of Morley Construction, International Parking Design, Inc. and Behnisch Architekten for this project. In December 2010, the Planning Commission reviewed the project in concept and provided input, emphasizing the need for the parking structure to reflect the goals in the recently-adopted Land Use and .Circulation Element (LUCE) to provide for amulti- modal, walkable Downtown that reduces car trips in the area and encourages more bicycle access by providing additional bicycle parking facilities. On February 1, 2011, the Council received and filed a report on coordination of the Downtown and Civic Center projects in the upcoming years. Parking Structure #6 is a cornerstone of the strategy to systematically improve the Downtown and prepare for other developments that are currently in various stages of planning. In order to demolish the existing parking structure, and construct the proposed expanded structure, a Conditional Use Permit (subject to the review and approval of the 1 Planning Commission) is required, along with any necessary Text Amendments (subject to the recommendation of the Planning Commission and adoption by the Council). The Planning Commission is scheduled to review the project on March 2, 2011 and a verbal update on the Commission's action will be provided at the Council meeting. This report recommends approval of the proposed text amendment request for modifications to address the unique engineering and circulation requirements of a public parking structure while ensuring ground floor pedestrian orientation cohsistent with the LUCE. The recommended text amendments would: 1. Consistent with the 1996 Bayside District Specific Plan (BDSP), allow City-owned parking structures in the BSC2 District with a maximum of 84 feet to uppermost (rooftop). parking surface excluding permitted projections, without FAR (floor- area-ratio) limitation and not subject to a Development Review Permit. 2. Allow Planning Commission (or ARB) to grant a modification of the requirement fora 75-foot depth for ground floor uses in a City-owned public parking structure, based on the same findings currently allowed to be made to modify Code requirements for minimum ground floor retail height and maximum entryway grade. 3. Modify building stepback and volume envelope requirements to allow parking structures over two stories to step back as follows: 13 feet minimum above the second story as measured to the guard rail. Architectural treatments and stairs shall be permitted to encroach into this stepback to the property line up to the third floor, and a minimum of six feet from the property line for all portions of the building above the third floor. 4. Modify the maximum 5% slope in parking areas to be consistent with the Building Code maximum of 6- 2/3% slope. These. amendments would support the design and construction of Downtown public parking structures in the BSC-2 zone. Background In January 1996, the Bayside District Specific Plan (BDSP) was adopted, providing guidance for the development of the Downtown area. The BDSP divided the Downtown into four distinct zones and set forth reduced maximum building heights, with certain exceptions, to encourage both residential development and City-owned parking structures which are at the heart of the "park once" concept that guides the success of Santa Monica's Downtown. The BDSP was followed up with a Zoning Text Amendment in February 1996, which created the BSC District and incorporated the Specific Plan standards into the Zoning Ordinance. However, the parking structure provisions were not included in that amendment. 2 On February 28 2006, Council approved the Downtown Parking Program to strategically manage the parking supply in Downtown through the retrofit, rebuild, and addition of new parking structures. Council authorized staff to proceed with the first phase of program implementation, which included the seismic retrofit of Parking Structures #2 and #4. On September 8, 2009, Council accepted the Walker. Parking Study, which provided a set of recommendations for how the City can manage and plan for future parking needs and implement the next phase of the program. Among the Walker Parking Study's recommendations was the reconstruction of Parking Structure #6, located at 1431 2"d Street. On November 10 2009, a study session was conducted to discuss concept massing, urban design, circulation, and cost implications of rebuilding Parking Structures #1 and #6. At that time, Council recommended that only Parking .Structure #6 be designed since the current parking needs identified in the Walker Parking Study did not warrant the reconstruction of Parking Structure #1 or structures at new sites. In keeping with Santa Nlonica's concept for shared parking, Parking Structure #6 is well located to serve as a shared parking facility as it is located within a short walking distance from the popular Santa Monica Pier and the Civic Center. Increasing the number of parking spaces provided at Parking Structure #6 represents an opportunity for the City to increase the parking supply near the Pier. Due to the pivotal role that this parking structure holds in the overall development strategy in terms of phasing multiple projects in the Downtown and Civic Center, the Council directed staff to prioritize the progress of this project. The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on March 2. 2011 to consider a request for a Conditional Use Permit (11CUP-02) for the new Parking Structure #6 (Attachment D), and to make a recommendation to Council on the associated Text Amendments. 3 Discussion Proposed Text Amendments In the spirit of the existing pedestrian orientation standards and the LUCE principles, the proposed Parking Structure #6 has been designed with apedestrian-friendly ground level orientation. Throughout the design process, efforts were made to comply with the Zoning Code to the greatest extent possible; however, some requirements cannot be met due to engineering and circulation constraints that are accentuated for a large public parking structure such as: • Vehicle circulation requirements including turning radii, ADA access, and additional driveway lanes for efficient ingress and egress Ramping systems including the need for continuous ramping, and for separate ramps to access above-grade and below-grade levels • Vibration issues associated with structural systems for parking structures • Wider structural spans required to provide clear vehicle parking and circulation space • Conditions related to the small project site The Zoning Code does not currently contain provisions that would allow variances from these standards to be granted. The following text amendments are recommended in the draft ordinance (Attachment A) to address these issues and facilitate the construction of efficient public parking structures that are also consistent with the urban design quality of the Downtown. A table with the current and proposed Zoning Code language is provided in Attachment B: 1. Allow 84' height for public parking structures in the BSCD-2 Zoning District The Bayside District Specific Plan includes the following policy applicable to the BSCD- 2: 4.1.36:...A project that involves the construction or expansion of a City owned public parking structure shall be permitted to be constructed up to 84 feet in height without the approval of a Development Review Permit. To provide for consistency with the BDSP, it is proposed that this policy be incorporated into the Zoning Code such that parking structures up to 84' in height would be permitted 4 without a Development Review Permit in the BSCD-2 Zoning District. Parking structures will continue to require a Conditional. Use Permit in the BSCD-2 Zoning District. Floor-Area Ratio (FAR) is a measure of land use intensity and is defined in the Zoning Code to .include upper level floors in parking garages. The 3.0 FAR permitted in the BSC-2 District would not be sufficient for an 84-foot high parking structure as anticipated in the BDSP. To reconcile these provisions of the BDSP with the Zoning Ordinance, it is recommended to allow a maximum height of 84 feet without FAR limitations for City-owned parking structures. The building envelope will instead be regulated through height and reasonable stepbacks applicable only to parking structures. Summary: Proposed modifications to SMMC9.04.08.15.060 (a) and (d) (BSCD 2 Property Development Standards) would permit an exception to the BSC2 maximum height requirement (56', 4 stories) to allow City-owned parking structures with a maximum of 84 feet to uppermost parking surface excluding permitted projections, without FAR (floor-area-ratio) limitation and not subject to a Development Review Permit. 2. Allow Planning Commission to modify minimum depth for ground floor uses in .City-owned parking structures The City's parking structures on 2"d and 4~h Streets are on relatively shallow lots (150') considering the programmatic needs of a parking structure. Special project development standards have been established for the Bayside District to ensure that commercial spaces are designed to accommodate pedestrian-oriented businesses. One of these standards is a minimum depth of 75 feet for ground floor uses. As the plans (Attachment B) show, the parking structure has been designed to achieve this standard to the greatest extent possible. However, the driveways in the rear and other structural elements make it infeasible to maintain a minimum of 75 feet across the entire width of the retail space. Currently, the Planning Commission may modify requirements for ground floor retail heighf and entryway grade, provided they can make findings of practical difficulty or 5 hardship and that the granting of the exception would not adversely affect surrounding properties or be detrimental to the district's pedestrian-oriented environment. Staff proposes to extend this section's applicability to include depth of ground floor uses within parking structures. Summary: Proposed modifications to SMMC 9.04.08.15.070(d) would allow Planning Commission (or ARB) to grant a modification of the requirement fora 75-foot depth on the ground floor of a City-owned parking structure, based on the same findings that they may currently make to modify the Code's requirements for minimum ground floor retail height and maximum entryway grade. 3. Modify stepback requirements for public parking structures SMMC 9.04.08.15.060(b) requires that structures above thirty feet in height be stepped back at a 36.9 degree angle as measured from the horizontal. In addition, SMMC 9.04.10.02.040 (Building volume envelope) requires that all new buildings provide progressively increased building stepback as they rise in height. Specifically, it states that: Buildings above two stories or thirty feet shall comply with the following setbacks at the street frontage: o Any portion of a structure between thirty-one to forty-five feet: Nine-foot average setback. o Any portion of a structure between forty-six to fifty-six feet: Eighteen-foot average setback. o Any portion of a structure between fifty-seven to eighty-four feet: Twenty- seven-foot average setback. A functional parking structure with required parking space dimensions, aisles, and circulation space cannot be designed within these stepback parameters. The recommended stepback of 13 feet above the second story as measured to the edge of guard rails is feasible and could provide adequate articulation for compatibility with surrounding structures with proper design. The proposed ordinance would allow decorative fagade treatments and staircases to protrude into the stepback area to allow 6 for creative facade treatments, provided that a distance of at least six feet from the property line is maintained above the third floor. Summary: Proposed modifications to SMMC9.04.08.15.060(b) BSCD 2 Property Development Standards, and SMMC9.04.10.02.040 Building Volume Envelope would modify building stepback and volume envelope requirements to allow parking structures over two stories to step back as follows: 13 feet minimum above the second story as measured to the guard rail. Architectural treatments and stairs shall be permitted to encroach into this stepback to the property line up to the third floor, and a minimum of six feet from the property line for all portions of the building above the third floor 4. Revise the maximum allowable slope for parking areas in structures The City's Building Code establishes a maximum slope of up to 6-2/3% in parking areas within a structure, but the Zoning Code establishes that limit at 5%. The 6-2/3% slope allows for a more consistent slope throughout the structure and avoids the need for cross-ramps and jump ramps at the ends, which is more comfortable for drivers and visitors accessing the exit points. For these reasons, staff recommends that the Zoning Code be amended to be consistent with the Building Code standard. It is noted that this amendment would be applicable generally to construction of all parking structures. Summary: Proposed modifications to SMMC 9.04.10.08.170 Slope would modify the maximum 5% slope in parking areas to be consistent with the Building Code maximum of 6- 2/3% slope. Commission Action At the time of this staff report's release, the Planning Commission was scheduled to make a recommendation on the proposed text amendment and a decision on the project's Conditional Use Permit application on March 2, 2011. A verbal update on the Commission's action will be provided at the Council meeting. Should the Planning Commission approve the project, the approval will be contingent upon adoption of the text amendment. Therefore, a Council decision to deny this text amendment would have the effect of denying the project. 7 Environmental Analysis This text amendment is proposed in conjunction with the Parking Structure #6 replacement project at 1431 2nd Street. On February 28, 2006; the City Council certified the Final Program Environmental Impact Report for the City of Santa Monica Downtown Parking Program which analyzed the demolition and reconstruction of Parking Structure #6 with a potential maximum height of 84 feet. Pursuant to Section 15162(a) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, after an environmental impact report has been certified, no additional environmental review is required if none of the conditions or circumstances described in subsections (1) - (3) of that section have occurred. Rather, pursuant to Section 15164(a), the lead agency shall prepare an addendum if some changes or additions are necessary which would not result in new significant environmental impacts or increase the severity of previously identified significant impacts. In accordance with CEQA, an addendum (Attachment C) to the EIR was prepared to update the cumulative projects list for reconstruction of Parking Structure #6 and reconsider the EIR analysis in the context of a development agreement application filed on January 7, 2011, for the proposed AMC Theater project at 1318 4th Street, which would replace Parking Structure #3. -The addendum concludes that the change in cumulative conditions under which Parking Structure #6 would be undertaken would not constitute a substantial change in the project that will result in "new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects." The envirohmental impacts associated with reconstruction of Parking Structure #6 and this proposed text amendment would be within the envelope of impacts analyzed in the Final Program EIR and/or do not constitute a new or greater significant impact. Furthermore, CEQA analysis is not required for the proposed Text Amendments for pedestrian-orientation, building articulation, and parking level slope requirements, since these amendments are exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations as it can be seen. with certainty that there is no possibility the adoption and implementation of this Ordinance will have a significant effect on the environment. 8 Public Outreach An early concept for this project was presented in two public meetings before the Planning Commission on December 1, 2010 and the City Council on January 11, 2011. Meetings have also been held with the Bayside District, including its parking sub- committee, to provide input into the design and program of the parking structure. Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 9.04.20.22.050, notice of the public hearing was published in the Santa Monica Daily Press at least ten consecutive calendar days prior to the public hearing and mailed to all property owners and tenants within a 500' radius. Financial Impacts & Budget Actions The recommended actions to amend the Zoning Ordinance do not have any financial impacts. Prepared by: Elizabeth Bar-EI, AICP, Senior Planner, Strategic and Transportation Planning Division Approved:. Forwarded to Council: -a ~ n Teen Fogarty / ~ d /~ Rod Gould Director, Planning & Comm i j/ City Manager Development Attachments: A. Draft Ordinance B. Text A mendment Table: Current & Proposed Code C. Addendum to the Downtown Parking Program EIR D. Parking Structure #6 plans 9 Attachment A Draft Ordinance 10 f:\atty\muni\laws\barry\Parking Structure 6 Text Amendment City Council Meeting 3-8-11 Santa Monica, California ORDINANCE NUMBER (CCS) (City Council Series) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA TO AMEND SANTA MONCIA MUNICIPAL CODE SECTIONS 9:04008.15.060, 9.04.08.15.070, 9.04.10.02.040, AND 9.04.10.08.170 TO IMPLEMENT THE BAYSIDE SPECIFIC PLAN AND THE DOWNTOWN PARKING PROGRAM AND TO FACILITATE THE CONSTRUCTION OF NEW CITY-OWNED PARKINGS STRUCTURES WHEREAS, in January 1996, the City Council adopted the Bayside District Specific Plan (BDSP), dividing the downtown area into four distinct zones; and WHEREAS, the BDSP reduced allowable heights, with exceptions for residential development and City-owned parking structures; and WHEREAS; in February 1996, the City Council amended the Zoning Ordinance to create the BSC District and incorporate the standards in the BDSP, but did not include the exceptions for City-owned parking structures; and WHEREAS, on February 28, 2006, the City Council approved the Downtown Parking Program to strategically retrofit and add parking resources in the Downtown so as to provide adequate public parking resources in the Downtown to support existing and future land uses through a pooled parking supply that includes existing retrofitted parking structures, reconstructed parking structures and new structures; and 1 WHEREAS, on the same date, the City Council certified the .Final Program Environmental Impact Report for the Program which analyzed the environmental impacts of a parking program that included the demolition and reconstruction of several existing parking structures including Parking Structure 6 with a maximum height of 84' and 3 levels of subterranean parking; and WHEREAS, in 2008, the City contracted with Walker Parking Consultants to review and update the City's downtown parking needs assessment; and WHEREAS, the Walker Parking Study, made a number of recommendations addressing how the City could manage and plan for future parking needs, including recommending the reconstruction of Parking Structure #6 with maximum capacity and identifying opportunities to maximize the use of existing downtown parking resources, thus reducing the need to construct additional parking spaces at other locations; and WHEREAS, in November 2009, the Council authorized staff to pursue design of anew parking structure to replace Parking Structure #6 with the direction to maximize the parking supply at this location to serve existing and future development planned in the downtown as part of the Downtown Parking Program; and WHEREAS, this proposed text amendment would modify provisions of the Zoning Ordinance for City-owned parking structures pertaining to the permitted height in the Bayside District Zone 2 (BSC2) and to pedestrian-oriented standards and building stepbacks in the Bayside District; and WHEREAS, the proposed text amendment would also modify the building volume envelope for City-owned parking structures and parking slope maximums generally; and 2 WHEREAS, these amendments would support the design and construction of City-owned parking structures in the downtown by recognizing the specific design requirements of this building type; and WHEREAS, on March 2, 2011, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed text amendment; and WHEREAS, the proposed text amendment is consistent in principle with the goals, objectives, policies, land uses, and programs specified in the adopted General Plan in that the amendment is consistent with Land Use and Circulation Element Goal D11 (address parking needs comprehensively, identifying shared parking opportunities), Goal D8 (ensure that new and remodeled buildings in the downtown contribute to the pedestrian character of the downtown and are compatible in scale) and Goal T25 (design parking to meet applicable urban design goals and minimize negative impacts on pedestrians, bicyclists and transit uses), and with Bayside District Specific Plan Section 4.1.36 (allow new parking structures in Zone 2 [BSC2] to be permitted to a height of 84 feet); and WHEREAS, the public health, safety, and general welfare require the adoption of the proposed amendment which addresses the unique engineering and circulation requirements of parking structures by modifying zoning provisions pertaining to the permitted height, pedestrian-oriented standards, building stepbacks and parking slope maximums for City-owned parking structures, ensures that the Zoning Ordinance establishes appropriate standards for the design of parking structures with ground floor pedestrian orientation, and allows for the approval of a conditional use permit application for the replacement of Parking Structure #6 at 1431 2"d Street, 3 NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.04.08.15.060 is hereby amended to read as follows: 9.04.08.15.060 Property development standards. All property in the BSC District shall be developed in accordance with the following standards: (a) Maximum Building Height and FAR. Maximum building height, number of stories and floor area ratio shall be determined as follows: District Maximum Maximum Maximum Height Number of FAR Stories BSC-1 56' 4 3.0 BSC-2 56' 4 3.0 BSC-3 56' 4 3.0 BSC-4 45' 3 2.0 Notwithstanding the above: (1) There shall be no limitation on the number of stories of any hotel, parking structure, or structure containing 4 at least one floor of residential use, so long as the height does not exceed the maximum number of feet permitted in this Section. (2) Floor area devoted to residential uses shall be discounted by fifty percent for the purposes of floor area ratio calculation. (3) Parcels of fifteen thousand square feet or less within the Passageway Overlay Zone, as depicted in the Bayside District Specific Plan, may be developed to a maximum height of eighty-four feet, and a 3.5 FAR provided the following conditions are met: (A) The top two floors are used exclusively for residential purposes; (B) All inclusionary units required by Chapter 9.28 of this Code are provided on-site; (C) Parking for the residential uses is provided on- site, notwithstanding Section 9.04.10.08.030(m); (D) A passageway dedicated to the City of Santa Monica as a recorded easement is provided; 5 (E) The dedicated passageway is a minimum of twelve feet in width and is well lighted and visually unobstructed from the Promenade to the alley; (F) There shall be only one dedicated passageway permitted on each side of each block; however, dedicated passageways existing as of the effective date of the ordinance codified in this Section shall not count toward this limit. (4) With the approval of a development review permit, parcels over fifteen thousand square feet within the Passageway Overlay Zone, as depicted in the Bayside District Specific Plan, may be developed to a maximum height of eighty-four feet, and a 3.5 FAR provided the following conditions are met: (A) The top two floors'are used exclusively for residential purposes; (B) All inclusionary units required by Chapter 9.28 of this Code are provided on-site; (C) Parking for the residential uses is provided on- site, notwithstanding Section 9.04.10.08.030(m); 6 (D) A passageway dedicated to the City of Santa Monica as a recorded easement is provided; (E) The dedicated passageway is a minimum of twelve feet in width and is well lighted and visually unobstructed from the Promenade to the alley; (F) There shall be only one dedicated passageway permitted on each side of each block; however, dedicated passageways existing as of the effective date of the ordinance codified in this Section shall not count toward this limit. (5) With the approval of a development review permit, parcels in the BSC-2 and BSC-3 Districts may be developed to a maximum height of eighty-four feet, and a 3.5 FAR provided the following conditions are met: (A) The top two floors are used exclusively for residential purposes; (B) All inclusionary units required by Chapter 9.28 of this Code are provided on-site; (C) Parking for the residential uses is provided on- site, notwithstanding Section 9.04.10.08.030(m). 7 (6) With approval of a Development Review Permit, in the BSC-2 District, existing legal nonconforming buildings on different parcels may be connected by a bridge which exceeds height limitations and FAR limitations for such parcels provided that the following conditions are met: (A) The bridge contains no usable area other than that reasonably necessary for pedestrian circulation; (B) The height of the bridge is no higher than the existing buildings; (C) The bridge would not be detrimental to public health or safety; (D) Appropriate covenants or restrictions are recorded with the County Recorder's Office which state the intention of the owner(s) to develop the parcels as a single building site in accordance with Section 9.04.06.010(8) of this Code. (7) Without requiring a development review permit, City-owned public parkinq structures in the BSC-2 District may be developed to a maximum height of eighty-four feet as measured to the rooftop parkinq surface excluding permitted projections with no FAR limitation. 8 (b) Building Stepbacks. For new structures or additions to existing structures, any portion of a building elevation fronting on Second Street, Third Street Promenade or Fourth Street, above thirty feet in height shall be stepped back at a 36.9 degree angle measured from the horizontal. For buildings located in the Passageway Overlay Zone, there shall be no additional stepback requirement above fifty-six feet of building height. In addition, for parcels one hundred feet in depth measured from Wilshire Boulevard, Arizona Avenue, Santa Monica Boulevard or Broadway (cross streets), any portion of a building elevation fronting on the cross street, above thirty feet in height, shall be stepped back fifteen feet from the cross street. The Architectural Review Board may allow the fifteen-foot stepback to be provided only for the portion of the building above forty-five feet in height if the Architectural Review Board determines that such a stepback is necessary to maintain the districts existing character and to provide visual continuity with nearby structures. Notwithstanding the above, City-owned public parking structures shall instead be required to step back above the second floor a minimum of thirteen feet measured from the guard rail with architectural treatments and stairs permitted to encroach into this stepback to the 9 property line up to the third floor and to encroach a minimum of six feet from the property line for all portions of the parking structure above the third floor. (c) Minimum Parcel Size. For all zoning classifications in the BSC District, minimum parcel size shall be seven thousand five hundred square feet. Each parcel .shall contain a minimum depth of one hundred fifty feet and a minimum width of fifty feet, except that legal parcels existing on the effective date of the ordinance codified in this Section shall not be subject to this requirement. (d) Development Review Required. For all zoning classifications in the BSC District, a development review permit is required for any new development of more than seven thousand five hundred square feet of floor area and for any development with rooftop parking, except the following projects shall be subject to a development review permit if in excess of thirty-thousand square feet: (1) Projects that contain a minimum of eighty percent of floor area devoted to multi-family residential use provided that at least twenty percent of the housing units are deed-restricted or restricted by an agreement approved by the City for occupancy by households with incomes of sixty 10 percent of median income or less or at least ten percent of the housing units are deed-restricted or restricted by an agreement approved by the City for occupancy by households with incomes of fifty percent of median income or less. The required percentage of affordable housing units shall not apply to any State density bonus units provided in the project. (2) Affordable housing projects in which one hundred percent of the housing units are deed-restricted or restricted by an agreement approved by the City for occupancy by households with incomes of eighty percent of median income or less. (3) The requirements of subsection (d)(1) may also be met through the provision of off-site affordable housing units subject to the following provisions: (A) The number of off-site affordable housing units provided by the project shall be at least twenty-five percent greater than the number of on-site units that would have been provided by the project to meet the requirements of subsection (d)(1) of this Section. 11 (B) The off-site affordable housing units shall be developed in accordance with the requirements of subsections (b) through (g) of Section 9.56.060 of this Code. (C) The off-site affordable housing units shall be located in an affordable housing project in which one hundred percent of the housing units are deed-restricted or restricted by an agreement approved by the City in accordance with the following affordability levels: (i) At least fifty percent of the housing units in the affordable housing project shall be affordable to low (sixty percent of median income) or very low (fifty percent of median income) income households, and (ii) The remaining housing units in the affordable housing project shall be affordable to moderate (one hundred percent of median income), low or very low income households. (D) The affordable housing project shall be developed to the maximum allowable floor area for the zone in which the project is developed consistent with the City's architectural design standards. 12 Square footage devoted to residential use shall be reduced by fifty percent when calculating whether a development review permit is required. (e) City-owned Parking Structures in BSC-2 District. Notwithstanding subsection (d) of this Section, projects that involve the construction or expansion of a City- owned public parking structure in the BSC-2 District shall not require a Development Review Permit. SECTION 2. Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.04.08.15.070 is hereby amended to read as follows: 9.04.08.15.070 Special project design and development standards. In all zoning classifications in the BSC District the following special project design and development standards shall apply: (a) The entries to ground floor commercial spaces shall be at the same grade as the adjacent public sidewalk. The finished floor level of the ground floor commercial spaces shall be no more than six inches below the average grade of the adjacent sidewalk or twelve inches above the average grade of the adjacent sidewalk. 13 (b) The ground floor level floor-to-floor height shall be a minimum of eighteen feet within the front seventy- five feet of the building. Affordable housing projects as defined in Section 9.04.02.030.025 shall not be subject to this subsection. (d~(c) Ground floor uses shall be pedestrian- oriented uses for a minimum depth of seventy-five feet measured from the front of the structures. {E}(d) The Planning Commission, or the Architectural Review Board in the absence of Planning Commission review, may modify the requirements of subsections (a) and (b) of this Section and the requirements of subsection (c) of this Section for City-owned public parkinq structures if the following findings of fact can be made in an affirmative manner: (1) That the strict application of the provisions of this Chapter would result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships inconsistent with the general purpose and intent of this Chapter or that there are exceptional circumstances or conditions applicable to the proposed development that do not apply generally to other developments covered by this Chapter; and 14 (2) That the granting of an exception would not adversely affect surrounding properties or be detrimental to the district's pedestrian-oriented environment. (e) In any new or reconstructed building, a minimum of seventy percent of the building fagade at the street frontage at the ground floor level shall be designed with pedestrian orientation, in accordance with Section 9.04.10.02.440 of this Chapter, unless precluded by the presence of significant existing architectural features. (f) In any new or reconstructed building, clear untinted glass shall be used at the ground floor level to allow maximum visual access to the interior of buildings. Mirrored and highly reflective glass shall not be permitted at any level of a structure. (g) In any new or reconstructed building, walk-up facilities shall be recessed and provide adequate queuing space to avoid interruption of the pedestrian flow. 15 (h) Security grills at the street level shall be designed as an integral component of the building, shall be of the roll-down type, shall have an open web sufficient to provide visibility to the interior when the grill is in the closed position, and shall be placed to the interior of the outside glass. (i) For new buildings or additions to existing buildings that are adjacent to buildings identified as historic resources, all portions of the new building or addition located within afive-foot vertical distance from the cornice of the adjacent historic resource shall be stepped back ten feet from the adjacent side property line and the adjacent side wall shall be designed with the same level of finish and detailing as the front fapade of the new construction. The Planning Commission, or Architectural Review Board in the absence of Planning Commission review, may modify this requirement if the following findings of fact can be made in an affirmative manner: (1) The proposed modification enhances the compatibility of the new construction and the historic resource; and 16 (2) The proposed modification complies with the Secretary of Interior's Standards for the Rehabilitation of Historic Structures. SECTION 3. Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.04.10.02.040 is hereby amended to read as follows: 9.04.10.02.040 Building volume envelope. All new buildings and additions to existing buildings except as specified below shall not project beyond the building volume envelope. The building volume envelope shall consist of a theoretical plane beginning at the street frontage extending to a height of thirty feet. Buildings above two stories or thirty feet shall comply with the following setbacks at the street frontage: Any portion of a structure between thirty-one to forty-five feet: Nine-foot average setback. Any portion of a structure between forty-six to fifty- six feet: Eighteen-foot average setback. Any portion of a structure between fifty-seven to eighty-four feet: Twenty-seven-foot average setback. City-owned public parking structures shall instead be required to step back above the second floor a minimum 17 of thirteen feet measured from the Guard rail with architectural treatments and stairs permitted to encroach into this stepback to the property Tine up to the third floor and a minimum of six feet from the property line for all portions of the building above the third floor. SECTION 4. Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.04.10.08.170 is hereby amended to read as follows: 9.04.10.08.170 Slope. (a) Areas used exclusively for parking excluding inter-connecting ramps shall be designed and improved with grades not to exceed a five six and two-thirds percent slope. (b) Slopes of all driveways and ramps used for ingress or egress of parking facilities shall be designed in accordance with the standards established by the Oity D°~~~^^ °^~' T'°~''^ ~^^'^°°r Strategic & Transportation Planning Manager but shall not exceed a twenty percent slope. Profiles of driveway, ramp, and grade details must be submitted to the ~~'~~ °^•~~^^ ^^~ T"°~~^ ~^^~^°°~ Strategic & Transportation Planning Manager for approval whenever any slope exceeds six percent. SECTION 5. Any provision of the Santa Monica Municipal Code or appendices thereto inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance, to the extent of such 18 inconsistencies and no further, is hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to effecfthe provisions of this Ordinance. SECTION 6. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 7. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of this Ordinance. The City Clerk shall cause the same to be published once in the official newspaper within 15 days after its adoption. This Ordinance shall become effective 30 days from its adoption. APPROVED AS TO FORM: .S~ " a2C7`u~. MA SHA J S MOUTRI City ttorn y 19 Attachment B Text Amendment Table: Current & Proposed Code 11 PROPOSAL REFERENCE/CURRENT CODE Explanation 1. Consistent with Bayside District SMMC 9.04.08.15.060 (a) and (d) BSCD 2 Specific Plan policies, permit an Property Development Standards exception to the BSC2 maximum (a) Maximum Building Height and FAR. height requirement (56', 4 Maximum building height, number of stories stories) to allow: City owned and floor area ratio: BSC2 - 56', 4 stories, 3.0 parking structures with a ' FAR; maximum of 84'feet to (d) For all zoning classifications in the BSC uppermost parking surface District, a development review permit is excluding permitted projections, required for any new development of more withoiut FAR (floor area ratio) than seven thousand five hundred square limitation and not subjectlto a feet of floor area and for any development Development Review Permit. with rooftop parking. 2. Allow Planning Commission (or'c SMMC 9.04.08.15.070(d): Ground floor uses ARB) to grant a modification of shall be pedestrian-oriented uses for a the requirement fora 75 foot minimum depth of seventy-five feet depthifor ground floor uses in a measured from the front of the structures. y apply o other ; 12 3. Modify building volume envelope requirements td allow parking structures over two stories to step back as follows: 13 feet minimum above the econd story as measured to the guard raiLArchitecturaltreatments and stairs shall be permitted to SMMC 9.04.08.15.060(b) BSCD 2: Building Stepbacks. For new structures or additions to existing structures, any portion of a building elevation fronting on Second Street, Third Street Promenade or Fourth Street, above thirty feet in height shall be stepped back at a 36.9 degree angle measured from the horizontal. encroacn into tms stepdacK to the : property line up to the third floor; , SMMC 9.04.10.02.040 Building Volume and a minimum of six feetfrom Envelope: All new buildings and additions to the property line for all portions existing buildings shall not project beyond of thebuilding above the'third the building volume envelope. The building floor: volume envelope shall consist of a theoretical plane beginning at the street frontage extending to a height of thirty feet. Buildings above two stories or thirty feet shall comply with the following setbacks at the street frontage: Any portion of a structure between 31 to 45 feet: 9-foot average setback. Any portion of a structure between 46 to 56 feet: 18-foot average setback. Any portion of a structure between 57 to 84 feet: 27-foot average setback. 4. Modify the maximum 6% slope 'SMMC 9.04.10.08.170 Slope: Areas used in parking areasto be consistent ` exclusively for parking excluding inter- with the Building Code maximum connecting ramps shall be designed and of 6 2/3% slope, `' improved with grades not to exceed a five percent slope. 13 Attachment C Addendum to the Downtown Parking Program EIR 14 INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM Date: February 16, 2011 To: Eileen Fogarty, Director, Planning and Community Development From: Rachel Kwok, Environmental Planner Subject: Addendum to the Downtown Parking Program Final Program EIR Background: On February 28, 2006, City of Santa Monica City Council certified the Final Program Environmental Impact Report (Final PEIR State Clearinghouse No. 2002121122) for the City of Santa Monica Downtown Public Parking Program (Downtown Parking Program). This document is an Addendum to the Final PEIR. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this Addendum addresses the change in cumulative conditions under which Parking Structure 6 of the Downtown Parking Program would occur. The Final PEIR analyzed a parking program that included the following: • Demolition and Reconstruction of Parking Structure 1 located at 1234 Fourth Street, Parking Structure 3 located at 1320 Fourth Street, and Parking Structure 6 located at 1431 Second Street. Upon reconstruction, these three parking structures would provide a combined total "pooled" parking supply of 1,693 spaces (total net new 712 spaces). • Two new parking structures in the vicinity of 5t" Street' • The program EIR identifed interim replacement parking for approximately 580 spaces at the Civic Center Parking Structure during construction of the various parking structures As indicated in the Final PEIR, the purpose of the Downtown Parking Program is to provide adequate public parking resources in the Downtown area to support existing and future land uses. The Final PEIR provided aproject-level and cumulative level_analysis of the environmental impacts associated with implementation of the Downtown Parking Program. Change in Cumulative Conditions: The City is commencing on the next phase of the Downtown Parking Program with the reconstruction of Parking Structure 6. The City is currently designing the reconstruction of Parking Structure 6 and anticipates construction in 2012. Parking Structure 6 is anticipated to accommodate approximately 715 parking spaces, an approximately 400 space increase over what exists today and an increase of approximately 162 spaces over what was studied in the Final PEIR. The actual number of parking spaces may vary slightly as construction plans are finalized. In 2008, the City contracted with Walker Parking Consultants to update the Downtown Parking Program. The Walker Parking Studv concluded that with reconstruction of Parking Structures 1 & 6, public use of private lots, and policy and pricing changes, the City's downtown area would have sufficient parking and reconstruction of Parking Structure 3 would not be necessary. Accordingly, Parking Structure 3 is currently-being considered for redevelopment as part of the proposed AMC Theatre development. In compliance with CEQA, the environmental impacts associated with the AMC Theatre development (i.e., redevelopment of Parking Structure 3 site) will be analyzed in a separate environmental impact report being prepared for that project. However, the proposed AMC development was not previously considered in the cumulative analysis for the Downtown Parking Program Final PEIR. 'The Final PEIR identifed that the two new parking structures would be located in the area generally bound by Wilshire Boulevard to the north, 4'" Court [o the west, Colorado Avenue to the south, and 6`" Court to the east. INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM The Downtown Parking Program is intended to provide adequate parking in Downtown through a pooled parking supply that includes existing retrofitted parking structures, reconstructed parking structures (Parking Structures 1, 3, and 6), and two new parking structures. The City has acquired a property at 5~" Street and Arizona Avenue. Guiding principles for future development include public parking that could be equivalent to one or both of the two new parking structures near 5'" Street that were previously contemplated and analyzed in the Final PEIR. Notwithstanding the removal of Parking Structure 3 from the Downtown Parking Program, public parking needs in the Downtown area would continue to be met through a "pooled" parking supply that would include the project elements identified in the Final PEIR, inclusive of the reconstruction of Parking Structure 6 and the potential new parking structure at 5~" Street and Arizona Avenue. As such, the City anticipates that the change in cumulative conditions (namely, the development of the AMC Theatre at the existing Parking Structure 3 site) w ould not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. CEQA Authority for this Addendum: CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines establish the type of environmental documentation which is required when changes to a project occur after an EIR is certified. Section 15164(a) states that: "The lead agency or a responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent E/R have occurred". Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines requires a Subsequent EIR where an EIR has already been prepared under the following circumstances: 1. Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effecfs; 2. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken, which will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; 3. New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete shows any of the following: a. The project will have one or more significant.effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration, b. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR, c. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative, or INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM d. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous E/R would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but fhe project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. The purpose of this Addendum is to address the change in cumulative conditions under which Parking Structure 6 of the Downtown Parking Program would be undertaken [namely, the addition of the proposed AMC Theatre Project as a related project] and analyze whether the AMC Theatre Project could result in any new cumulatively significant environmental impacts which were- not identified in the Final PEIR or whether previously identified signifcant impacts would be substantially-more severe. As indicated in the analysis provided herein, the change in cumulative conditions under which Parking Structure 6 would be undertaken would not constitute a substantial change in the project that will involve "new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects". The environmental impacts associated with reconstruction of Parking Structure 6 would be within the envelope of impacts analyzed. in the Final PEIR and/or do not constitute a new or greater significant impact. On the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, the City has determined that an Addendum is the appropriate form of CEQA documentation to address the potential changes in the Downtown Parking Program (elimination of Parking Structure 3 for the proposed AMC Theatre Project) and in cumulative conditions. Environmental Analysis: The environmental analysis in this Addendum considers the environmental issues that were analyzed in the Final PEIR (Transportation/Traffic, Air Quality, Noise and Vibration, Land Use and Planning, Aesthetics/Shadows, Construction Effects, and Neighborhood Effects). The addendum analyzes the chahge in cumulative conditions and determines if, as a result of the change, reconstruction of Parking Structure 6 would result in new significant impacts or increase the severity of previously anticipated significant impacts. As demonstrated by the analysis, notwithstanding the change in cumulative conditions, environmental impacts associated with reconstruction of Parking Structure 6 as part of the Downtown Parking Program would be within the envelope of impacts documented in the Final PEIR. Wliile this Addendum takes into consideration the cumulative effects that removal of Parking Structure 3 would have on Parking Structure 6, it should be noted that the project-specific environmental impacts of the Parking Structure 3 site for the proposed AMC Theatre Development would be subject to a separate environmental review. In addition, minor final design modifications with regard to Parking Structure 6 (e.g., increase in ramp slopes for the parking structure, changes in building stepbacks, increase in half level of subterranean parking) would not result in new environmental impacts. These minor design modifications represent insignificant adjustments in the design of the parking structure and would not have a greater and/or different physical impact on the environment than what was analyzed in the Final PEIR. For example, the Final PEIR analyzed construction air quality and noise impacts associated with the parking structure based on the maximum peak daily construction activities. Therefore, an increase in a half level of subterranean parking and/or increase in slope would not change the conclusions for construction-related air quality and/or noise impacts since construction activities would be similar on a peak daily basis. Furthermore, as analyzed in this Addendum, the increase in the number of parking spaces for Parking Structure 6 over what was studied in the Final PEIR would not result in new significant traffic impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant impacts. As identified herein, the INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM shift in the number of trips going to Parking Structure 6 would not substantially increase traffic impacts since the traffic analysis in the Final PEIR provides aworst-case analysis that double counts a number of trips going to Parking Structure 6. INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM Environmental Issue Trans ortationlTrafYc Final PEIR Impact Analysis of Environmental Impact Due to Change in Cumulative Conditions Consistent with Final PEIR? Issue 4.1.5-1 Significant and The Final PEIR's traffic analysis was conductedon a conservative cumulative basis, taking Yes Intersection Operations Unavoidable into account an areawide ambient growth of 0.8 percent per year and the development of (long term) related projects [see Figure 1]. While the cumulative traffic analysis did not include the proposed AMC Theater development as a related project, the inclusion of the 0.8 percent ambient growth factor accounts for traffic from future projects (such as the proposed AMC Theater Development) that could not have been known at the time of the Final PEIR. As such, given that the traffic analysis in the Final PEIR utilized an ambient growth factor, the cumulative trips from the proposed AMC Theater Development were essentially captured in the traffic analysis. zs Thus, the total amount of cumulative traffic on the street network is anticipated to be consistent with that analyzed in the Fihal EIR. However, with the redevelopment of Parking Structure 3 for the proposed AMC Theater Development and the increase in the number of parking spaces for Parking Structure 6, there could be a geographical shift in trip distribution patterns due to a potential increase in the number of vehicle trips going to Parking Structure 6 (instead of Parking Structure 3). However, as shown in Figure 1, the traffic analysis was highly conservative and essentially double counted various trips occurring along the roadway network. Specifically, the ambient growth factor of 0.8 percent double counts trips from related projects. In addition, the parking structure trips calculated for Parking Structure 6 also double counts trips associated with existing land uses, related projects, and ambient growth. This conservatively methodology provides a "cushion" for trip analysis. Therefore, the shift in the increase of trips to Parking Structure 6 would not substantially increase traffic impacts since the traffic analysis. provides a worst-case anal sis that double counts a number of tri s oin to Parkin Structure 6. ' It should be noted that the trafFc analysis in the Final PEIR is highly conservative. Generally parking structures are not land uses that result in direct trip generation. Rather it is the land uses in the vicinity of parking spaces that generate trips (and subsequently, parking demand). Nonetheless, the traffic analysis assumed a worst case scenario that analyzed trips from the parking structures based on the total number of net new parking spaces. No changes to the Downtown Parking Program are proposed which would not increase the total net new number of parking spaces above what was analyzed in the Final PEIR. Rather, from a trip generation standpoint, by not reconstructing Parking Structure.3, trip generation would be less than analyzed. 3 The traffic analysis in the Final PEIR analyzed traffic impacts by comparing a Cumulative Base Scenario against a Cumulative Base Plus Project Scenario. In the case of the project, this cumulative type of traffic analysis was more conservative in that it took into account trips associated with areawide ambient growth of 0.8 percent per year and trips associated with planned related development projects. Therefore, a traffic analysis wherein traffic impacts are analyzed by comparing an Existing Base Scenario against an Existing Base Plus Project Scenario (to be consistent with the case of Sunnyvale West Neighborhood Assn. v. City of Sunnyvale City Council) would reveal fewer traffic impacts. Therefore, no new significant environmental traffic impacts or an increase in the severity of signifcant impacts would occur when utilizing this approach. INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM Environmental Issue Final PEIR Impact Analysis of Environmental Impact Due to Change in Cumulative Conditions Consistent with Final PEIR? (continue on next page] Additionally, due to the proposed AMC Theater Development and associated removal of Parking Structure 3, a cumulative parking shortage in the Downtown area could result in secondary traffic circulation impacts. Drivers who can't fnd parking may continuously circle around the area and contribute to congestion and circulation problems. As previously stated, the public parking demand that would have been accommodated by the reconstruction of Parking Structure 3 could instead be accommodated at the potential new parking structure at 5th Street and Arizona Avenue [a component of the Downtown Parking Program that was previously analyzed]. The future (i.e., long term) public parking needs in the Downtown area would continue to be met through a "pooled" parking supply that would include the reconstruction of Parking Structure 6 and the potential new parking structure at 5th Street and Arizona Avenue. The Walker Study analyzed future parking demand based on the list of related projects, and concluded that with reconstruction of Parking Structures ? & 6, public use of private lots, and policy and pricing changes, the City's downtown area would have sufficient parking. Therefore, traffic circulation impacts would remain consistent with those analyzed in the Final PEIR, and are anticipated to be significant and unavoidable for 11 intersections. The change in cumulative conditions due to the proposed AMC Theater Develo ment would not chan a the traffic conclusions of the Final PEIR. Issue 4.1.5-2 Congestion Significant and As stated above; while the cumulative traffic analysis did not include the proposed AMC Yes Management Program Unavoidable Theater development as a related project, the inclusion ofthe 0.8 percent ambient growth Network factor accounts for future projects (such as the AMC Theater Development) that could not have been known at the time of the Final PEIR. As such, the amount of cumulative traffic would be consistent with that analyzed in the Final PEIR. The change in cumulative conditions due to inclusion of the proposed AMC Theater Development would not change the traffic conclusions of the Final PEIR. Therefore, traffic impacts on the CMP freeway network would remain consistent with those analyzed in the Final PEIR, and is anticipated to be si nificant and unavoidable at the I-10 freewa east of Cloverfield Boulevard. Air ~1ua11tY INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM Environmental Final PEIR Analysis of Environmental Impact Due to Change in Cumulative Consistent Issue Impact Conditions with Final PEIR? Issue 4.2.3-1 Regional Significant and As stated above, while the cumulative traffic analysis did not include the proposed AMC Yes Operational Emissions Unavoidable Theater development as a related project, the inclusion of the 0.8 percent ambient growth factor accounts for. future projects (such as the proposed AMC Theater Development) that could not have been known at the time of the Final PEIR. As such, the amount of cumulative traffic would be consistent with that analyzed in the Final PEIR. Accordingly, regional operation emissions [which are calculated based on the cumulative traffic analysis] would be consistent with those analyzed in the Final PEIR, and as such, would be significant and unavoidable. Issue 4.2.3-2 Localized Less Than As indicated above, the amount of cumulative traffic would be consistent with that analyzed Yes CO Impacts Significant in the Final PEIR. Accordingly, localized CO impacts would be consistent with those anal zed in the Final PEIR, and as such, would be less than si nificant. Issue 4.2.3-3 Odors Less Than The proposed AMC Theater Development would generate odor impacts similar to those Yes Significant analyzed in the Final PEIR for reconstruction of Parking Structure 3. Odor impacts are typically localized. Based on the type of use, the proposed AMC Theater Development is not anticipated to result in significant odor sources. The change in cumulative conditions would not result in new significant odor impacts for the reconstruction of Parking Structure 6. Odor im acts would be consistent with those anal zed and as such, would be less than si nificant. Issue 4.2.3-4 AQMP Less Than AQMP consistency is assessed on aproject-by-project basis. The proposed AMC Theater Yes Consistency Significant Development would be reviewed to ensure consistency with the AQMP. The change in cumulative conditions would not result in new signifcant AQMP impacts for the reconstruction of Parking Structure 6. AQMP consistency impacts would be consistent with those anal zed and as such, would be less than si nifcant. Noise'and Vibeation Issue 4.3.4-1 Less Than Operational noise impacts are assessed on aproject-by-project basis, with consideration to Yes Operational noise Significant .the specific types of noise sources proposed. Based on the type of use, the proposed AMC sources Theater Development is not anticipated to result in significant noise sources. The change in cumulative conditions would not result in new significant operational noise impacts for the reconstruction of Parking Structure 6. Noise impacts would be consistent with those anal zed and as such, would be less than si nificant. INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM Environmental. Final PEIR Analysis of Environmental Impact Due to Change in Cumulative Consistent Issue Impact Conditions with Final PEIR? Issue 4.3.4-2 Traffic Less Than As stated above, while the cumulative traffic analysis did not include the proposed AMC Yes Noise Significant Theater development as a related project, the inclusion of the 0.8 percent ambient growth " factor accounts for future projects (such as the proposed AMC Theater Development) that could not have been known at the time of the Final PEIR. As such, the amount of cumulative traffic would be consistent with that analyzed in the Final PEIR. As indicated above, the amount of cumulative traffic associated with the reconstruction of Parking Structure 6 would be consistent with that analyzed in the Final PEIR. Accordingly, traffic noise levels would be consistent with those anal zed in the Final PEIR, and as such, would be less than si nificant. Issue 4.3.4-3 Vibration Less Than Vibration impacts are typically assessed on aproject-by-project basis, with consideration to Yes Significant the specific types of vibration sources proposed. Based on the type of use, the proposed AMC Theater Development is not anticipated to result in a significant vibration source. The change in cumulative conditions would not result in new significant vibration impacts for the reconstruction of Parking Structure 6. Vibration impacts would be consistent with those .anal zed and as such, would be less than si nificant. Land Use and"Plannin ;" Issue 4.4-1 Local Land Less Than Consistency with local land use policies are typically assessed on aproject-by-project basis. Yes Use Policies Significant The proposed AMC Theater Development would be reviewed to ensure consistency with local land use policies. The change in cumulative conditions would not result in new significant local land use policy impacts for the reconstruction of Parking Structure 6. Local land use policy impacts would be consistent with those analyzed and as such, would be less than si nificant. Issue 4.4-2 Regional Less Than Consistency with local land use policies are typically assessed on aproject-by-project basis. Yes Policies Significant The proposed AMC Theater Development would be reviewed to ensure consistency with regional land use policies. The change in cumulative conditions would not result in new significant regional land use policy impacts for the reconstruction of Parking Structure 6. No changes are proposed that would relate to consistency with regional policies. Regional land use policy impacts would be consistent with those analyzed and as such, would be less than si nificant. Issue 4.4.3 Land Use Less Than The City of Santa Monica Downtown area is generally built out. The proposed AMC Theater Yes Compatibility Significant Development is a related redevelopment project, whose commercial uses would not conflict with the reconstruction of Parking Structure 6. Land use compatibility impacts would be consistent with those anal zed and as such, would be less than si nificant. INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM --- Environmental Final .PEIR Analysis of Environmental Impact Due to Change. in Cumulative Consistent Issue Impact Conditions with Final PEIR? (>*estheti cs/S hz~daws Issue 4.5-1 Public Less Than View impacts are typically assessed on aproject-by-project basis, with consideration to a Yes Scenic Views Significant project's height and view blockage potential. In terms of height and potential view blockage impacts, the proposed AMC Theater Development would be generally consistent with that analyzed in the Final PEIR for reconstruction of Parking Structure 3. The change in cumulative conditions would not result in new significant view impacts for the reconstruction of Parking Structure 6. View impacts would be consistent with those analyzed and as such, would be less than si nificant. Issue 4.5-2 Visual Less Than Visual character impacts are typically assessed on a project-by-project basis, with Yes character or Quality Signifcant consideration to the project's design. The proposed AMC Theater Development would be reviewed by the Architectural Review Board to ensure consistency with aesthetic policies. The change in cumulative conditions would not result in new significant visual character and quality impacts for the reconstruction of Parking Structure 6. Visual character and quality im acts would be consistent with those anal zed and as such, would be less than si nificant. Issue 4.53 Light and Less Than The addition of the AMC Theater Development to the cumulative conditions for Parking Yes Glare Significant with Structure 6 would potentially cumulatively increase IighUglare impacts. However, as with Mitigation Parking Structure 6, IighUglare sources would be required to be shielded. LighUglare impacts would be consistent with those analyzed and as such, would be less than significant with miti anon. Issue 4.5-4 Shading Less Than Shading impacts are typically assessed on a project-by-project basis, with consideration to Yes Significant (for the project's height and location to sensitive uses. In terms of height and shading impacts, Parking the proposed AMC Theater Development would be generally consistent with that analyzed in Structure 6) the Final PEIR for reconstruction of Parking Structure 3. The change in cumulative conditions would not result in new significant shading impacts for the reconstruction of Parking Structure 6. Shading impacts would be consistent with those analyzed and as such, would be less than si nificant Cor~strucfipn EYfects ' INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM Environmental Final PEIR Analysis of Environmental Impact Due to Change in Cumulative Consistent Issue Impact Conditions with Final PEIR? Issue 4.6.3-1 Parking Less Than During the construction activities for Parking Structure 6 and other cumulative City projects Yes Shortfall during Significant with (including removal of Parking Structure 3 for the AMC Theater Development), existing Construction Mitigation parking would be displaced. As analyzed by City staff, interim parking need during the construction activities for Parking Structure 6 and other cumulative City projects would be adequately accommodated by the City's Civic Center Parking Lot and Structure as originally analyzed, (see Interim Parking Plan Information Item provided in Attachment A). Therefore, construction effects on parking would be less than significant with mitigation and consistent with those anal zed in the Final PEIR. Issue 4.6.4.3-1 Signifcant and The proposed AMC Theater Development would generate construction emissions similar to Yes Construction Air Quality Unavoidable those analyzed in the Final PEIR for reconstruction of Parking Structure 3. As disclosed in the FinaI.PEIR, concurrent cumulative development in the Downtown area would result in an increase in short-term emissions. Construction activities that occur concurrently for reconstruction of Parking Structure 6 and the proposed AMC Theater Development would result in significant and unavoidable construction air quality impacts. Construction air quality impacts would be consistent with those analyzed and as such, would be significant and unavoidable. Issue 4.6.4.3-2 Less Than The proposed AMC Theater Development would generate construction odor impacts similar Yes Construction Odors Significant to those analyzed in the Final PEIR for reconstruction of Parking Structure 3. Odor impacts are typically localized. Based on the type of use, construction of the proposed AMC Theater Development is not anticipated to result in significant odor sources. The change in cumulative conditions would not result in new significant construction odor impacts for the reconstruction of Parking Structure 6. Odor impacts would be consistent with those analyzed and as such, would be less than si nificant. Issue 4.6.5.4-1 Less Than The proposed AMC Theater Development would generate construction noise similar to those Yes Construction Noise Significant with analyzed in the Final PEIR for reconstruction of Parking Structure 3. The addition of the Mitigation proposed AMC Theater Development to the cumulative conditions for Parking Structure 6 would potentially cumulatively increase construction noise impacts. However, as with Parking Structure 6, the proposed AMC Theater Development would be required to adhere to the City of Santa Mgnica Noise Ordinance standards. Construction noise impacts would be consistent with those anal zed and as such, would be less than si nificant with miti anon. INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM Environmental Final PEIR Analysis of Environmental Impact Due to Change in Cumulative Consistent Issue Impact Conditions with' Final PEIR? Issue 4.6.5.4-2 Less Than The proposed AMC Theater Development would generate construction vibration similar to Yes Construction Vibration Significant those analyzed in the Final PEIR for reconstruction of Parking Structure 3. Given the distance of the proposed AMC Theater Development from Parking Structure 6, no cumulative vibration impacts would occur. The change in cumulative conditions would not result in new significant construction vibration impacts for the reconstruction of Parking Structure 6. Vibration impacts would be consistent with those analyzed and as such, would be less than si nificant. Issue 4.6.6-1 Less Than The proposed AMC Theater Development would result in construction land use impacts Yes Construction Land Use Significant with similar to those analyzed in the Final PEIR for reconstruction of Parking Structure 3. The Mitigation addition of the proposed AMC Theater Development to the cumulative conditions for Parking Structure 6 would potentially cumulatively increase construction land impacts as a result of construction traffic. However, as with Parking Structure 6, the proposed AMC Theater Development would be required to implement a Construction Management Plan to ensure that land use impact would not be significant. Construction land use impacts would be consistent with those anal zed and as such, would be less than si nificant with miti anon. Issue ~ 4.6.7-1 Less Than The proposed AMC Theater Development would result in construction visual impacts similar Yes Construction-related Signifcant to those analyzed in theFinal PEIR for reconstruction of Parking Structure 3. Cumulative Visual Impacts construction-related visual impacts could occur if two concurrent construction projects are geographically located in the same visual range. The proposed AMC Theater Development would not be in the same visual range as Parking Structure 6. Therefore, the change in cumulative conditions would not result in new significant construction visual impacts for the reconstruction of Parking Structure 6. Construction activities would remain similar to those analyzed in the Final PEIR. Construction-related visual impacts would be consistent with those anal zed and as such, would be less than si nificant. Nei"°hborhood Effects , Issue 4.7.3-1 Traffic Significant and Refer to Issue 4.1.5-1 Intersection Operations Yes Unavoidable Issue 4.7.3-2 Less Than Refer to Issue 4.6.3-1 Parking Shortfall during Construction Yes Construction Traffic Signifcant with Miti ation Issue 4.7.3-3 Signifcant and Refer to Issue 4.6.4.3-1 Construction Air Quality Yes Construction Air Qualit Unavoidable INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM Environmental Final PEIR Analysis of Environmental Impact Due to Change in Cumulative Consistent Issue Impact Conditions with Final PEIR? Issue 4.7.3-4 Less Than Refer to Issue 4.6.5.4-1 Construction Noise Yes Construction Noise Significant with Miti anon Issue 4.7.3-5 Land Use Less Than Refer to Issue 4.4.3 Land Use Compatibility Yes Character Si nificant Issue 4.7.3-5 Aesthetics Less Than Refer to Issues 4.5.1-4.5.4 Aesthetics Yes and Visual Quality Significant Less Than Significant with Miti anon INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM Figure 1. Cumulative Traffic Analysis in Final PEIR Existing Land Use Related Projects I~ Ambient Growth Downtown Cumulative with Trips ~ Trips ~ Trips [0.8 percent ~ Parking Structures ~ Project Trips per year] [Project] Trips 0 Double counts some "Related Projects Trips" Double counts some "Existing Land Use Trips", "Related Projects Trips", and "Ambient G owth Trins" Attachment D Parking Structure #6 Plans 15 J~I_I_J_I_ NOTE: CURRENT ZONING CODE 7~ ALLOWS S%MAX. SLOPE ON N - -7 1 PARKING RAMPS B3 LEVEL PARKING STRUCTURE #6 ~ CITY OF SANTA MONICA znan~ -- _ -- -- ~ _ i- I _ off A)'.6' 2/3% MP LOP p° a - i -- -- -- _ - i orv UP ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ E- ~pN ._ q ° ~ .~' Ir ~I Ir I ~ ~_. I I _u ~~ ® 1 R 1 a 5~~11 NOTE: N ~~ CURRENT ZONING CODE ALLOWS S% MAX. SLOPE ON PARKING RAMPS 62 LEVEL PARKING STRUCTURE #6 z CITY OF SANTA MONICA zizani I ~ I orv ~ 1A)'. 6 '2/3% f '2AMP LOP ~ UP oN ~ ~ ~ s y ~ i -~ ~ . i - ~ - •q oN _ orv f NOTE: CURRENT ZONING CODE N ALLOWS 5% MAX. SLOPE ON PARKING RAMPS B1 LEVEL _, PARKING STRUCTURE #6 3 CITY OF SANTA MONICA ZiZ3n, ~ i _. ` ~ ua ~,, ~~.\ , I ~ XIT uP , ~ orv \~ I1 ~ E TRY I orv ' i ~__ i i o UP .~ AX. 2/B% AMP OP rv , p J _~ nnn n m m ~ n n n n n n n C _ _ _ ALLEY ~ p _ r_, -_- _ _.,I _ I-I P ', i ' ~_ .< i ,_ ~ . T -- N ~'~ ~ S 1 T __ N [ , i .> uP - i f- a S ORA E - ___. ~ oN - _. .. _ ~ ~ ~ ~ - _ a i I s ~, IWE RET IL ' ~~~ ~ II -i f'"', rv n o EXIT E ~, RY ;- n ,I , i P _ - { ~ ~ v SECOND STREET GROUND LEVEL PARKING STRUCTURE #6 CITY OF SANTA MONICA a zizan 1 PARKING SUMMARY:. LOWER LEVELS STD SPACES =212 COMPACT SPACES= 0 STD ACS SPACES =- 4 VAN ACS SPACES = 5 SUBTOTAL =221 UPPER LEVELS STD SPACES = 508 COMPACT SPACES= 0 STD ACS SPACES = 9 VAN ACS SPACES = 10 SUBTOTAL =527 TOTAL SPACES =748 NOTE: NI-y--I CURRENT ZONING CODE ~1/ REQUIRES 75' DEPTH POR RETAIL SPACES ~~~ ~ NOTE: N CURRENT ZONING CODE ALLOWS 5% MAX. SLOPE ON PARKING RAMPS - SECOND LEVEL - PARKING STRUCTURE #6 s I CITY OF SANTA MONICA zizan, -- -- -- -- -- - - - EXI ON i ~ i ~ - MAX 62/: oN uP °oRAI ~ - EXI ENT _ oN uc i i i i i ' ~ UP oN S ~ SUP ~ ' ~ i ~ _ ~ - a _ _ _~ o- I~ I I I I ~ I I I I I I ' NOTE: NmVJ CURRENT ZONING CODE ALLOWS 5% MAX. SLOPE ON PARKING RAMPS THIRD LEVEL PARKING STRUCTURE #6 s CITY OF SANTA MONICA zizsn~ __ _-__ _ ~ ~~ ~ I -~ -. orv uP ~' ~~ A 6 /3/o AMP LOP ' N ~ i i i i olu -~ O ~~~ NOTE: CURRENT ZONING CODE ,•W ALLOWS 5 % MAX. SLOPE ON PARKING RAMPS FOURTH LEVEL _, PARKING STRUCTURE #6 7 CITY OF SANTA MONICA zi23n, -- -- -- -- I-~ - - °p' A 6 /3% AMP LOPE' ~" n . _~_ ~ ~ i UP AN S ~ ~ ~ Q i ~ °p T I .. .. . o v ~ o 0 ~~~ ~ »~~ NOTE: N CURRENT ZONING CODE ALLOWS 5 % MAX. SLOPE ON PARKING RAMPS FIFTH LEVEL PARKING STRUCTURE #6 8 CITY OF SANTA MONICA z~zam ~ i i -- - ~ °p A) 6 /3% AMP LOPE ' - uP ~ ~ ~ -- ~ i i i ~ J i UP ON I~- ii S i i i ~n ~ii I-r-r ii ~. ~ ii Np i ~ ~ ~~~ ~ a N NOTE: ~~ CURRENT ZONING CODE ALLOWS 5°/a MAX. SLOPE ON PARKING RAMPS SIXTH LEVEL PARKING STRUCTURE #6 s CITY OF SANTA MONICA Zi23n, i i i -. uF ~ A) 6 2/3% AMP LOPE - ~ ,°," i °-~- ' . -- - --- - -'- I AN , ~-~ , ~ ~ 0 9 N ~~ NOTE: CURRENT ZONING CODE ALLOWS 5% MAX. SLOPE ON PARKING. RAMPS SEVENTH LEVEL _, PARKING STRUCTURE #6 ~o CITY OF SANTA MONICA 2~z31„ -- - -- -- __ - ' uv ~ 6 /3%. L_I_ MP I LOPE I I ~ ~' ~I °p J_ ~ i on i ii r ii --rT ii ii~ ii ~-r ii te i ~ o ~~ ~ l ,,_l_~ ~_l_. -~~ ~ ~ ~ _ _ ~___ A 2/3%' AM ' -~ N NOTE; CURRENT ZONING CODE ALLOWS 5°/a MAX. SLOPE ON PARKING RAMPS EIGHTH LEVEL PARKING STRUCTURE #6 11 CITY OF SANTA MONICA vzsi~, _ ti_ ~ _ _ _ gip ' ~ IA) 6 /3°/a MP 'LOPE' I ' °" I I I J ~ I I ' I aw o" I II '~ I ~ ~~ _ "" - I ___ .__. _ _ ~ _ _ __. . _' o ~ o o =- - - -- I li i i i I 'I i i I i I, _~ i c> o 0 0 0 0 0 ~ o o ~ ~~ I II I ~~ ~ I ndte final olar ocatl ns T.B. I J~ ~ ~ ~ zi I ~, . I i d 5.J~" ~___ 23.6. °i i -k- O_- ---_~-_- __ -_----_ ~° I__.._ o photovoltalcs ---- -- ~- °~ ~ ~»---steel rotl (oontlnuous) ~ I T ~ ~ ~ ~, II T - Infegratetl lighting ', ~ steel support ~ ~ ~ ii W I nole:fnal solar panel locations T.B.O ~ ~ ~ - concrete _- - - - - - - - I column extension ~ - ~ - - °' ~ etlge o(sle ~ I ^~ WALKW ~ PARKING AREA O ,~ - _ " ~ ; " " ~d ~ .. .. ~ ~ I ~ I I ~ ~I~ I~ "~"I 9A5 ~ssx? ~ s I I ~ O O O O OO © O © O O O O O PHOTOVOLTAIC SUPPORTS ROOF PLAN tie•=r-0° 1/32"=t,_o„ - _ a4xxwcxnrepartnnex PARKING STRUCTURE #6 P9. ~z '. ~~ ~~ CITY OF SANTA MONICA z zz ~ ~:.-:~. _ I _.. .... ~_ _ __.... ~ __ __, 1PVROJECTIO_N_LIMIT z 1910 ~ __ "'°'ov'NOw'~' iu w~ ` ~ ~ yy rwe m "~ ucw ~- "- -"- y ._-~. - 3 f 11 9 ~-~ '~ ~ IOP PARKING tEVC-L ° '" I. _...~mnmanE.o~e _. __. _._ I -_ ~~ _ na o . / 84'ABOVE AVERAGE GRADE_ I ~ ~ `° -.. ~ ~ B'-7 °r' _ f ±-_ _.- - ._.__ _- • ~~ ~ ~_ I ~.5yi -~_ __-_ j ___ -__ _. ~ ~~ L _____-__ -.-._- _-.- .. s 6 10 9 I 1 I (tll vNe) w J~-2 f IIG X , r _; _ _ :Fy RETAIL 2nd STREET TRANSVERSE SECTION FARMER'S MARKET STORAGE STREET COURT eExwscxnxcxnercrex PAf2KING STRUCTURE ~$6 note: wrtent zoNxgreQNrementk l8'xool to Owlet relall ^IOCenoxmxammanT.e.o• P9.'13 == "'= "" F '' x~^TT CITY OF SANTA MONICA -c .A z/ZV~1 13 12 1 1 10 9 8 I/ I 6 5 4 3 2 i IY J~ _ _E,cxnl pmoq LPL J~ Y Fy Iq 9RQOF) IfVEL FLa51.66 Y SLVENM LEVEL J~ [~TM2~L a: 141.10 Y JYO= _ _ _ SINM IflEI ~ ~ FL 131131 ]G Y a: IRJ U9FL _ J~ ~ FlflHLF2L h gyp, X190 -- ~ ~~ EL 121.1Y~ - _ __ FWPIH LEVEL J~ J~ R: 11 G.91 Y V EL: ~6.J2~ __ ___-TM~L ~. m,AO LLVFL 654 __ _ _ _ sFC_ouo EFVFL h SEWNU IkVa a: 90.15 ~54ea caouxo LEE GAOUNU I£_VEL ~ --R: ]1 bR l~ ~ fL JO,GG 2', V FI: 3].49 ~ ___L ___55 ECVEL h cl Sa39 Y EAST ELEVATION _, PARKING STRUCTURE #6 14 CITY OF SANTA MONICA zrzsnl i 1 _ + _ a - ~ -- ---- - ., ~ ~ ~ ~ _.... . I L J_-- _ -~ I ~ I ____ C, _ ] I~IL l ~~,~ r'. ~q i~ ~ ~ 4 tN,y ]~~.. .I4.. .'i..b ]9' ,I TRANS I TRAS PUMP FARMER'S MARKCT GEN HVAC AIR I TAKE STAIR ~ II II w -- u I x p I ~ -~~ III ~ ~ `,~~ N RETAIL w ,..__.. I,, m I Loaev ~~ ~' . \_ _ T T_ ~ ~/ R TAI'STOREFR NTE CAO ~ _ ~ ~ i74§~ o U SECOND STREET y y U' ' _ m .._ ........_... ___ _ _ CENTERLINE OF SECOND STREET g (7 - - _.__ .._...._ __. __ _- _- - - ...._.. ___ - _ - _ .__ __.- ___ F 2nd STREET PUBLIC REALM _~ aexxD~x~a~~rtoRE~ PARKING STRUCTURE #6 pg. 15 ~~='~='_~ CITY OF SANTA MONICA ;~~Q~~~~;t~j~~T,~ r ~ ~~~I~ -~ ~~q~~,~,pp~ly ~~ ~F ~~~~~~~~ I I i ~~ ~ ~~~'~~~~ ~1~~ ~~ ` ~~~ vt. ,i~,, ~ ~~ _ _. _ z ~_ ~ ti ~~ ~~~~~ .. -- ~~ 9 ~, .~ ~ -»-~- `-, zl-.~. ____. -.-G-~.~~ -r Fay... L.~a ~.~,~, JI i_ .' ` r i ' It 'r`+:a n~ ,: ~ .r NORTH CoSM PARKING STRUCTURE#6 souTN po Santa Monica Blvtl.l. ~ po Broadway) 2nd Street Contextual Elevation not to scale _ aE~als~x~~lno~n PARKING STRUCTURE #6 pg ^°~==~Y==~y CITY OF SANTA MONICA ~.~__~ ._-- vzzm Street _~ aExx~=x~~~~EN PARKING STRUCTURE #6 pg. 18 -=~;~.~-,. CITY OF SANTA MONICA ~. __-.~ -~- zizzm