Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
sr-120187-12c
C /ED: SF: jt Council Meeting: November 24, 1987 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: City Staff Santa Monica, Californi4)EC 1 198, SUBJECT: Appeal of Planning Commission Denial of Development Review 325, EIA 814, Conditional Use Permit 417, ZA- 5169-Y, To Permit the Construction of a 196 Room Hotel with Associated Meeting Rooms, Restaurants, Health Club and 495 on -site Parking Spaces - Applicant /Appellant: R.E. International iptua () e- T t ( o �E)L V_ . INTRODUCTION The report recommends that the City Council reverse the Planning Commission denial of DR 325, EIA 814, CUP 417, 2A 5169 -Y for the construction of a 196 room hotel with associated meeting rooms, restaurants, and health club. On October 19, 1987 the project was technically denied by the Planning Commission in that a mo- tion to approve the project failed by a 3 -2 vote by the Planning Commissioners present, and a motion to continue the project failed by a 2 -3 vote. R.E. International is appealing the deci- sion (Exhibit A). BACKGROUND The applicants propose to construct a 196 room hotel with res- taurants, bar /lounge, meeting rooms and a health club. The hotel will be located on both sides of Appian Way and an approximate 50 foot wide pedestrian bridge 14 feet above Appian Way will connect the hotel buildings. The main entrance and motor court to the hotel will be located on the west side of Appian Way. A total of - 1 - DEC 1 198L 495 parking spaces including 218 separately accessible spaces will be provided with four levels on the east side of Appian Way and two levels on the west side of Appian Way. Twenty -one metered spaces replacing the existing metered spaces on Pico Boulevard will be provided at grade on the east side of Appian Way. A total of 36 spaces will be provided for the Pritikin Cen- ter's use as replacement parking. The hotel is designed as three separate, but integrated build- ings. The design along the beachfront is reminiscent of the ocean Park bungalows, through the inclusion of hipped roofs, open porches and arched entries along the Promenade. The buildings along the Promenade maintain a low scale and articulation is pro- vided with varied setbacks and balconies. The building on the east side of Appian Way is designed in a horseshoe shape which will provide maximum views of the beach. The hipped roof element and balconies are provided throughout the design of the east building to lend some unifying treatment between the buildings. The buildings on the west side of Appian Way include meeting rooms, a banquet room, restaurant, bar /lounge, outdoor dining area, kitchen and retail space on the first level above parking; the lobby, a restaurant, hotel offices, and hotel suites on the next level and hotel rooms on the next two levels. The building on the east side of Appian Way will include a health spa, the personnel locker area and 21 metered parking spaces on the ground floor and guest rooms on floors two through six. - 2 - The project includes. the vacation of Pico Place North and the addition of a 6 foot wide service alley from Pico Boulevard on the east side of the building for use by the Drake Hotel. Addi- tionally, license agreements will be required for the use of the area above and below Appian Way and the outdoor dining terrace along Pico Boulevard west of Appian Way. The applicants propose to landscape the foot of Pico Boulevard and, through a payment to the City, the beach access area at the northwest side of the site. The applicant proposes to work with the Santa Monica Arts Commission and the Arts Foundation to commission an artist to design a fountain or sculpture for placement at the foot of Pico Boulevard and /or on the beach directly in front of the project. At the October 19, 1987 meeting, the Planning Commission heard the applicants request for the hotel addition (Exhibit B) follow- ing the public hearing, the project received a technical denial in that a motion to approve the project failed by a 3 -2 vote and a motion to continue the project failed by a 2 -3 vote with five Planning Commissioners present. (Exhibit C) . On, October 21, 1987 Sam Stein on behalf of R.E. International appealed the Plan- ning Commission decision. ANALYSIS As outlined in Table 7 of the Final Environmental Impact Report, the proposed project is consistent with the policies and objec- tives contained in the Land Use Element for the Oceanfront Dis- trict. These policies encourage the development of visitor ac- commodations in the area which will promote daytime and evening - 3 - I pedestrian activity along the Promenade with the inclusion of a restaurant /bar and outdoor dining area facing the Promenade as well as a retail shop. Walk -in patronage from the beach area will be encouraged as well as patronage from hotel guests. Floor Area During the Planning Commission Hearing several issues were raised by the Planning Commissioners present concerning the project. One of the major issues involved the calculation of the floor area of the project in relationship to the permitted floor area ratio. Under the Land Use and Circulation Elements floor area is defined as any portion of a building that accommodates activity in the building or contributes to the visual mass and bulk of the building. Floor area is the net floor space in a structure and shall include restrooms, lounges, kitchens, partitions, storage area, interior and exterior hallways and corridors, interior atria but shall not include exterior and load bearing walls, stairways and stairwells, elevators and shafts. Additionally, floor area shall include at -grade covered parking but does not include subterranean parking. West Parcel Under Policy 1.5.8 of the Land Use Element, the portion of the project site west of Appian Way is permitted a 1.0 floor area ratio. In calculating the permitted floor area on this portion of the site, staff included the area west of the centerline of Appian Way and Pico Boulevard west of Appian Way since these areas will be significantly improved by the developer for the benefit of both the project and the public. The developer will be required to maintain the Pico Blvd. portion of the site pur- suant to a maintenance agreement as a condition of project ap- proval. Several Planning Commissioners expressed concern regard- ing the inclusion of these streets as part of the project site because they felt that it could be precedent setting. Staff maintains that this is a unique situation in that the project spans both sides of Appian Way, and will be developed both over and under the street. Moreover, unlike in the case of other projects where the City requires street improvements to be made as part of project approval, in this case significant off -site improvements, payments for additional improvements by the developer and a formal maintenance agreement for the portion of Pico Boulevard west of Appian Way will be required of the developer. The cost of these improvements in effect will compen- sate the City for the FAR value of the land in question, as well as create substantial improvements to the public rights -of -way and the beachfront. With this in mind, the permitted floor area on the west side of the site is 38,766 square feet (1.0 x 38,766). As proposed the project contains 31, 539 above grade and 19,980 square feet of activity area below grade. If only above -grade activity areas are included in FAR, this portion of the project has a .81 FAR. If both above and below grade activi- ty areas are included, then this portion of the project has 1.32 FAR. While some Planning Commissioners expressed reservations about the FAR, a majority of those present supported staff's interpretation of FAR and articulated the perspective that the benefits to the City of this treatment were substantial. :M1= East Parcel Under Policy 1.5.8 of the Land Use Element, the portion of the project site east of Appian Way is permitted a 2.5 Floor Area Ratio (FAR). As with the west parcel, staff included the area east of the centerline of Appian Way since it will be improved and maintained by the developer. Staff also included the portion of Pico Place north which will be vacated. The permitted floor area on the east side of the site is 68,983 square feet (2.5 x 27,593). As proposed, the project contains 61,434 square feet above grade and 9,775 square feet of activity areas below grade. If above and below grade activity areas are included then this portion of the project has a 2.57 FAR. The Planning Commission raised concerns regarding the definition of floor area and whether it would be appropriate to count only above -grade activity areas for purposes of calculating the proj- ect's floor area ratio. In that Policy 3.2.3 of the Land Use and Circulation Element states that the City should consider changes to the definition of floor area for hotels and residential development so that it reflects the visual mass and bulk of these types of development, Planning staff maintains that it is appro- priate to count only the above -grade activity areas for purposes of FAR since these areas contribute to the project's visual mass and bulk and the below -grade areas do not. Additionally, approx- imately half of the below grade activity area of the project is devoted to service uses for the hotel such as storage rooms, em- ployee lockers, laundry and housekeeping areas. Project Design Issues Since the Draft EIR was published the service alley for the Drake Hotel has been relocated from the rear of the hotel and Vicente Terrace to a north /south 6' wide service drive along the east side of the project adjacent to the Drake Hotel. The applicants propose to place a trash enclosure at the intersection of this service drive and Pico Boulevard. Some concerns were raised during the Planning Commission hearing regarding whether this service alley will be adequate to serve the Drake Hotel and whether the 1 Pico hotel developer will be responsible for its maintenance. The design of the service alley has been reviewed by the Department of General Services and has been found accept- able. Final approval by the Director of General Services will be required prior to issuance of a Building Permit. In order to address the maintenance issue, Planning staff recommends that as a condition of approval the applicant be responsible for main- taining the service alley. During the 45 day Draft EIR comment period, a written comment from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board was received requesting that the developer obtain confirmation that there is available sewer capacity at the time of sewer connec- tion. A concern was raised by the Planning Commission whether the applicant should be required to obtain this confirmation di- rectly from the Los Angeles Bureau of Sanitation or from the Di- rector of General Services. In that the provision of available sewer capacity is an issue which will be addressed citywide by the Department of General Services, Planning staff feels that it - 7 - would be appropriate to include as a condition of approval that the applicant obtain confirmation from the Director of General Services that there is available sewer capacity at the time of connection. During the Planning Commission hearing there was some discussion regarding the use of an on -site wastewater reclamation plumbing system and whether it should be required as a condition of ap- proval. In that technological advances in the design of these plumbing systems is occurring rapidly, Planning staff maintains that as a condition of approval the project shall be required to include a wastewater reclamation plumbing system if determined by the Director of General Services to be appropriate and economi- cally feasible. In order to address the issue of water conserva- tion measures which was raised during the Planning Commission hearing, Planning staff recommends that as a condition of approv- al, the Developer be required to install low flow shower heads and faucets throughout the project. Additionally, staff recom- mends that in their review the Architectural Review Board pay particular attention to the feasibility of using drought resis- tant landscaping where appropriate. As proposed, a 14 foot clearance is provided for the pedestrian bridge over Appian Way which connects the east and west buildings at the pool deck level. Commissioner Nelson was concerned regarding the adequacy of this clearance height for oversized vehicles. Planning staff feels that this concern is addressed by requiring as a condition of approval that the clearance height - 8 - for the bridge above Appian Way be approved by the Director of General Services prior to issuance of a building permit. Concerns were also raised regarding the potential conflict between pedestrians crossing Pico Boulevard and vehicles ap- proaching the hotel and /or cul -de -sac at the foot of Pico Boulevard. In order to address this concern, staff recommends that in addition to the proposed 4 -way stop at the intersection of Pico Boulevard and Appian Way, pedestrian crosswalks be in- stalled at the corners of Pico Boulevard and Appian Way subject to the approval of the Parking and Traffic Engineer as a condi- tion of project approval. Concerns were also raised regarding potential conflicts between pedestrians and bicycles at the intersection of Pico Boulevard and the Promenade. In order to address this concern staff recommends that, as a condition of approval, signage be placed at this intersection to alert people using this access to the beach to proceed across the promenade with caution. As proposed, variances are required for reduced setbacks through- out the project. Some concerns were raised regarding these variance requests, however Planning staff maintains that as pro- posed, the project reinforces the street line along Pico Boulevard and Appian Way and provides active uses adjacent to the Promenade. Additionally as proposed, the project is consistent with Policy 3.3.3 of the Land Use and Circulation Elements which encourages buildings to be built to the "build to line" where pedestrian traffic is encouraged. Along the rear yard, the proj- ect is adjacent to a vacated portion of Vicente Terrace west of Appian Way and adjacent to Vicente Terrace east of Appian Way and along the east side adjacent to the Drake Hotel the proposed building will have a 6 -8 foot setback. Although setbacks are reduced, the project is sited to maximize setbacks where feasible and is designed to provide ample articulation on all elevations in order to reduce the project's overall visual mass. Planning staff believes that the project is consistent with the policies and objectives of the Land Use and Circulation Elements; will improve the visual quality of this area; will contribute to the overall public open space. system and that the conditions of approval will mitigate the effect of the project in the area. Citv Council Authoritv Under the provisions of Section 4, Ordinance 1321 (CCS) the City Council may affirm, reverse or modify any determination of the Planning Commission in regard to a Development Review Permit and the decision of the City Council shall be final. Under the pro- visions of Section 9148c (SMMC) the City Council may affirm, re- verse or modify any determination of the Planning Commission in regard to a Conditional Use Permit and the decision of the City Council shall be final. Under the provisions of Section 9147b (SMMC) the City Council may affirm, reverse or modify any deter- mination of the Planning Commission in regard to a Variance and the decision of the City Council shall be final. In approving an application, the Council, on appeal, must make appropriate find- ings and may add conditions necessary to protect the public welfare. - 10 - BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACT The recommendation presented in this report have a budget /fiscal impact in that recommended conditions of approval include that prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the Developer enter into an agreement for terms and payment of $540,000 to be placed in an account for the funding of beachfront improvements to be located directly on the beach area in front of the hotel and for the selection, acquisition and installation of a public art piece to be located in the specified area at the foot of Pico Boulevard or within the improved beach area immediately adjacent to the proj- ect. In addition, license agreements will be executed for the areas of Pico and over Appian Way to be used exclusively by the Developer. These agreements will generate approximately $553,000 in revenue to the City. RECOMMENDATION Staff respectfully recommends that the City Council uphold the appeal and reverse the decision of the Planning Commission ap- proving Development Review 325, Conditional Use Permit 417, Zoning Administrator Permit 5169 -Y and adopt a resolution cer- tifying the adequacy of the Final EIR with the following findings and conditions: i7ali���Lil;iul�l�4�t��l +M w�1TiaMw�l�l�N �[e 1. The development is consistent with the findings and pur- pose of Ordinance 1321 as set forth below. 2. The physical location and placement of proposed structures on the site are compatible with and relate harmoniously to surrounding sites and neighborhoods in that the buildings along the Promenade frontage are low in scale and feature elements which reflect the design qualities of beachfront - 11 - bungalows in the area and the building on the east side of Appian Way is designed in a horseshoe configuration to mitigate its scale and mass. The existing and /or proposed rights -of -way and facilities for both pedestrian and automobile traffic will be ade- quate to accommodate the anticipated results of the pro- posed development including off - street parking facilities and access thereto in that a total of 495 on -site parking spaces including 21 metered replacement spaces will be provided on site. Additionally, a cul -de -sac will be add- ed at the foot of Pico Blvd. and the traffic flow at the intersection of Pico Blvd. and Appian Way will be improved by an increase in the width of the curb return and the installation of stop signs at each corner of the intersection. 4. The existing and /or proposed public and /or private health and safety facilities (including, but not limited to, sanitation, sewers, storm drains, fire protection devices, protective services, and public utilities) will be ade- quate to accommodate the anticipated results of the pro- posed development. 5. The proposed development is consistent with the General Plan of the City of Santa Monica and the Zoning Ordinance in that the project will conform to the height, bulk, use and urban design policies for the Oceanfront District as specified in the Land Use Element of the General Plan and conform to the appropriate R4, R4A standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance subject to approval of variances for setbacks and for the use of exterior entrances directly to the commercial uses within the hotel. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS FOR ALCOHOL USE 1. The proposed use and location are in accordance with good zoning practice, in the public interest, and necessary that substantial justice be done in that the proposed alcohol service is designed to accommodate the needs of hotel visitors through the availability of alcohol through room service, within the two restaurants, seafood bar, lobby bar and pool area. 2. The proposed use is compatible with existing and potential uses within the general area; traffic or parking congestions will not result; the public health, safety, and general welfare are protected; and no harm to adjacent properties will result in that the use will be fully contained within the hotel and be part of the overall hotel operation which will have a total of 495 on -site parking spaces. 3. The welfare of neighborhood residents will not be adversely affected based on the findings above. - 12 - 4. There will be no detrimental affect on nearby residentially zoned neighborhoods considering the distance of the alcohol outlet to residential buildings, churches, schools, hospitals, playgrounds, parks, and other existing alcohol outlets in that the alcohol use will be an incidental component of the hotel operation and is designed to serve the needs of hotel visitors. CEQA FINDING 1. The City Council finds that the Final EIR has been prepared in compliance with CEQA, the State EIR Guidelines, and the City of Santa Monica CEQA Guidelines, and that it has reviewed and considered the contents of the Final EIR in its decision - making process, and hereby certifies the Final EIR. FINDINGS FOR SETBACK VARIANCES AND REAR YARD ADJUSTMENT The granting of these variances and adjustment is desirable to the public welfare and not in conflict with the General Plan, and will not be materially detrimental or injurious to the property or improvements in the immediate neighborhood in which the property is located in that: a. The project incorporates an appropriate re -use of a site currently partially vacant and partially used for parking. b. The project will generate City tax revenues through a variety of tax sources, including transient occupancy tax revenues from the hotel. c. The project is designed as a complex of three buildings which anchor the foot of Pico Boulevard and the Promenade by being built adjacent to the property line which visually reinforces the street which is consistent with Policy 4.3.3 of the Land Use Element. 2. There are exceptional circumstances or conditions ap- plicable to the property involved and to the intended use and development of the property that do not apply general- ly to other property in the same zone or neighborhood in that the hotel by nature of its use has particular cir- culation requirements which are best facilitated utilizing a plan which sites the building adjacent to the property lines and provides ample open space within the interior of the site. SPECIAL CONDITIONS The Architectural Review Board, in their review, shall pay particular attention to the project's pedestrian orienta- tion and amenities particularly along the Promenade; scale - 13 - and articulation of design elements; exterior colors, tex- tures and materials; window treatment; glazing; and land- scaping. To the extent feasible the Architectural Review Board shall require the use of drought- resistant plants where appropriate. 2. As part of project approval, the developer shall be re- quired to make improvements to Pico Blvd. west of Appian Way and the vacated portion of Vicente Terrace and to repave the Promenade area directly in front of the project. 3. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit the portion of the site on the west side of Appian Way shall be reverted to acreage in order to expunge a final subdivision Map on the property. 4. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit the Developer shall execute a license agreement for use of portions of Pico Boulevard west of Appian Way and Appian Way adjacent to the project. Said agreement shall be in a form acceptable to the City Attorney and approved by the City Manager. Revenues from these agreements will be approximately $553,000 and shall be payable prior to the issuance of a building permit. 5. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit the vacation of Pico Place north shall be approved. 6. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit the Developer shall enter into an agreement for terms and payment of $540,000 into an account for the funding of beachfront and public art improvements to be directly located on the beach area in front of the hotel and on Pico Blvd. Said agreement shall be in a form acceptable to the City Attorney and approved by the City Manager. The agreement shall es- tablish a process for the selection, acquisition and in- stallation of a public art piece to be located in the specified area at the foot of Pico Boulevard and possibly within the improved beach area immediately adjacent to the project. Maintenance of art work may be required of the hotel developer. All art work shall be public property owned by the City. 7. Construction hours shall be limited to those established in Section 4314 (SMMC). 8. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the developer shall enter into a maintenance agreement for the maintenance of the area of Pico Blvd. west of Appian Way, the vacated portion of Vicente Terrace, the beach area in front of the project and for maintenance and operation of the public art work. Said agreement shall be in a form acceptable to the City Attorney and subject to City Man- ager approval. - 14 - 9. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit the developer shall submit a plan for maintaining access along Appian Way during construction. The plan shall be subject to approv- al by the Director of General Services and Parking and Traffic Engineer. 10. During construction the portion of the eastern side of the site adjacent to the Drake Hotel shall be screened by a solid 8' minimum high fence to mitigate construction noise. 11. Public entrances directly from the exterior of the build- ing to the restaurant facilities, bars and retail shops shall be subject to approval of a variance. 12. The underside of the bridge over Appian Way shall be finished with a rough surface to mitigate sound reflection and noise levels in this area. 13. During construction, use of the Promenade /Bike Path shall not be obstructed. 14. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit the developer shall submit a plan for the staging of construction vehicles subject to approval by the Parking and Traffic Engineer and Director of General Services. The plan shall also indicate where construction workers will park their vehicles. 15. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit the clearance height for the bridge above Appian Way shall be approved by the Director of General Services. 16. The developer shall confer with the City and the Los An- geles County Department of Public Works to coordinate the design and construction schedule of the Pico Blvd. im- provements with the Pico /Kenter storm drain approval. 17. If determined by the Director of General Services prior to issuance of a Building Permit to be appropriate and economically feasible, the project shall include a waste- water reclamation plumbing system. 18. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit the developer shall submit a plan specifying how access will be provided for trash service to the Drake Hotel. The plan shall be sub- ject to the Director of General Services approval and the service alley shall be maintained by the Developer. 19. Signage shall be provided prior to issuance of a Certifi- cate of occupancy at the end of Pico Blvd. and at Appian Way to indicate that there is self - parking available to the public in the project garage. Signage within the garage shall indicate that the spaces are not for employee use. - 15 - 20. A four way stop shall be provided at the intersection of Appian Way and Pico Boulevard and pedestrian crosswalks shall be installed at this intersection subject to the approval of the Director of Parking and Traffic. 21. All fountains shall be operated using a water system which is approved by the Director of General Services. 22. The developer shall work with the City's accessibility consultant to insure that the Pico Blvd. improvements are handicapped accessible and meet Title 24 requirements. Signage shall be posted indicating that the area is accessible. 23. Confirmation stating that there is available capacity in the sanitary sewer system at the time of connection shall be obtained by the developer from the Director of General Services prior to issuance of a Building Permit. 24. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit the Developer shall submit a copy of the agreement for replacement parking totaling 36 spaces for the Pritikin Center. Said agree- ment shall be binding and shall exist for the length of time Pritikin or its successor continues to operate in the existing building with the current or similar use. The developer shall not be required to provide such replace- ment parking for any new development on the Pritikin site. The agreement shall be in a form acceptable to the City Attorney and subject to City Manager approval. 25. The project owner shall contact the Police Department in order to identify and implement appropriate design and operational features which maximize security. 26. To mitigate fire safety impact, appropriate fire - suppression, emergency access and construction design fea- tures shall be implemented as required by the City Fire Department. 27. To mitigate parking and traffic impacts the project owner shall: a. Arrange for appropriate van or bus service to and from Los Angeles International Airport for Hotel guests. b. Provide local public transit displays on -site identify- ing routes and headway schedules along with promotional information concerning destinations within walking/ transit /biking distance of the Hotel. c. Provide maps to hotel patrons showing locations of res- taurants, shopping areas, beach facilities, Pier ac- tivities, etc. that can be reached easily by walking. - 16 - ME 29 d. Give first priority to City residents for all Hotel jobs not otherwise filled by then - existing Hotel em- ployees subject to the requirements of State and Federal laws. e. Regulate timing of deliveries to the service driveway to avoid peak traffic periods. f. In that the 4th Street hotel and the hotel at 1700 Ocean Avenue are required to develop a shuttle system serving the major local areas of hotel user destina- tions, the developer shall participate in this shuttle system with shared expenses. The shuttle shall be available for hotel and general public uses. The shut- tle shall operate on a schedule established by the City for at least 8 hours daily with the understanding that the minimum 8 hour block of time could be broken into two parts to coincide with peak Hotel demand. Par- ticipation in the program shall begin when the Hotel reaches an initial seventy percent (70 %) occupancy rate for three consecutive months, or within two years from issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy, whichever is sooner, based on monthly reports provided to the Plan- ning Director by the project owner. In lieu of par- ticipating in a shuttle service, the City will reserve the right to unilaterally require annual payment to the City of annual shuttle operating costs including re- placement reserves and depreciation for funding of a City- sponsored shuttle system. g. Establish and operate a ride - sharing program for employees. h. Provide bus tokens to employees at one -half cost. Ap- propriate signage shall be posted stating this requirement. i. Upon taking meeting /banquet room reservations, hotel management shall routinely encourage that vehicle occu- pancy among attendees be maximized in any written materials provided to persons making reservations. j. Regulate meeting /banquet schedule to group sizes that can be accommodated with on -site parking capacity. k. Provide a valet parking system in a portion of the parking garage during peak events to obtain additional aisle and tandem spaces. The layout shall be approved by the City Parking and Traffic Engineer. On -site parking shall be made available without cost to employees at the site. Appropriate signage shall be posted stating this requirement. Appropriate pool drainage hookups to a sanitary sewer line shall be provided. - 17 - 30. Trash areas and facilities shall be enclosed. 31. Low flow shower heads and faucets shall be installed throughout the project. 32. Signage shall be installed at the intersection of Pico Boulevard and the Promenade to direct people to watch for bicyclists and proceed with caution onto and across the Promenade. STANDARD CONDITIONS Plans for final design, landscaping, screening, trash en- closures, and signage shall be subject to review and ap- proval by the Architectural Review Board. Minor amendments to the plans shall be subject to approval by the Director of Planning. A significant change in the approved concept shall be subject to Planning Commission Review. Construction shall be in substantial conformance with the plans submitted or as modified by the Planning Commission, Architectural Review Board or Director of Planning. 3. The rights granted herein shall be effective only when exercised within a period of one year from the effective date of approval. Upon the written request of the appli- cant, the Director of Planning may extend this period up to an additional six months. 4. The applicant shall comply with all legal requirements regarding provisions for the disabled, including those set forth in the California Administrative Code, Title 24, Part 2. 5. Final parking area layout and specifications shall be sub- ject to the review and approval of the Parking and Traffic Engineer. The garage entry shall be designed to permit cars to queue within the interior to mitigate queuing along Appian Way. 6. Refuse areas, storage areas and mechanical equipment shall be screened in accordance with Sec. 9127J.2 -4 (SMMC). Refuse areas shall be of a size adequate to meet on -site need. 7. The operation shall at all times be conducted in a manner not detrimental to surrounding properties or residents by reason of lights, noise, activities, parking or other actions. 8. Openable windows shall be provided throughout the project, in a manner consistent with applicable building code and energy conservation requirements. 9. Street trees shall be maintained, relocated or provided as required in a manner consistent with the City's Tree Code (Ord. 1242 CCS), per the specifications of the Department of Recreation and Parks and the Department of General Ser- vices. No street tree shall be removed without the ap- proval of the Department of Recreation and Parks. 10. Street and /or alley lighting shall be provided on public rights -of -way adjacent to the project if and as needed per the specifications and with the approval of the Department of General Services. 11. Any outdoor lighting shall be shielded and /or directed away from adjacent residential properties, with any such lighting not to exceed 0.5 foot candles of illumination beyond the perimeter of the subject property. ALCOHOL OUTLET CONDITIONS FOR RESTAURANTS SEAFOOD BAR AND POOL BAR 1. The premises shall serve food to patrons during all hours the establishment is open for customers. The premises shall maintain a kitchen or food - serving area in which a variety of food is prepared and cooked on the premises. 3. No alcoholic beverage shall be sold for consumption beyond the premises. Prepared by: Suzanne Frick, Principal Planner Peggy Curran, Director, Community and Economic Development Department Exhibits: A. October 21, 1987 Letter of Appeal from San Stein on Behalf of R.E. International B. October 19, 1987 Planning Commission Staff Report C. Statement of Official Action D. Final Environmental Impact Report for 1 Pico Hotel E. City Council Resolution Certifying EIR SF:jt ccdr325 11/17/87 - 19 - PROJECT NUMBER: LOCATION: - APPLICANT: REQUEST: STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL ACTION DR 325, CUP 417, ZA 5169 -Y, 100 Pico Blvd. (One Pico B1 R. E. International To Permit the Construction with Associated Meeting Health Club and 495 On -Site PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION 10/19/87 Date. EIA 814 vd.) of a 196 Room Hotel Rooms, Restaurants, Parking Spaces. Approved based on the following findings and subject to the conditions below. Denied. x Other. Technical Denial, Motions to A Continue Item Fails. Approve and VOTE FOR APPROVAL Ayes: Farivar, Lambert, Pyne Nays: Mechur, Nelson Abstain: Absent: Hecht, Perlman VOTE FOR CONTINUANCE Ayes: Mechur, Nelson Nays: Farivar, Lambert, Pyne Abstain: Absent: Hecht, Perlman - 1 - >m 1 hereby certify that this Statement of Official Action accurately reflects the final determination of the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Monica. signature date STDR325 KR:nh 10/21/87 print name and title - 2 - RESOLUTION NO. 7527(CCS) (City Council Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ON THE ONE PICO HOTEL PROJECT c WHEREAS, a Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report was issued in March 1987; and WHEREAS, a Notice of Completion of a Draft Environmental Impact Report was published in July 1987; and WHEREAS, a public review period on the Draft Environmental Impact Report ended in September 1987; and WHEREAS, in October 1987, the City Planning Commission reviewed the Final Environmental Impact Report; and WHEREAS, in November 1987, the City Council reviewed the Final Environmental Impact Report on appeal, NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City Council has reviewed the Final Environmental Impact Report on the Ohe Pioo Hotel Project consisting of the Draft Environmental Impact Report, public comments and City responses. .- 1 - SECTION 2. The City Council finds that the Final Environmental Impact Report adequately reviews and analyzes potential environmental effects of the proposed project and that the environmental review for the project was conducted in full compliance with State and City CEQA guidelines, that there was adequate public review of the Draft Environmental Impact Report, that the City Council has considered all comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report, and responses to comments, that the Final Environmental Impact Report adequately discusses all environmental issues and that the City Council has considered the contents of the Final Environmental Impact Report in its decision - making process. 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: ROBERT M. MYERS //11 City Attorney PPD /PZ2 KR:nh 11/11/87 - 2 - Adopted and this 1st kIay of 87. I hereby certify that he foregoing Resolutibn No. 7527(CCS) was duly adopted by the Ci y Council of the City of Santa Monica at a meeting thereof held o ecember 1, 1987 by the following Council vote: Ayes: Councilmembers: Jennings, A. Katz, H. Katz, Reed, Zane, Mayor Conn Noes: Councilmembers: Finkel Abstain: Councilmembers: None Absent: Councilmembers: None ATTEST: `�� �. i�� Asst. ty Clerk C /ED:PC:ms Council Meeting 12/1/87 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: City Staff Santa Monica, California SUBJECT: Supplemental Staff Report Regarding Condition for 100 Pico Hotel Project (12 -C) This supplemental report recommends the inclusion of an additional condition for the Pico Hotel project appeal. This condition is recommended by the City Attorney and is agreeable to the developer. SPECIAL CONDITION 33. Prior to any street or alley vacation, Developer shall enter into an agreement in a form approved by the City Attorney to pay for all costs incurred by the City as a result of the vacation, including any damages the City is required to pay to any property owner as the result of the vacation. It is respectfully recommended that the City Council add this Special Condition Number 33 to the conditions of approval of the 100 Pico Hotel project. Prepared by: Peggy Curran, Director Department of Community and Economic Development (onepicol) - 1 - C /ED: PC: ms INFORMATION ITEM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: City Staff SUBJECT: One Pico Project Santa Monica, California December 1, 1987 /Z -C The following is offered in reply to Councilmember Finkel's ques- tions regarding the "One Pico" project: 1. Is there precedent for using adjacent public streets (Pico and Appian) as part of an FAR calculation? No, there is not. Staff supports this measure due to some of the unusual aspects of this project. The developer will be compen- sating the City for the use of this land in FAR in the following ways: -- $540,000 for public beach improvements and art. -- $553,000 for license agreements for the private use of por- tions of Pico and Appian by the developer (overpass and res- taurant terrace). -- Direct improvement by the developer of the foot of Pico creating a gateway to the Promenade. -- Replacement of the Pico parking at grade in the project, available to the general public. - 1 - -- Continued use and ownership of Pico and Appian by the public in spite of the payments and improvements mentioned above. Staff believes that the public benefit of these measures out- weighs any adverse impact from the incremental increase in the hotel size, and therefore recommends this trade -off. 2. Must the variances be granted? What is the test for a variance? No, the approval of any variance is a discretionary action. In order to grant a variance, a hardship must exist, or it must be determined that the variance is essential to the public welfare. The setback variances are necessary to develop a project of this nature which is encouraged in the Land Use Element. The property is zoned for multiple residential uses although the Land Use Ele- ment designates the area for a variety of uses to include hotel and residential. The zoning requirements still in effect.do not reflect appropriate development standards for hotels and must be varied in order to accommodate this type of development. Until the new Zoning Ordinance is adopted, development consistent with the Land Use Element will continue to be inconsistent with the present residential zoning regulations. The City Council retains the authority to decide to what degree the standards should be varied in order to permit this development. 3. Can just a portion of the appeal be granted? The Council can grant, deny or modify the project as it sees fit. mw�= 4. Is there any way to guarantee that more hotels will not be encouraged or built on the beach as a result of approval of this project? Staff believes that the passage or denial of this project will have no bearing on hotel development in the area, except that it is generally agreed in the hotel industry that a given area can only support so many hotel rooms, which may suggest that a hotel at this site will absorb some proportion of capacity and diminish the economic desirability of additional hotels. City Council will have the discretionary authority through action on the proposed Zoning Ordinance to protect the residential uses in the Oceanfront area. In addition, City Staff has been suc- cessful in recent discussions with Coastal Commission staff regarding the inclusion of protective language for this residen- tial area in the Local Coastal Plan. There can not be any guarantees of what future Councils may ap- prove in terms of zoning or discretionary approvals. 5. Has any thought been given to making the project smaller? The project was much larger when first presented to staff. In response to staff concerns, the developer scaled down the project several times. 6. Has any thought been given to limiting the project to the east side of Appian with a higher height in exchange for open space west of Appian? Would this be legal? None was given during the discussions with the developer. Any added height would require an amendment to the Land Use Element. It seems safe to assume that additional height would not be easi- ly accepted by the neighbors of the project. Additionally, staff would question the need for open space (at the price of addition- al height) right at the beach, where visual open space and recre- ation areas are bountiful. However, staff did not consider this arrangement in its discussions with the developer. 7. Please bring the precise references from the LUE that describes what can be built in this area to the Council meeting. Staff will make this material available at the Council meeting. Prepared by: Peggy Curran, Director Department of Community and Economic Development (onepico) - 4 - Cyhi o& n CITY OF V", MFFiCp 1 W CITY PLRh' r N T E R N A T O N A L ■ N O T S R O U P .87 XT 21 ?1 ;48 BY HAND Obtober 21, 1987 Karen Rosenberg Associate Planner City Planning Division Santa Monica City Hall 1685 Main Street Santa Monica, CA 90401 Dear Karen, -tee �8 -*15 CD io• 2115 -1w-• �Si Ml R.E. International hereby formally requests an appeal to the Santa Monica City Council of the Santa Monica Planning Commission's decision of October 19, 1987, with regard to our application to develop the Santa Monica Beach Hotel at 100 Pico Boulevard (one Pico). We make our appeal based on the Commission's Technical Denial of our application (DR 325, CUP 417, EIA 814, ZA 5169 -Y). Needless to say, it is our desire to have this appeal calendared and heard as soon as possible. Please advise as soon as a hearing date has been established. Thank you in advance for your cooperation and please feel free to contact Mr. Mark Solit (415 - 772 -0654) of Embarcadero Center, developer of the project, should you have any further questions. Sincerely, Sam Stein R.E. International SS: lc 7665 6AIN ;;Tai_:'.4 AJII 'j'! ):01,1101, 0:1T, J'. 901(02 .7987, rol�� M� '87 tMA)"�)AtM 19P 1087 SAN 1iu a_ 1.'100 110`' -1 L 1. MTaiiT rrT� - -, nr �rlt� oo_I,r �itI'i).(t7.' you uiT O. TY C. � na �r(rS r,L' , T p Cis 1,u _ FTOTLL, DIE; 171'000`, ;:U :Pr'UR UT ]iiL3 NUt' TSll(+; A .AT18FP CT0 t'5' V�;" CL� .i10Oi , . i:ri) ;,_T`l' ,IlLll "P OF llCL 7.8 12.1'' 4.';P .r, " ,1 IT JAiOT' vICJ;19'L'P >i,lf_2„i�:01 n ", , Ows,1D1 Vhf °UL, t'')' "'IT ti 4f1' .`f 0, PIC0 TTTo, IJI`: OG(liS`.Cl) 6 F! A U , ;iiT ': 5'.0 ( }1 rx T;tITll 1 b'! 4 18 n, COI:;.' T t STX, LUU 1f!JJG 1S SI T)l (i3O) Y1 `Oto Of,U t".0 J0 1S 'i' r.McjY� O'i'.'1Cllf'3f '.l'1:iS PROJ- 10(jT, 0.1."1T;1. ".[:CT :POLICY 4Y'&l' i;JJLlOI rlf. Tc°.,iID USu, 1,`M JJ 1C,GX -061 Jii LGL;;a, 0U7 ,'ill;."1,'I' .iA1`rIJ�Uai, jell °(J tl ;(;Q.I�,;;aS.l. i.t.TA -U. > 1'UJ1TIO11 Ol v'l) ]e 1,I,, 'ial),'f li('E.L , '),i , [;!OVr1,5 >Is� 23"J), 2.967. Soli A.LT � ,; "!.J.,i,:C, Ci (1.1, Wl'',clS., .A ) alttihJ J.' 11.` l„ >U I" _ C 1'Jh, 1)GC;,l, vJ 'l ) l.i -JY - ,'1`C'POft1,Dl "r1, atta i' „1':11.`.1.0lJ 'Fairfax. Wilshire Area" 6060 West 8th Street Los Angeles, California 90036 (213) 931,9f533t— 394 - 9354 1 CII'A { Y,�i 1 fir'.- 4 „ =.'•.. `87 NOV 30 P 4 :38 November 25, 1987 City of Santa Monica SAN) 1685 Main St. Santa Monica, CA 90401 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council K�M =� FROM: Edward Villanueva, Executive Director „ CIPA RE: Proposed Pico 1 Hotel Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council: DEC 1 1987 Since its inception in 1981, CIPA has actively participated in issues affecting commercial and industrial property owners. CIPA participated in all phases of the Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE), the Draft Zoning Ordinance, the Hospital Area Specific Plan(HASP), and the Local Coastal Plan. CIPA's objectives have always been to provide representation for commercial and industrial property owners and to estab- lish long term development quidelines which are "fair” and provide "predictability ". Knowing how a property can be developed (i.e. height, F.A.R., and use) and knowing the procedural requirements, help to form an:objective` basis for decision - making. In the past, CIPA policy has not been to endorse projects. The only exception has been Colorado Place Phase II and III. This was based on the possible denial of a project which conformed to the.adopted LUCE.- The CIPA Board of Directors unanimously moved to endorse the Pico 1 Hotel project for the following reasons: 1. The project is consistent with the policies and development standards in the Local Coastal Plan. 2. The project is.consistent with the pier restora- tion plans. 3. Because of its 196 rooms, banquet facilities, and the two restaurants, the project provides lodgings and related uses which are "visitor serving ". orwr DEC 1 1981 THE COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL PROPERTIES ASSOCIATION OF SANTA MONICA, INC. 710 WILSHIRE BLVD., SUITE 212, SANTA MONICA, CA 90401 Mailing Address: POST OFFICE BOX 3232, SANTA MONICA, CA 90403 Telephone: (213) 395.4729 Page 2 4. The project will provide attractive landscaping along the promenade and the beach, and a public plaza and beach access area at the west end of Pico Blvd. and along Vicente Terrace. These areas are all publicly owned and will be maintained at the property owners expense. 5. The project will create hundreds of construction jobs and over 300 permanent jobs. 6. The project will generate a net revenue of over $1,000,000 per year to the City from transient occupancy tax and related fees. 7. Because the beach and pier attract millions of people from the greater Los Angeles area, the proposed Pico 1 Hotel will not substantially add to traffic in the area. For the aforementioned reasons CIPA recomments that the City Council approve the Pico 1 Hotel project. Respectfully submitted, Edward Villanueva Executive Director ka ME 1 p � • . I �� We j FOWNWIM MIA iMMM 410.0 • i W. 1l a � a i . �f ; Pte._!, I♦ . • . I �� We j FOWNWIM i } t 1 Lai JzuV � � r Maxser & Co. PROPERTY MANAGEMENT & DEVELOPERS November 17, 1987 Santa Monica City Council 1685 Main Street Santa Monica, CA 90401 4IT`f '87 h1Jld 24 P12:27 SA;1 A Dear Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers: u I am writing this letter in support of the proposed Pico 1 Hotel. As a resident of the area for over 40 years and as a commercial property owner for 15 years, I have seen the changes the area has undergone. The Promenade, between the Pier and Crescent Bay Park is in great need of a facelift. The proposed hotel provides the opportunity to: 1) Make the area more attractive. 2) Generate revenue to the City through bed tax. 3) Help business such as restaurants and retail stores in the area. 4) Improve and beautify the beach access on Pico and 5) Help make the area a safer place during the day and evening hours by bringing more people to the area. This is a quality project which will set the standard for future developments in the area. I urge the City Council to approve the Pico 1 Hotel project. Sincerely, AIexanderW W. Gorby. President Lr'f,`CG� a -Gc�c� 87 DEC 1 1987 SANTA MONICA 202 Wilshire Boulevard Santa Monica, California 90401 213.393 -6777 NEWPORT BEACH 37 Fashion Island Newport Beach, California 92660 714- 644 -2020 WOODLAND HILLS 21821 Oxnard Street Woodland Hills, California 91367 818- 883 -2145 nn- 4,C3_ t rJt - CITY ri FF "i °87 NOV 24 12:27 SANIAr. City Hall 1685 Main Street Santa Monica, CA 90401 Honorable Mayor and City Council, November 18, 1987 This letter serves to support the proposed hotel development at 1 Pico Boulevard. As a restaurateur who has been in business in Santa Monica for 25 years, such a development will attract more tourists and help all local restaurants and businesses. There are few quality banquet facilities in Santa Monica, and the hotel will be able to accommodate corporate and other func- tions. The development will clean up the proposed area, and help to make a safer place. Sincerely, BOB BURNS RESTAURANTS Elizabeth Burns President irk (211 1) Awo /;PW . ROBERT BURNS & SONS INC. • ESTABLISHED 1918 • 213- 829 -O9kC 1 1987 1721 Broadway, Santa Monica, California 90404 • P.O. Box 1979, Santa Monica, California 90406 December 1, 1987 Honorable Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem and Councilmembers, Due to circumstances beyond my control, I regretfully find it necessary to leave tonight's proceedings before I am able to testify in support of the proposed Santa Monica Beach Hotel to be located at One Pico. I strongly urge the City Council to approve this project for the benefit of the City of Santa Monica and it's residents. Thank you for consideration of my opinion. Sincerely, Signed Address 7 0 7i(�i��� JEFFREY A. JOHNSON,INC. Consultants in Applied Geology and Seismology 31220 La Baya Drive, Suite 110 Westlake Village, California 91361(818)889 -4947 December 1, 1987 Service No. 87 -11 -459 Santa Monicans for Planned Slow Growth P.O. Box 1831 Santa Monica, California 90406 Attention: Mr. Gregory Gean Subject: Geoseismic Review One Pico Hotel Final Environmental Impact Report Santa Monica, California EIA #814 State Clearinghouse No. 86072303 October 1987 This report summarizes the results of a geoseismic review of the subject final environmental impact report(FEIR). The review was conducted at the request of Mr. Gregory Gean. The proposed project consists "of a 196 -room hotel on both sides and under Appian Way, between Pico Blvd. and Vicente Terrace on an approximately 66,000 square foot site." The structures on both sides of Appian Way will be "joined at the fourth level by a trellis - covered pedestrian bridge." Three of the four parking levels will be below grade or underground. A detailed review of the nature of the project is given in the FEIR and will not be repeated. The authors of the FEIR concluded that "the project will not have any.significant effects on the environment. All potentially significant impacts can be reduced to less that significant levels through implementation of appropriate mitigation measures." Geologic and seismic hazards are not considered major issues and are not listed on Table 1S. Summary of Environmental Impact and Mitigation Measures. The following were noted in section III.A. Earth(page III -1 to III -4) and section III.C. Water(Fage III -15): 1. The site is located in the "transitional zone between recent beach sand deposits and older stream - deposited material." Review of regional geologic maps indicates that the site is underlain by recent or relatively young sedimentary deposits. However, review of early topographic maps of the site region indicate that the site or a portion of the site maybe underlain by fill. Topographic maps of the region dating from the early 1920's show that the site was located near the mouth of a south -east trending channel. The channel extended from the beach northward to near the intersection of Lincoln Blvd. and the present day Santa Monica Freeway, The channel was filled both north and south of Ocean Ave. The type of fill is unknown. Additional research is needed. 2. Bedrock near the site is reported at depths of 25 to 45 feet below the surface." The authors of the FEIR concluded(based on off site data) that piles maybe required and that the piles would be driven into bedrock. However, information regarding foundation conditions are limited. It is the opinion of JEFFREY A. JOHNSON,INC. that a reasonable review of the potential geologic/ environmental problems cannot be made at this time because of the lack information on subsurface conditions at the site and in the general site region. of(trash ?)? The following should be considered prior to project approval: a. Is the site underlain by fill? What is the fill composed b. What is the depth to bedrock at the site? c. Are driven piles the only method of foundation support? If bedrock is significantly deeper than considered in the FEIR what other problems maybe encountered? Will piles still be used? d. What is the depth to groundwater? Does the level vary from season to season and from year to year? Is the water below the site contaminated? Is there a health risk in dumping the water into the existing or local storm drains? 3. The site is near major seismogenic faults. Significant seismogenic faults rear the site are listed on Table 2(Page III -3). However, absent from the report is any information dealing with the Whittier Narrows earthquake of October 1, 1987. According to early reports the earthquake occurred on an unknown north dipping reverse fault. Some researchers believe that the fault and others like it are located to the south of the Santa Monica fault zone from the Whittier Narrows area to Santa Monica Bay and represent a significant seismic hazard. Work as early as 1978 by the California Division of Mines and Geology(CDMG) indicated that a possible south branch of the Santa Monica fault zone if projected to the surface its trace would be somewhere near or possibly south of the Santa Monica Municipal Pier. needed. The following should be considered prior to project approval: a. A more detailed review of potential seismic hazards is b. What effect does the recent information on the October 1, 1987 earthquake and the work by the CDMG have on site development? c. The above information suggests that the potential for surface fault rupture at the site should be considered. A back hoe trench or "seismic trench" across the site would be of value. 4. Proposed structures will( ?) require piles; Comment No. 4 As stated above little information is in the FEIR regarding site soil /geologic conditions. It is unclear at this time if piles are the best method of foundation support or if they will work at all. The type of foundation to be used is critical to the long term integrity of the proposed structures and surrounding area. Because of the relatively poor foundation conditions (including the possibility of substandard fill) and the significant seismic exposure it is recommended that further information regarding subsurface conditions and foundation design be presented prior to project approval. settlement? The following should also be considered: a. Will the pile driving operation induce local offsite differential b. What will be the effect of vibrations induced by pile driving be on nearby structures? constuction. c. Can the vibrations from pile driving induce liquefaction? S. Dewatering will be required during and possibly after N11•s IMM _ If the site needs to be dewatered during and /or after construction significant questions need to be answered. a. What is the depth to the ground water table? b. Will the water be removed by pumping or by gravity drains? c. As stated above is the water contaminated or suitable for dumping into the local storm drain? conditions? d. Over what area will the dewatering effect local ground water 6. Site soils are subject to liquefaction. Comment No. 6 The following should be considered prior to project approval: a. Is the entire project to be founded on piles into bedrock? b. Are sites above the project subject to liquefaction? If so will the proposed foundation be designed to resist the lateral forces of a liquefaction induced slope or flow failure? c. Will subgrade parking area walls be designed to resist the increased lateral loads due to liquefaction? d. If liquefaction occurs above the project where will the extra water go? Will it induce liquefaction of areas(offsite ?) that might not other wise liquefy? 7, The region around the site is subject to settlement. I 111 ► Regional differential settlement due to dewatering and pile driving vibrations are a significant potential hazard that needs further review prior to project approval. Dewatering and vibrations can induce consolidation or reduction of void space within young fine grained sediments. A reduction in void space can result in differential settlement of effected sediments. Differential settlement can induce damage to existing structures and lifelines(above and below ground). The potential for offsite damage is significant. A detailed plan to mitigate the hazards should be presented and reviewed by independent third parties prior to project approval. 8. "Survey points" are recommended to monitor settlement at the Drake Hotel and the Pritikin Center building. Comment No. 8 "Survey points" are needed. However, much more needs to be known. For example how much settlement will the Pritikin Center or other near by structures experience? How much differential settlement will it take to induce significant structural damage? Can the proposed dewatering and pile driving operation be conducted within acceptable limits of differential settlement? Has each of the nearby buildings been reviewed by an independent structural engineer? At such time that dewatering is stopped, due to settlement, how much additional settlement will occur? How often will the survey points be reviewed? How accurate will the survey be? If pile driving and dewatering are shown(by detailed geotechnical review) to have the potential to induce significant differential settlement and damage to offsite structures and lifelines what other type of foundation will be recommended? 9. Tsunamies are not considered a major hazard. Comment No. 9 The information presented in the FEIR regarding tsunamies deals with seismic sea waves that where generated outside of the Santa Monica Bay. It is believed that local islands help to protect the beach area from significant tsunami damage. However, within the bay is the offshore extension of the Santa Monica fault zone and other potential seismogenic faults. A significant earthquake on the Santa Monica fault zone could produce a seismic sea wave or tsunami greator than that noted in the FEIR. It is the opinion of JEFFREY A. JOHNSON,INC, that a number of significant geologic and seismic questions regarding potential, project induced, adverse environmental effects both on and off site remain unresolved. The proposed mitigation measures are unclear and incomplete. An opinion regarding the feasibility of the proposed project as outlined in the FEIR cannot be,made at this time. Additional geoseismic and geotechnical data is needed. As the data become available independent third party experts should review the information. If you have any questions please give us a call. Sincerely JEFFREY A. JOHNSON,INC. C.E.G. 981 JAJJhs JEFFREY A. JOHNSON,INC. Consultants in Applied Geology and Seismology 31220 La Baya Drive, Suite 110 Westlake Village, California 91361 (818) 889-4947 JEFFREY A. JOHNSON EDUCATION 1975 Ph.D. University of California, Los Angeles Engineering Major in Soil Mechanics Minors in earthquake engineering and engineering geology 1971 M.S. University of California, Los Angeles Geology 1969 B.S. California State University, Northridge Geology PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATION California Registered Geologist #3390 California Certified Engineering Geologist #981 PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS Association of Engineering Geologists Earthquake Engineering Research Institute Seismological Society of America Structural Engineers Association of Southern California Chairman Geotechnical Subcomittee 1988 Lecturer, Civil Engineering Department, School of Engineering and Applied Science(scheduled to teach grad. coarser in earthquake engineering starting Jan. 1988) 1980- present Geological /Engineering Seismological Consultant 1975 -1980 Senior Geologist /Engineering Seismologist, Dames & Moore, Los Angeles, Ca 1975 Special Consultant, California Division of Mines and Geology 1971 -1975 Research Engineer, University of California, Los Angeles 1969 -1975 Instructor of Geology, California State University, Northridge 1974 -1975 Engineering Seismology Consultant, Envicom Corporation, Los Angeles 1973 -1974 Consultant to the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute on their NSF project to maximize learning from future earthquakes 1970 Geologist(summer hire), Mobil Oil Corporation, Anchorage, Alaska 1969 Engineering Geologist, Robert A. Stone and Associates, Woodland Hills, California Post - Doctoral earthquake engineering/ strong ground motion research, University of Hokkaido, Sapporo,Japan, part of an exchange program with the University of California, Los Angeles, 1975 e. DEC 1 1987 OR ;Lt November 29, 1987 RE: PICO ONE PROJECT °87 NOV 30 P t; .: 6 Members of the City Council: SANT - I am a property owner on Seaview Terrace. Having just had a baby, my wife and I are depending on the city to keep the area in which we've bought our home a :residential one. I am aware that there are laws governing the density of a development on the beach (F.A.R.) and other laws which - - we as property owners depend on Ae City Council to enforce and interpret on .behalf of the tax paying residential community. I am quite angry with the size of the After speaking at the last hearing, I felt of money which the city stands to bring in this size dwarfed the cases local residen amend or defeat the plan. It seemed to me the project to go thru - is this true? proposed project. that the large sum from a project of is made to either that the council wants If this is the case, I want all of you to know what it is like to live adjacent to a commercial entertainment establish- ment. "The Mucky Duck ", a bar /restaurant, has caused noise and disturbance in our neighborhood for years. The wild noise and reckless driving that occursat the end of the night)I can hear from my bed. People who are out to enjoy themselves at night seldom think about repercussions on homeowners - because bars, clubs and restaurants don't belong in neighborhoods. Especially if the neighborhood was here first ( since 1913). If you choose to vote on this project, I would like to make one demand: NO open air eating or drinking areas, or areas where people can congregate and make noise such as on the proposed sundeck. "The Mucky Duck" has four tables outside which always create problems. I urge you, this issue is real, and if you owned a home next door to the Pico 1 project, you would be very upset. What if Pico 1 has live music? No city council member will come over to my house at 11:30 on a Friday night to help me make my case'- I am counting on the city council to empathise with my situation. Lastly, I need your help to protect our parking rights. As you know, many of my neighbors, including my wife and I, are dependent upon the beach lot for parking (the lot adjacent to the proposed site). Many of us do not have a garage or driveway, and parking in the alley is illegal. If the project is approved, it will begin by ripping up the large parking lot east of Appian Way. WHERE WILL ALL THESE PEOPLE PARK THEIR CARS? WHERE WILL ALL,THE WORKMEN PARK FOR THE DURATION OF CONSTRUCTION? I feel since we own a home on Seaview Terrace and pay taxes, our parking places should be a priority. How will our rights be protected? At present, if I return home from work late in the evening and the parking lot is full, I have no place to put my car and face getting .a parking ticket. How will the parking overflow be accomodated during the lengthy construction period for Pico 1? DEC 1 1981 Many of us here on Seaview Terrace and Vicente Terrace have been putting thousands of dollars into renovating our houses. I want this neighborhood to be a great place to raise our new baby. R.E.International has absolutely everything to gain. If their plans are restricted or amended slightly, they still will gain. I would like to see this area improved, but not at the expense of the homeowners. I urge you to keep our rights in mind Sinceri -- —_ Michael Patterson 18 Seaview Terrace �`C Ca %l%rrga� 4Xt_) 1 -W C'� '440)40 CIO' 1 ®EC 1. .198 87 DEC °1 P33JEFFREY A. JOHNSON,INC. Consultants in Applied Geology and Seismology S r11 i tUtYi" rt, u•- 31220 La Baya Drive, Suite 110 Westlake Village, California 91361(818)889 -4947 December 1, 1987 Service No. 87 -11 -459 Santa Monicans for Planned Slow Growth P.O. Box 1831 Santa Monica, California 90406 Attention: Mr. Gregory Gean Subject: Geoseismic Review One Pico Hotel Final Environmental Impact Report Santa Monica, California EIA #814 State Clearinghouse No. 86072303 October 1987 :11 I► This report summarizes the results of a geoseismic review of the subject final environmental impact report(FEIR). The review was conducted at the request of Mr. Gregory Gean. The proposed project consists "of a 196 -room hotel on both sides and under Appian Way, between Pico Blvd. and Vicente Terrace on an approximately 66,000 square foot site." The structures on both sides of Appian Way will be ' joined at the fourth level by a trellis- covered pedestrian bridge." Three of the four parking levels will be below grade or underground. A detailed review of the nature of the project is given in the FEIR and will not be repeated. DEC 1 191gj The authors of the FEIR concluded that "the project will not have any,significant effects on the environment. All potentially significant impacts can be reduced to less that significant levels through implementation of appropriate mitigation measures." Geologic and seismic hazards are not considered major issues and are not listed on Table 1S. Summary of Environmental Impact and Mitigation Measures. The following were noted in section III.A. Earth(page III -1 to II1 -4) and section III.C. Water(Page III -15): 1. The site is located in the "transitional zone between recent beach sand deposits and older stream - deposited material." Review of regional geologic maps indicates that the site is underlain by recent or relatively young sedimentary deposits. However, review of early topographic maps of the site region indicate that the site or a portion of the site maybe underlain by fill. Topographic maps of the region dating from the early 1920's show that the site was located near the mouth of a south -east trending channel. The channel extended from the beach northward to near the intersection of Lincoln Blvd, and the present day Santa Monica Freeway. The channel was filled both north and south of Ocean Ave. The type of fill is unknown. Additional research is needed. 2. Bedrock near the site is reported at depths of 25 to 45 feet below the surface." The authors of the FEIR concluded(based on off site data) that piles maybe required and that the piles would be driven into bedrock. However, information regarding foundation conditions are limited. It is the opinion of JEFFREY A. JOHNSON,INC. that a reasonable review of the potential geologic/ environmental problems cannot be made at this time because of the lack information on subsurface conditions at the site and in the general site region. of(trash?)? The following should be considered prior to project approval: a. Is the site underlain by fill? What is the fill composed b. What is the depth to bedrock at the site? c. Are driven piles the only method of foundation support? If bedrock is significantly deeper than considered in the FEIR what other problems maybe encountered? Will piles still be used? d. What is the depth to ground water? Does the level vary from season to season and from year to year? Is the water below the site contaminated? Is there a health risk in dumping the water into the existing or local storm drains? 3. The site is near major seismogenic faults. Significant seismogenic faults rear the site are listed on Table 2(Page III -3). However, absent from the report is any information dealing with the Whittier Narrows earthquake of October 1, 1987. According to early reports the earthquake occurred on an unknown north dipping reverse fault. Some researchers believe that the fault and others like it are located to the south of the Santa Monica fault zone from the Whittier Narrows area to Santa Monica Bay and represent a significant seismic hazard. Work as early as 1978 by the California Division of Mines and Geology(CDMG) indicated that a possible south branch of the Santa Monica fault zone if projected to the surface its trace would be somewhere near or possibly south of the Santa Monica Municipal Pier. The following should be considered prior to project approval: a. A more detailed review of potential seismic hazards is needed. b. What effect does the recent information on the October 1, 1987 earthquake and the work by the CDMG have on site development? c. The above information suggests that the potential for surface fault rupture at the site should be considered. A back hoe trench or "seismic trench" across the site would be of value. 4. Proposed structures will( ?) require piles; Comment No. 4 As stated above little information is in the FEIR regarding site soil /geologic conditions. It is unclear at this time if piles are the best method of foundation support or if they will work at all. The type of foundation to be used is critical to the long term integrity of the proposed structures and surrounding area. Because of the relatively poor foundation conditions (including the possibility of substandard fill) and the significant seismic exposure it is recommended that further information regarding subsurface conditions and foundation design be presented prior to project approval. settlement? The following should also be considered: a. Will the pile driving operation induce local offsite differential b. What will be the effect of vibrations induced by pile driving be on nearby structures? constuction. c. Can the vibrations from pile driving induce liquefaction? 5. Dewatering will be required during and possibly after Comment No. 5 If the site needs to be dewatered during and /or after construction significant questions need to be answered, a. What is the depth to the ground water table? b. Will the water be removed by pumping or by gravity drains? c. As stated above is the water contaminated or suitable for dumping into the local storm drain? conditions? d. Over what area will the dewatering effect local ground water 6. Site soils are subject to liquefaction. Comment No, 6 The following should be considered prior to project approval: a. Is the entire project to be founded on piles into bedrock? b. Are sites above the project subject to liquefaction? If so will the proposed foundation be designed to resist the lateral forces of a liquefaction induced slope or flow failure? c. Will subgrade parking area walls be designed to resist the increased lateral loads due to liquefaction? d. If liquefaction occurs above the project where will the extra water go? Will it induce liquefaction of areas(offsite?) that might not other wise liquefy? 7. The region around the site is subject to settlement. MOT-RUM, Regional differential settlement due to dewatering and pile driving vibrations are a significant potential hazard that needs further review prior to project approval. Dewatering and vibrations can induce consolidation or reduction of void space within young fine grained sediments. A reduction in void space can result in differential settlement of effected sediments. Differential settlement can induce damage to existing structures and lifelines(above and below ground). The potential for offsite damage is significant. A detailed plan to mitigate the hazards should be presented and reviewed by independent third parties prior to project approval. 8. "Survey points" are recommended to monitor settlement at the Drake Hotel and the Pritikin Center building. Comment No. 8 "Survey points" are needed. However, much more needs to be known. For example how much settlement will the Pritikin Center or other near by structures experience? How much differential settlement will it take to induce significant structural damage? Can the proposed dewatering and pile driving operation be conducted within acceptable limits of differential settlement? Has each of the nearby buildings been reviewed by an independent structural engineer? At such time that dewatering is stopped, due to settlement, how much additional settlement will occur? How often will the survey points be reviewed? How accurate will the survey be? If pile driving and dewatering are shown(by detailed geotechnical review) to have the potential to induce significant differential settlement and damage to offsite structures and lifelines what other type of foundation will be recommended? 9. Tsunamies are not considered a major hazard. The information presented in the FEIR regarding tsunamies deals with seismic sea waves that where generated outside of the Santa Monica Say. It is believed that local islands help to protect the beach area from significant tsunami damage. However, within the bay is the offshore extension of the Santa Monica fault zone and other potential seismogenic faults. A significant earthquake on the Santa Monica fault zone could produce a seismic sea wave or tsunami greator than that noted in the FEIR. It is the opinion of JEFFREY A. JOHNSON,INC. that a number of significant geologic and seismic questions regarding potential, project induced, adverse environmental effects both on and off site remain unresolved. The proposed mitigation measures are unclear and incomplete. An opinion regarding the feasibility of the proposed project as outlined in the FEIR cannot be.made at this time. Additional geoseismic and geotechnical data is needed. As the data become available independent third party experts should review the information. If you have any questions please give us a call. Sincerely JEFFREY A. JOHNSON,INC. JAJ /hs C.E.G. 981 JEFFREY A. JOHNSOMINC. Consultants in Applied Geology and Seismology 31220 La Baya Drive, Suite 110 Westlake Village, California 91361 (818) 8894947 JEFFREY A. JOHNSON EDUCATION 1973 Ph.D. University of California, Los Angeles Engineering Major in Soil Mechanics Minors in earthquake engineering and engineering geology 1971 M.S. University of California, Los Angeles Geology 1969 B.S. California State University, Northridge Geology PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATION California Registered Geologist #3390 California Certified Engineering Geologist #981 PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS Association of Engineering Geologists Earthquake Engineering Research Institute Seismological Society of America Structural Engineers Association of Southern California Chairman Geotechnical Subcomittee 1988 Lecturer, Civil Engineering Department, School of Engineering and Applied Science(scheduled to teach grad, coarses in earthquake engineering starting Jan. 1988) 1980- present Geological /Engineering Seismological Consultant 1975 -1980 Senior Geologist /Engineering Seismologist, Dames & Moore, Los Angeles, Ca 1975 Special Consultant, California Division of Mines and Geology 1971 -1975 Research Engineer, University of California, Los Angeles 1969 -1975 Instructor of Geology, California State University, Northridge 1974 -1975 Engineering Seismology Consultant, Envicom Corporation, Los Angeles 1973 -1974 Consultant to the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute on their NSF project to maximize learning from future earthquakes 1970 %we, Geologist(summer hire), Mobil Oil Corporation, Anchorage, Alaska Engineering Geologist, Robert A. Stone and Associates, Woodland Hills, California Post - Doctoral earthquake engineering /strong ground motion research, University of Hokkaido, Sapporo,Japan, part of an exchange program with the University of California, Los Angeles, 1975 ATTACHMENT TO 12 -C 1,1/24/87 City f Santa Mo City Planning Divi, FINAL Environmental impact Report EIA No. 814 state Clearinghouse No. 86072303 October 1987 i ONE PICO HOTEL FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA EIA #814 SCH #86072303 City of Santa Monica City Planning Division 1685 Main Street, Roomm 212 City Hall Santa Monica, California 90401 i Contact: Karen Rosenberg October 1987 TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY ..... ............................I -1 CHAPTER II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION .......... ...........................II -1 CHAPTER III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, MITIGATION MEASURES.... III -1 A. Earth ....................... ..................6............ III -1 B. Air ..................................... . ................... III -5 C. Water .............................. .........................III -15 D. Noise .............................. .........................III -16 E. Light and Glare ...... . ...................................... III -24 F. Shadows ............................ .........................III -25 G. Land Use ........................... .........................III -31 H. Housing ............................ .........................III -53 I. Utilities ............................. . ..................... III -55 I.1. Energy ...................... .........................III -55 I.2. Water Consumption ........... .........................III -58 I.3. Wastewater Generation ....... .........................III -60 I.4. Stormwater/ Drainage ......... .........................III -62 I.5. Solid Waste Generation ...... .........................III -64 J. Transportation /Circulation ......... .........................III -68 K. Public Services .................... .........................III -94 K.l. Emergency Services - Police . .........................III -94 K.2. Emergency Services - Fire Protection .................III -95 K.3 Street Maintenance .......... .........................III -97 L. Fiscal Factors ................... ........................... III -98 i M. Recreation ...................... ............................III -103 N. Aesthetics .......................... ........................III -105 0. Neighborhood Effects ............ ............................III -111 P. Impacts Determined to be Insignificant ......................III -113 CHAPTER IV. ALTERNATIVES ................. ...........................IV -1 CHAPTER V. GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS ...... ............................V -1 CHAPTER VI. SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS THAT CANNOT BE AVOIDED IF THE PROJECT IS TO BE IMPLEMENTED .........................VI -1 CHAPTER VII. CONSULTANTS, AGENCIES, AND INDIVIDUALS INVOLVED IN THE EIR PREPARATION PROCESS ......................... VII -1 CHAPTER VIII. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ...... .........................VIII -1 APPENDICES...................... . .............................. . ...... A -1 1. Initial Study ..................... ............................A -2 2. Earth .............................. ...........................A -19 3. Utilities .......................... ...........................A -20 4. Transportation ..................... ...........................A -22 LIST OF FIGURES 1. Location Map .......................... ...........................I1 -2 2. Site Plan ............................. ...........................II -5 3. Project Elevations .................... ...........................II -6 4. Building Section ...................... ...........................II -7 5. Parking Level...... ................ ...........................II -8 6. Meeting Room Level .......................... ............II -9 7. Lobby Level ............................ ..........................II -10 8. Pool Deck Level ........................ ..........................II -11 9. Typical Guest Level .................... ..........................II -12 10. Club Guest Level ....................... ..........................II -13 11. Noise Monitoring Locations ............. .........................III -17 ii 12. Shadow Patterns - -June 22, 9AM P.S.T ..... .........................III -27 13. Shadow Patterns - -June 22, 3PM P.S.T ..... .........................III -28 14. Shadow Patterns -- December 22, 9AM P.S.T . .........................III -29 15. Shadow Patterns -- December 22, 3PM P.S.T . .........................III -30 16. Project Site Photos ..................... .........................III -32 17. Neighborhood Land Use Photos ............ .........................III -33 18. Neighborhood Land Use Photos ............ .........................III -34 19. Land Use Map ............................ .........................III -35 20. Zoning Map .............................. .........................III -37 21. General Plan LUE District Map ........... .........................III -42 22. Possible Site Configurations ............ .........................III -45 23. Height of Buildings in the Project Area . .........................III -50 24. Existing Traffic ........................ .........................III -71 25. Distribution of Hotel Traffic ........... .........................III -77 26. Hotel Traffic Assignment ................ .........................III -79 27. Locations of Projects in Cumulative Traffic Analysis .............III -84 28. Regional Faults Map ..................... ...........................A -19 29. Runoff Coefficient Curves ............... ...........................A -20 LIST OF TABLES 1S. Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures ............ I -6 1. Distribution of Building Square Feet by Use and Location ........... II -3 2. Major Fault Systems Affecting Project Site ........................III -3 3. Summary of Air Standard Violations at the West Los Angeles Air Quality Monitoring Station ...... ..........................III -8 4. Noise Levels Near the Proposed Project Site .......................III -18 5. Environmental and Construction Noise Levels .......................III -20 iii 6. Zoning Districts ........................ .........................III -36 7. Relationship of Land Use Element Policies to the Project ......... III -39 8. Zoning Regulations and Land Use Element Policies in Relationship to the Proposed Project ............... .........................III -43 9. Floor Area Ratio Calculation ............. ........................III -46 10. Project Area Reductions Required to Meet FAR Targets .............III -52 11. Estimated Number of Full -Time Employees . .........................III -54 12. Estimated Electrical Demand ............. .........................III -56 13. Estimated Natural Gas Consumption ....... .........................III -56 14. Estimated Water Consumption ............. .........................III -59 15. Estimated Wastewater Generation.... ..... .........................III -62 16. Estimated Solid Waste Generation ........ .........................III -66 17. Existing 5PM -6PM Traffic at Pico Blvd, and Appian Way ...... ...... 11I -70 18. Predicted Peak Hour Project, Vehicular Trip Generation ............ I11 -76 19. Existing and Existing 4 Project 5 -6 PM Traffic at Pico Blvd and Appian Way ......................... ........................III-76 20. Other Projects in the Project Vicinity Considered in the Cumulative Traffic Analysis ........... .........................III -83 2.1. Existing LOS and LOS in 1992 with Project and Other Cumulative Development ................ .........................III -85 22. Project Parking Demand .......... > ........ ........................III -87 23. Annual Municipal Costs ................... ........................III -102 24. Project Compliance with LUE Aesthetic Standards ..................III -109 25. FAR Calculated for the Project With One Less Floor ................IV. -4 iv b CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY INTRODUCTION This environmental impact report (EIR) addresses the environmental effects associated with the development of the 1 Pico Blvd. Hotel in Santa Monica, California. Planning Commission approval of this project is a discretionary action of the City of Santa Monica, so the project is subject to the California Envi- ronmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA), for which the City is the designated Lead Agency. The City Department of Community and Economic Development administers the process by which environmental documents are required, prepared, and reviewed by Santa Monica pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Santa Monica Municipal Code containing the City's procedures for the implementation of CEQA. In accordance with these procedures, the Department prepared an Initial Study (EIA # 814) for the proposed project in March 1986, consisting of a preliminary environmental assessment of the proposal's potential impact. On the basis of this Initial Study, it was determined that the proposed project might have a significant adverse impact upon the local environment and that an EIR should be prepared to determine whether such effects would occur, and if so, how they might be mitigated. The Initial Study is found in Appendix 1 of this document. The purpose of this EIR is to provide objective planning information to assist City staff, the Planning Commission, City Council, and the public - at -large in their consideration of the environmental implications to be I -1 I. Introduction and Summary expected from the proposed project. The EIR has been prepared in conformance with the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (California Administrative Code Sections 15000 et. seq.). This Draft EIR is subject to comment. Comments should be sent to Karen Rosenberg, Santa Monica Planning Division, 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401. A summary of comments relevant to adequacy and accuracy of the impact analysis and responses to these comments will be incorporated in the Final EIR (FEIR). The FEIR must be certified as adequate and accurate before approval decisions can be made for the project. SUMMARY Project Location and Characteristics The beachfront project as proposed will consist of a 196 -room hotel on both sides and under Appian Way, between Pico Blvd. and Vicente Terrace on an approximately 66,000 square foot site (See Fig. 2, p. II -5). The project will comply with existing and proposed height limits. The structure east of Appian Way will have a maximum height of 56 feet, and the structure west of Appian Way will have a maximum height of 30 feet. (Building height is the vertical distance measured from the average level of the highest and lowest . point of that portion of the lot covered by the building to the highest point of the roof.) A 50 ft. wide bridge across Appian Way will connect the two structures (See Fig. 4, p. II -7). The westernmost part of Pico Blvd. at the Promenade will be closed to vehicular traffic. The new design of the end of Pico Blvd. will provide access to the hotel entrance, landscaping, and public stairs and a wheelchair ramp to the Promenade and the beach. There are no structures on the site. The eastern part of the site is used for parking. I -2 I. Introduction and Summary Significant Impacts The project will not have any significant effects on the environment. All potentially significant impacts can be reduced to less than significant lev- els through implementation of appropriate mitigation measures. The project will comply with applicable policies of the Land Use Element of the Santa Monica General Plan (p. III -39), and will be a permitted use under present R4 and R4A Multiple Use zoning. Compliance with existing anc proposed floor area ratios (FAR) is dependent upon code interpretation (p. III -46). (FAR compares the floor area of a project to the size of its site.) The project will add visual interest and landscaping at the end of Pico Blvd. Some beach views from the Appian Way Apartments, the Pacific Shore Hotel on Ocean Avenue, Cheerios Restaurant at Pico Blvd. and Ocean Avenue, and residences on Pico Blvd. and Vicente Terrace will be blocked by the project. It will provide new views of the beach from project balconies. Balconies, progressive setbacks of floors on the taller, eastern building, and other exterior design treatment will provide visual interest, and provide some design relationship to the smaller buildings near the project. In December, morning shadows will shade the south windows of the Appian Apartments, and all or portions of five other residential buildings. In the afternoon, the project will shade all of the Drake Hotel and the west side of the Cheerio's restaurant (p. III -29 and III -30). The project will cause up to a doubling of traffic movements at the inter- section of Pico Blvd. and Appian Way, but cumulative traffic will not warrant the installation of a traffic signal. Other intersections in the I -3 I I. Introduction and Summary general area, such as Ocean Avenue and the Interstate 10 freeway ramp, are congested, but the project's potential contribution to congestion will be a fraction of the overall traffic (p. III -73). Trip generation will be mitigated by measures to encourage use of public transit and car pooling by. employees. The project will displace present parking for the Pritikin Center. The project will provide an excess of parking over that required by the pre- sent Zoning Code. At times of peak patronage, the project could displace some beach parking from the lot north of the site to the larger lot south of the Pritikin Center (p. III -88). Operation of the project will not noticeably affect the nature of the neigh- borhood. Construction noise, particularly that caused by pile driving, could be a temporary source of annoyance. Pile driving will take place intermittently during six to ten weeks out of a 20 -month construction period. The project by itself will not cause the violation of any air quality standards. Emissions from the project and project - related vehicle trips will cause an undetectable contribution to air pollution in a nonattainment area for carbon monoxide and ozone (p, III -12). Air emissions will be mitigated by measures to conserve energy and decrease vehicle trip genera- tion. The project will create about 185 permanent jobs and 250 person -years of j i construction jobs. I -4 I. Introduction and Summary The City of Santa Monica can expect to derive at least $400,000 in in- creased annual tax revenue from the project, and total municipal costs asso- ciated with the project will be less than $70,000 per year. Alternatives considered in addition to the No Project Alternative include I' residential and office uses, alternative site layout, lower height on the inland side of the site, and no bridge over Appian Way. The various con - struction alternatives will not result in major changes in environmental impacts in comparison to the proposed project. Impacts and mitigations measures for the proposed project are summarized in the following table, beginning on page I -6. I -5 1 Q Table 1S. Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures. Major Issues Impacts Mitigation Measures Air Quality Air pollutants will be associated with project- generated vehicle trips and power generation. By itself this will not be a signi- ficant impact but it will contri- bute to a significant area -wide air pollution problem. Noise Construction noise will be audible in the project area, particularly during the 6 to 10 week pile driving period. Pile - driving will be heard up to three blocks from the site. Measures to limit trip generation described below would also mitigate production of air pollutants. Air conditioning air intakes should be located so as to minimize circu- lation of pollutants into the build ings. Building contractors should be re- quired to use work practices to min- imize generation of air pollutants. Construction should be limited to usual work hours. Contractors should be required to use equipment and operation and maintenance methods designed to minimize noise. A fence should be used to minimize noise disturbance to the Drake Hotel. Construction could be phased so that structures on the beach side of the site would shield beach users from some of the noise of construction of the inland portion of the project. 0 0 a c n 0 a a N E3 E3 a v Q i V Table 1S. Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures, Page 2 Major Issues Shadows Development intensity Impacts The property line part of the west side of the Drake hotel will be shaded on summer afternoons. In the winter shadows will be cast on the south windows of the Appian Apartments and other dwellings on Vicente Terrace. In the afternoon shadows will fall on most of the Drake Hotel and the west side of Cheerios Restaurant. The eastern portion of the proj- ect does not meet the required floor area ratio (FAR) of 2.5 if below grade floor area is inclu- ded in FAR calculations; it meets the FAR target if below grade area is excluded. The western portion of the project does not meet the required FAR of 1.0 if below grade floor area is included; it meets the FAR target if below grade is excluded. If Pico Blvd. is not vacated the western portion of the project will not meet the target FAR. Mitigation Measures This impact is not judged signi- ficant because the shaded windows would often be curtained to avoid solar heat. No mitigation needed. Development of this portion of the beach front area can be encouraged by permitting FAR to be calculated without including all of the below grade facilities. This permits more development without increas- ing bulk and view blockage. The Planning Commission will de- decide whether increased density should be permitted in this area, and how the FAR is to be calcu- lated. C 0 0 a n h 0 w a ti c e a a 12 0 b Table 1S. Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures, Page 3 Major Issues Impacts Vacation of Vehicular access to the Promenade the end of and beach will be eliminated. Pico Blvd. Pedestrian, bicycle and handi- capped access will be preserved. Setbacks Sewage The project will not meet some applicable setback requirements. Project sewage will be treated at the Hyperion Treatment Plant which discharges effluent into Santa Monica Bay. Santa Monica currently exceeds its guaranteed flow to this plant and the plant does not meet Clean Water Act Standards. Mitigation Measures The landscaped area to replace the street will provide landscaped pub- lic open space next to the Prome- nade. Signs will ensure that the public is aware that this is public beach access. The Planning Commission should con- sider requiring 1) an increased setback next to the lotline portion of the Drake Hotel to mitigate im- pacts on the Hotel, and 2) in- creased setbacks along Pico Blvd. to help create an inviting entrance to the Promenade and the beach. The use of low -flow shower heads and other water conservation mea- sures will, in turn, decrease sewage production. Improvement of treatment facilities at the Hype - rion Plant is not within the con- trol of the applicant. The project will not have a measurable effect on total Santa Monica sewage pro- duction. -- — _717 _tea 0 a c 0 n a v 12 Table 1S. Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures, Page 4 Major Issues Traffic circulation Parking Impacts The greatest project traffic impact will occur at Pico Blvd. and Appian Way which will still not have enough traffic to jus- tify installation of a traffic signal. The project will con- tribute less than a third of the 1992 cumulative traffic increase at Ocean Ave & the Pacific High - Way ramp and at Pico Blvd. and Main St. It will have less effect on other analyzed inter- sections. Although the project will not produce a significant amount of traffic, it will con- tribute to existing and future traffic congestion. The project will meet Code parking requirements and satisfy its own parking demand, replace existing Pritikin Center parking spaces on the site, replace the existing metered spaces on Pico Blvd, at the site, or pay the City for the loss of those meters, and provide some additional park- ing to alleviate the existing parking shortage in the area. Mitigation Measures Measures to encourage car - pooling, walking, and use of public transit and bicycles by guests and employ- ees should be required. Airport van service to the hotel should be required. Construction under Appian Way should be required to be timed so as to minimize interference with summer tourist traffic. Parking space should be set aside for car - pooling employees. The availability of public parking in the project should be stated on a sign visible from the end of Pico Blvd. Bicycle racks should be provided to meet Coastal Commission recommenda- tions. 0 a 0 n a a w Q Table 1S. Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures, Page 5 Major Issues Impacts Mitigation Measures During construction parking de- mand in the project area will in- crease because of loss of on -site parking lots. Views Beach views would be blocked from the north and west sides of the Drake Hotel. Views would be par- tially blocked from the west side ., of Cheerio's restaurant and other buildings on Vicente Terrace, ° Pico Blvd., and Ocean Ave. Existing views of open surface parking and vacant lots would be removed. Architectural The project complies with Land Design Use Element policies regarding color, materials, compatability with the scale of the area, and provision of balconies and beach views. a. Design of the buildings and land- scaping should be optimized to pro- vide pleasant views to persons looking at the project. Large planters should be required on the bridge. A requirement for increased set- backs should be considered, parti- cularly along Pico Blvd., to soften the edge of the project and enhance the Pico Blvd. entrance to the. beach and Promenade. Attention should be paid to the de- sign of the above ground portion of the parking area to ensure that this will not provide a dull, fea- tureless appearance to passers -by. K 0 a 0 sv a N w Q II. Project Description CHAPTER II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. Project Location The project site covers an area of approximately 1.5 acres (66,359 square feetl) at the foot of Pico Boulevard (1 Pico Boulevard) on the coastal edge of the City of Santa Monica. To the north,2 the site is bounded by Vicente Terrace, to the east by the Drake Hotel and its parking lot, to the south by Pico Blvd. east of Appian Way and by the Pritikin Building west of Appian Way, and to the west by the Santa Monica Public Beach Promenade. Appian Way passes through the center of the site in a north -south direction. (See Figure 1, p. II -2, for site location). B. Project Proposal R.E. International, the project applicant, proposes the construction of a six- story, 196 -room hotel. The hotel will include restaurants, meeting rooms, and a health club. Total above -grade square footage of the project will be approximately 99,000 sq.ft. with a maximum height of 56 ft. east of Appian Way and 30 ft. west of Appian Way. The distribution of square feet by use is shown in Table 1, p. II -3. The hotel will consist of structures on both sides of Appian Way, joined at the fourth level by a trellis- covered pedestrian bridge, approximately 50 ft. wide, which passes over Appian Way. The bridge will have a 10 ft. wide walkway, flanked by platforms with plant containers. The main entrance will be on Pico Boulevard, west of Appian Way. The first level will be subsurface parking. Guestrooms, meeting rooms, a kitchen, part of the res- II -1 N City of Santa Monica , ,J t-- --1 � CALIFORNIA \ P �� SANTA MONICA PIER ,PACIFIC- , - 'OCEAm NORTH ®®®= SOURCE: Bendix Environmental Research, Inc. II. Project Description Table 1. Distribution of Building Floor Area by Use and Location USE Guestroom Area Public Spaces Meeting Rooms Health Club Restaurant & Kitchen Lobby & Administration Open Corridor Exterior Balcony & Patios 111110! SQUARE FEET 79,090 +,(4,380) 6,800 + (10,920) (3,940) 1,560 4,290 +, (11,100) 7,440 [10,260] [7,410] 99,180 + (30,340) LOCATION BY LEVEL 2 -8 2 -8 2 4 2 -3 3 -4 5 -8 3 -8 itu AREA WEST OF APPIAN WAY (Sq.Ft.) AREA EAST OF APPIAN WAY (Sq.Ft.) Above ground 30,572 Above ground 68,605 Below ground (22,024) Below ground (8,297) Total above and 52,596 Total above and 76,902 below ground below ground Parking 25,920 Parking 81,616 COMBINED AREA WEST AND EAST OF APPIAN (Sq.Ft.) Above ground 99,177 Below ground (30,321) Total above and below ground 129,498 Total parking 107,536 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- [ ] Indicates floor area not included in FAR calculations. ( ) Indicates square footage below ground. II -3 II. Project Description taurant and parking will be on the second level. The third level will consist of the hotel main lobby and administration areas, guest rooms, a restaurant and parking. The fourth level will consist of guestrooms, a swimming pool, an outdoor terrace area, health club and administration area. Levels five through eight will contain guestrooms. There will be four floors of parking (three underground and one at ground level) with entry /exit ramps extending down from the garage entrance on Appian Way near Vicente Terrace on the third /lobby level. See Figures 2 -10, starting on p. II -7, for site plans and elevations. Project plans include the easement3 of one block of Appian Way, between Pico Blvd. and Vicente Terrace, which will remain open to public traffic. As proposed, the western end of Pico Blvd., which butts on the Promenade and has metered parking on both sides, will be vacated4 and converted to a I landscaped area with stairs and ram providing p p p g a pedestrian walkway from Pico Boulevard to the Promenade. Pico Place will be vacated and covered l by the eastern building. According to the project applicant, estimated construction time will be 20 months, all work to be done during normal working hours.5 The project will require a Development Review permit per Ordinance 1321, (CCS) variances for setbacks, and a Conditional Use Permit to permit the sale of alcoholic beverages in restaurants over 50 seats with separate bar areas and room service. The project will be subject to approval by the Architec- tural Review Board and will require a Coastal permit from the State Coastal Commission. Additionally, City Council approval will be required for the street vacations and the easement. II -4 Stabs t0 Bead Figure 2. Site Plan INC. and Bendix Environmental Research, Inc rn 1 BEACHPRONT ELEVATION PICO ELEVATION 4 SOURCE: AiGROUP, INC. and Bendix Environmental Research, Inc. Pro V RESTAURANT SECTION MAIN SECTION • i • • • SOURCE: AiGROUP, INC. and Bendix Environmental Rosearch, Inc. l i • " e Parking Level SOURCE: AiGROUP, INC. ano Sendix Environmental Research, Inc. i 7 I 0 0 r D fFVK� SOURCE: AiGROUP, INC. and Bendlx Environmental Research, Inc. i 0 FFi i ✓IL&re r6r 1n Y I IParking Entrance d $ . 6 x r re oam r dOh R�;��tl s � pconmcr. i \fin y � � I i I % L�VEL 1 h „ r e Figure 7. Lobby Level SOURCE: AICROUP INC. and Bendix Environmental Research, Inc. t i` II ure 8. '•o' Deck Level SOURCE: AiGROUP, INC. and Bendix Environmental Research, Inc. B N N Figure 9 Typical 1 W ,f b Guest Level SOURCE: AiGROUP, INC. and Bendix Environmental Research, Inc. II. Project Description NOTES: 1. There are three possible site configurations for determining the square footage of the site. These are discussed in the Land Use subchapter on p. III -31 and graphically represented in Figure 22, p. III -45. 2. For purposes of simplifying discussions of compass directions in this EIR, north -south refers to the direction of Appian Way and east - west refers to the direction of Pico Blvd. It should be noted that this is not a precise representation of compass direction (see Fig. 1, p. II -2). 3. The granting of an easement for part of Appian Way by the City will allow the developer limited use of the street to include construction under the street and construction of a walkway bridge over the street. 4. Vacation consists of the City turning over a public right -of -way to an adjacent property owner. The area thus goes onto the tax rolls. The City can place conditions on this property transfer, such as retain - ing a sewer easement, right of public passage, etc. 5. Mark Solit, meeting at Santa Monica Planning Division, 30 January 1987. II -14 III. Setting, Impacts, Mitigation Measures CHAPTER III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, MITIGATION MEASURES Each Subchapter will begin with the appropriate questions and responses from the Initial Study that are to be addressed in that section. III.A. EARTH 1.a. Will the the proposal result in unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? Maybe. l.b. Will the proposal result in extensive disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of soil? Maybe. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The proposed project site is along the beachfront in the Los Angeles Basin, about four miles south of the Santa Monica Mountains. The site slopes gently toward the Pacific Ocean. The site is in the transitional zone between recent beach sand deposits and older stream- deposited material. The beach side of the site is relatively recent beach sand and the inland side grades into the older material.1 The sand on the beach side of the site is chiefly quartz with some shiny pieces of mica, pebbles and shell fragments. The inland portion of the site has large sand particles and gravel imbedded in fine soil and sand. Previous investigations near the site have found sedimentary bedrock, which will provide a firmer foundation support than the surface material, at a depth of 25 to 45 feet below the surface. III -1 III. Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures There are at least ten potentially active to active2 earthquake fault sys- tems within 70 miles of the site. The maximum credible earthquakes on these faults and their distances from the site are given in Table 2, p. III -3. The location of these faults is shown in Appendix 2, Fig. 27, p. A -19 IMPACTS In order to reach firm soil or bedrock support for the building, it is anticipated that piles will be required (see page III -22 for discussion of the noise impacts of pile driving). The sandy nature of the surface soils, particularly on the western portion of the site, will present a hazard of collapse of the sides of the excavation. The sides of the excavation will be appropriately shored to provide support and prevent collapse. Excavation for the subsurface levels of the project will extend below the top of the water table so that dewatering will be required to prevent water in the bottom of the excavation from impeding construction. Pumped groundwater will be discharged to existing storm drains. Excavation will be expected to take place during dry weather, so ample storm drain capacity should be available for the dewatering discharge. Permanent dewatering may be required in the lower levels of the garage. This discharge could exceed the capacity of local storm drains during heavy rains. The sand on the site makes it subject to earthquake - induced liquifaction in which water saturated sand loses strength and flows like a liquid. Appro- priate foundation design based on detailed geotechnical site studies will be expected to prevent loss of building integrity in an earthquake. III -2 III. Setting, Impacts, Mitigation Measures Table 2. Major Fault Systems Affecting the Project Site Recurrance Designated Fault System MCEI Distance From Interval Special Site (Km) In Years2 Studies Zone3 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Santa Monica - Malibu Coast 6.7 1.5 - -- No Hollywood - Raymond Hill 6.5 15.0 - 30.0 3,000 - 4,500 Yes Newport - Inglewood 6.9 30.0 - 35.0 - -- Yes Whittier - Elsinore 7.2 35.0 300 - 2,000 Yes San Andreas 8.3 69.0 65 - 270 Yes Palos Verdes 6.6 13.0 - -- No Hills. Sierra Madre - San Fernando - Santa Susana 6.6 35.0 100 - 300 Yes Redondo Canyon 6.7 25.0 - -- No Anacapa 6.7 20.0 - -- No San Pedro Basin --------------------------------------------------------------------- 6.6 20.0 - 25.0 - -- No - - - - -- 1. Maximum Credible Earthquake (values according to the Richter Scale, a logarithmic scale developed by Charles Richter to measure earthquake magnitude by the energy released, as opposed to earthquake intensity as determined effects on people, structures and earth materials. The San Francisco earthquake of 1906 is estimated to have had a Richter magni- tued of 8.2 or 8.3. 2. The average time span between events (such as large earthquakes, ground shaking exceeding a particular value, or liquifaction) at a particular site. 3. Hart, E.W., 1985, Fault- rupture Zones in California: California Divi- sion of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. Source: Geo /Resource Consultants, Inc., and Bendix Environmental Research, Inc. III -3 III. Setting, Impacts, Mitigation Measures MITIGATION MEASURES I. Shoring of excavation walls should be in accordance with CAL /OSHA regula- tions for construction safety in order to protect construction workers from potential slumping of excavation walls. 2. The foundation of the building should be required to be constructed in accordance with site specific recommendations of a California - registered engineer. 3. Because of the proximity of excavation to the Drake Hotel, use of survey points on the Drake Hotel to monitor for settling should be considered. Pro- ject applicant should decide whether to implement this measure before exca- vation near the Drake Hotel and in consultation with the project engineer 4. Since major excavation for the proposed project will be across Pico Boulevard from the Pritikin Center building, it is unlikely that this exca- vation will affect the building. However, because of the architectural importance of the building, the potential need for survey points to detect settlement during excavation or construction of the Pico stairs to the Promenade should be evaluated by the project applicant in consultation with the project engineer before construction near the Pritikin Center. 5. Portions of the project below the water table should be constructed so as to minimize infiltration of groundwater into the buildings. 6. If permanent dewatering of building areas below the present water table should be deemed to be necessary by the project engineer, the capacity of the local storm drain system to accommodate this flow should be discussed with Los Angeles County Department of Flood Control and design measures to mitigate this impact should be incorporated into the project, as necessary. III -4 III. Setting, Impacts, Mitigation Measures NOTES: 1. Nelson, Scott and Ng, Ernie S., P.E., Geologic Hazards Report, Proposed Santa Monica Hotel Pico Boulevard and Appian Way, Santa Monica, Cali- fornia, Geo /Resource Consultants, Inc., Job No. 1155 -00 -0, 18 February 1987. I III.B. AIR 2.a. Will the proposal result in considerable air emissions or deteriora- tion of ambient air quality? Maybe. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The Los Angeles Basin is a coastal plain with connecting broad valleys and low hills, bounded by the Pacific Ocean on the southwest quadrant with mountains forming the remainder of the perimeter. The general region lies in the semi - permanent high pressure zone of the eastern Pacific which results in a mild climate tempered by cool sea breezes. The prevailing daily wind pattern is wind from the sea during the day and wind toward the sea at night, except for occasional winter storms and northeasterly Santa Ana air, movements from the mountains and deserts north of the air basin. Santa Monica annual rainfall averages 9 to 12 inches, generally falling from November to April. The average annual temperature is 64 °F.1 Average annual relative humidity is 70%.2 Air pollutants are classified as primary or secondary, depending on the way they are formed. Primary pollutants are emitted into the atmosphere by a source. Primary pollutants include carbon monoxide (CO), nitric oxide (NO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (S02), non - methane hydrocarbons III -5 III. Setting, Impacts, Mitigation Measures (NMHC), and particulates. The combination of NO and NO2 is often referred to as NOx. Nitrogen oxides are primarily emitted as NO, part of which is converted to NO2 within minutes. NO2 dissolves in water to give nitric acid. S02 often is chemically changed to sulfur trioxide (S03) which dis- solves in water to give sulfuric acid. Thus, NO2 and S02 are major sources of acid rain. Secondary pollutants are formed by chemical and photochemical3 reactions in the air that often involve primary pollutants. Secondary air pollutants include ozone (03), peroxyacetyl nitrate (PAN, CH303NO2), and other organic nitrates such as peroxynitric acid and peroxypropionyl nitrate.4 Secondary pollutants are the major problem in the South Coast Air Basin in which the project is located. Primary and secondary pollutants must be distinguished from primary and se- condary air quality standards. The National Ambient Air Quality Standards established by the EPA include primary standards to protect human health and secondary standards to protect property and aesthetics. Air quality in the project area and the Basin is a function of meteorology, topography, and the primary pollutants emitted into the air. The Basin has a limited capacity to disperse air contaminants because of low average windspeeds, which average about 7.7 miles per hour in the coastal area.1 In the spring and early summer, most of the pollution produced in the Basin moves through mountain passes or is dispersed aloft by the warm vertical currents produced by the heating of mountain slopes. At these times of year the Basin is flushed by Ocean air. From late summer through the win- ter months, the flushing is less pronounced because of lower wind speeds. III -6 III. Setting, Impacts, Mitigation Measures Temperature inversions in the layers of air near the ground, in which tem- perature increases with altitude instead of decreasing, as usually happens, limit the rate of dispersion of the most polluted air near the ground and create the greatest concentration of air pollutants. The height of the base of the inversion at any given time is known as the "mixing height." Inver- sions are usually lower before sunrise than during the day. The mixing height normally increases as the day progresses and the sun warms the ground, which in turn warms the surface air layer. Along the coast, early (' morning inversions occur on about 87% of the days.2 In the winter during the night and early morning hours, CO and NOx are the main air pollution problems because of low mixing heights. Short days and the lack of intense sunshine result in low photochemical smog formation. CO is less of a problem in summer when the mixing height is higher and there is better horizontal ventilation. Longer days and brighter summer sun combine to cause increased photochemical smog formation. Increased sunlight in the summer increases the rate of reaction between NMHC and NOx to form photochemical smog. There are no major industrial sources of air pollutants near the project site. The nearest freeway source of air pollutants is the Santa Monica Freeway, about a half a mile from the site. Monitoring data from the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Robertson -West Los Angeles Station are given in Table 3, page III -8. CO and NO2 levels occasionally exceeded state levels from 1981 to 1984. Ozone, largely coming from other portions of the air basin, exceeded the state 1 -hour standard of 0.10 parts per million (ppm) an average of 79 III -7 III. Setting, Impacts, Mitigation Measusures Table 3. Summary of Air Standard Violations at the West Los Angeles Air Quality Monitoring Stationl Carbon Monoxide (CO) Highest 1 -hr concentration in ppm 1981 1982 1983 1984 19852 Ozone (0 3) NA5 20 20 20 20 Highest 1 -hr concentration in ppm3 0.23 0.28 0.23 0.27 NV4 California 1 -hour Standard 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 No. days Calif. Standard exceeded 83 70 84 79 NV Federal 1 -hour Standard 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 No. days U.S. l -hr Stand. exceeded 40 61 37 35 NV Carbon Monoxide (CO) Highest 1 -hr concentration in ppm 19.0 21.0 22.0 17.0 NV California 1 -hr Standard in ppm NA5 20 20 20 20 No, days Cal. 1-hr Stand. exceeded NA 1 1 NA NV Highest 8 -hr concentration in ppm 14.8 14.60 12.90 NA NV California 8 -hr Stand. in ppm NA 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 No. days Cal. 8 -hr Stand. exceeded NA 20 16 NA NV Highest 12 -hr concentrations in ppm 14.4 NA NA NA NA California 12 -hour Standard in ppm 10 NA NA NA NA No. days Cal. 12 -hr Stand. exceeded 10 NA NA NA NA Federal 8 -hour Standard in ppm6 9.3 9.3 9.3 9.3 9.5 No. days U.S. 8 -hr Stand. exceeded 22 20 16 NV Federal 1 -hour Standard in ppm 35 35 35 35 NV No. days U.S. 1 -hr Stand. exceeded 0 0 0 0 NV Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Highest 1 -hr concentration in ppm NV 0.39 0.47 0.32 NV California 1 -hour Standard 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 No. days Calif. Standard exceeded NV5 5 4 4 NV Sulfur Dioxide (S0p) Highest 1 -hr concentration in ppm 0.04 0.03 0.06 0.05 NV California 1 -hr Standard in ppm 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.25 No. days Calif. 1 -hr Stand. exceeded 0 0 0 0 NV Total Suspended Particulates (TSP) Highest 24 -hr conc. 10 micron NA NA NA NA 1067 Highest 24 -hr conc. in ug /m3 8 158 165 156 121 131 California 24 -hr Standard in ug /m3 100 100 100 50 509 No. days Calif. Standard exceeded 10 3 4 4 297 U.S. 24 -hr Secondary Stand. in ug /m3 150 150 150 150 150 No. days U.S. 24 -hr Stand. exceeded 1 1 1 0 0 (Table continued on the next page) III -8 III. Setting, Impacts, Mitigation Measures Table 3. Summary of Air Standard Violations at the West Los Angeles Air Quality Monitoring Stationl, Page 2. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Source: California Air Resources Board, California Air Quality Data, Vols. XIII -XVII, 1981 -1985. 2. During much of 1985 the West Los Angeles- Robertson air monitoring station, which is the station closest to the site, was not reported. 3. ppm = parts per million. 4. NV = data not considered statistically valid by the ARB not reported in this table. 5. NA = not applicable because standard not yet enacted, superceded, or not applied in ARB statistics. 6. 9.3 ppm is more than 10.5 mg /m3 which is defined by the California Air Re- sources Board (ARB) as an exceedance of the 10 mg /m3 federal CO standard. In 1985 the ARB changed the definition of exceedance to equal to or greater than 9.5 ppm. 7. No. Long Beach Station used as representative of coastal conditions. 8. ug /m3 = micrograms per cubic meter of air. 9. New standard for respirable particulates equal to or greater than 10 mi- crons in diameter. Source: Bendix Environmental Research, Inc. III -9 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 Lead (Pb) Highest monthly mean in ug /m3 1.83 1.0 0.82 0.87 NV California 30 -day Standard in ug /m3 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 No. mo. Calif. 30 -d Stand. exceeded 1 0 0 0 NV Highest quarterly mean in ug /m3 NV 0.90 0.60 0.69 1.5 Federal quarterly Stand, in ug /m3 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 NV No. Q. U.S. quarterly Stand. exc. NV NV 0 NV ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Source: California Air Resources Board, California Air Quality Data, Vols. XIII -XVII, 1981 -1985. 2. During much of 1985 the West Los Angeles- Robertson air monitoring station, which is the station closest to the site, was not reported. 3. ppm = parts per million. 4. NV = data not considered statistically valid by the ARB not reported in this table. 5. NA = not applicable because standard not yet enacted, superceded, or not applied in ARB statistics. 6. 9.3 ppm is more than 10.5 mg /m3 which is defined by the California Air Re- sources Board (ARB) as an exceedance of the 10 mg /m3 federal CO standard. In 1985 the ARB changed the definition of exceedance to equal to or greater than 9.5 ppm. 7. No. Long Beach Station used as representative of coastal conditions. 8. ug /m3 = micrograms per cubic meter of air. 9. New standard for respirable particulates equal to or greater than 10 mi- crons in diameter. Source: Bendix Environmental Research, Inc. III -9 III. Setting, Impacts, Mitigation Measures days a year from 1981 to 1984 and annually exceeded the federal 1 -hour standard of 0.12 ppm an average of 43 days in this period. Particulates occasionally exceeded state standards from 1981 to 1984, and exceeded fede- ral standards once each year in 1981, 1982 and 1983. The South Coast Air Basin is a nonattainment area for CO and 03 because of violations of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. An Air Quality Management Plan for the Basin was adopted by SCAQMD and the Southern Cali- fornia Association of Governments in 1982. This Plan, required by the federal Clean Air Act, is designed to bring the Basin into compliance with National Ambient Air Quality Standards at the earliest feasible date. The Plan was incorporated into the State Implementation Plan or SIP. In September, 1986, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published in the Federal Register an advance notice of development of a new CO and 03 control program, the "Reasonable Extra Efforts Program" or REEP. EPA stated that although the 1982 SIP revisions include "control measures that would produce expeditious progress toward attainment of the applicable standards, they did not demonstrate that the areas would attain the stan- dards by the statutory date of December 31, 1987." Under the REEP, Califor- nia would have to demonstrate that nonattainment areas are reducing emis- sions "as expeditiously as practicable by implementing control measures and other program enhancements which go beyond those contained" in the 1982 SIP. The SCAQMD estimate for 1987 emissions in Area 2, which includes Santa Monica, was 306 tons CO per average summer week day, 37 tons of NOx, and 46 tons of reactive organic chemicals. III -10 III. Setting, Impacts, Mitigation Measures IMPACTS The proposed project will generate an increase in air pollutant emissions associated with vehicle miles travelled by project - generated traffic, on- site combustion of natural gas for space heating and hot water, off -site fossil fuel combustion for the project's electric power, and possibly odors associated with food in the kitchen and restaurants. The vehicular emis- sions, which would be the major source of air pollutants, will be distri- buted along the various traffic routes used by project - related traffic. The emissions from electric power generation will be emitted outside of the project area at various generation sites throughout the region. Al- though these sites may be in more heavily air polluted portions of the Basin, since the project will not have a detectable effect on total elec- trical demand in the area, its effect on these sites will be correspon- dingly undetectable. Vehicles, which are the greatest source of air pollutants in the Basin, give off a larger amount of CO (by weight) than any other pollutant. The highest concentrations of CO occur at congested intersections with long idling times, parking lots, and in stop- and -go traffic on streets and free- ways. The analysis, contained in the Santa Monica Civic Center Hotel EIR5, of the CO impacts of traffic produced by the Hotel found that this project will produce a maximum 1 -hr level of 2.25 ppm of CO in addition to the back- ground of 12.0 ppm, for a total of 14.25 ppm CO as compared to the Califor- nia Standard of 20 ppm. The EIR found that the Santa Monica Civic Center Hotel "in and of itself should not cause a violation of any CO standard and therefore should not III -11 III. Setting, Impacts, Mitigation Measures cause significant impacts." The proposed project will have 23% fewer rooms and no commercial space compared to the 40,000 square feet of commercial space in the Civic Center Hotel project. The I Pico Hotel will, therefore, have at least 25% less associated CO emissions and these are not expected to be significant. Any emissions from the proposed project will add to the emissions in a non - attainment area. This increase will be limited and probably will not be a detectable addition to area -wide emissions. The proximity to the beach suggests that many pedestrian trips will be associated with the project and the project could replace other accommodations further from the beach, thus displacing vehicular trips to the beach. People who may be particularly susceptible to CO exposure because of heart conditions will not be exposed to hazardous levels of CO as a result of the project. The width of the pedestrian bridge over Appian Way between the two portions of the project has been reduced from an earlier proposal so that the poten- tial hazard of automobile emissions being trapped under the bridge has been reduced and air under the bridge will be similar in composition to the am- bient air. The cumulative effect of this project and other related projects in the Santa Monica area will lower the Level of Service at the intersections of Ocean Ave. and the Pacific Coast Highway ramp, Pico Blvd. and Main Street, and Pico Blvd. and fourth St. (see Table 20, p. III -83). The project will not make a significant contribution to critical traffic at these intersections. The increased cumulative traffic at Ocean Ave. and the Pacific Coast Highway III -12 III. Setting, Impacts, Mitigation Measures ramp and at Pico Blvd. and Fourth St., which will operate at LOS F6 in 1992, will be associated with increased risk of formation of local CO hot spot(s) during rush hours as a result of increased numbers of vehicles and increased idling time per vehicle. All energy consumption and transportation mitigation measures will also serve to mitigate production of air pollutants (see pp. III -57 and III -89). Because any increase in air pollution in a non - attainment area should be avoided, mitigation measures should be implemented to reduce project emis- sions in so far as possible. MITIGATION MEASURES 1. Vents from the underground portions of the project, particularly the parking area, should be required to be located as far as possible from air intakes to avoid recirculation of pollutants into the buildings. 2. Intake air vents should be placed above street level to avoid sucking in vehicular emissions. 3. Intake air vents should be placed at least 40 feet from exhaust vents to avoid recirculation of exhausted pollutants. 4. Contractors should be required to cover loads of excavated soil in haul trucks and sprinkle them with water before the trucks are driven away from the site to reduce dust and potential spillage onto the streets. 5. Contractors should be required to sprinkle the construction site with water once a day or more often, if necessary, to control particulate emis- sions. III -13 III. Setting, Impacts, Mitigation Measures 6. Construction should be required to be halted during air pollution alerts. 7. Air filters should be installed in building air recycling systems to reduce the recirculation of cigarette smoke and other indoor air pollutants. 8. Non- smoking areas should be designated to provide improved indoor air quality for visitors desiring such facilities. 9. The feasibility of setting up a screening system for interior materials to avoid those which give off relatively large amounts of toxic vapors, such as formaldehyde, under normal or fire conditions should be investigated by the applicant. 10. Contractors should be requested and reminded to keep all engines pro- perly tuned to minimize production of air pollutants. NOTES: 1. Colorado Place Phase III DEIR, Santa Monica, 1986, p. 3 -21, SCH #86073009. 2. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality. Handbook for Environmental Impact Reports, 1983. 3. A photochemical reaction is a chemical reaction in which light energy enables the reaction to occur. 4. Singh, Hanwant B., Reactive Nitrogen in the Troposphere, Environmental Science and Technology 21:320 -327 (1987). 5. The Santa Monica Civic Center Hotel and Commercial Complex, FEIR, Santa Monica, 1985. 6. See p. III -72 for a discussion of intersection Level of Service (LOS). III -14 3 III. Setting, Impacts, Mitigation Measures III.C. WATER 3.i. Will the proposal result in exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? Maybe. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The west side of the project will face the beach. The mean high tide line is about 200 feet west of the site.l Tsunamies2 are not considered a major 44 hazard in Southern California. Tsunami events have been observed in the i- Santa Monica Bay in 1879 and 1930.3 Wave damage has occurred along the LSanta Monica Beach during storms, particularly at the Santa Monica Pier. The worst recent storms have occurred in 1978, 1980 and 1983.4 In 1983, the southwestfacing Santa Monica beaches experienced high waves due to a combination of strong coastal winds and tidal patterns. The 15 to 20 foot surf caused severe damage to beaches, piers and beachfront property. The Santa Monica area can expect to be affected by similar storm waves in the future. Groundwater is expected to be at about sea level because of the proximity of the Ocean. IMPACTS The relatively wide beach between the Ocean and the site helps to protect the site from wave erosion. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), there is no tsunami hazard for sites in Southern California jabove seven feet above mean sea level.3 The site is not in a FEMA flood hazard area.5 Storm waves may be higher than anticipated tsunami waves. III -15 III. Setting, Impacts, Mitigation Measures MITIGATION MEASURES It has been determined that there will be no significant danger to the project from water related hazards. No mitigation measures are proposed. NOTES: 1. Santa Monica Planning Division Districting Map, December 1980. 2. Tsunamis are seismic sea waves generated by shallow -focus earthquakes occurring offshore. 3. Zellmer, Gregory E. and Patten, Bartlett W., P.E., Geohazards Assess- ment, Proposed Santa Monica Beach Hotel, Pico Boulevard and Appian Way, Santa Monica, California, Harding Lawson Associates, Job. No. 13293, 007.11, 29 January 1987. 4. Nelson, Scott and Ng, Ernie S., P.E., Geologic Hazards Report, Proposed Santa Monica Hotel Pico Boulevard and Appian Way, Santa Monica, Cali- fornia, Geo /Resource Consultants, Inc., Job No. 1155 -00 -0, 18 February 1987. 5. Hauek, Richard E., Registered Land Surveyor, Survey of 17 June 1986. III.D. NOISE 8.a. Will the proposal result in considerable increases in existing noise levels? Maybe. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The project site is a generally quiet residential area with minimal levels f of traffic activity. Sources contributing to background noise levels in the area are cars, occasional noise from airplanes as they pass overhead, and pedestrians, bicyclists and roller skaters on the Promenade. An air louver in the north wall of the Pritikin Bldg. can be heard in most of the westernmost block of Pico Blvd. Table 4, p. III -18, lists recorded noise levels within the area of the pro- posed project. See Figure 11, p. 1II -17, for noise monitoring locations. III -16 III. Setting, Impacts, Mitigation Measures Morning background noise levels surrounding the site fall within a range of 50 - 52 dBA.1 Afternoon ambient noise levels at the time of peak traffic, from 5 to 6 PM, range from 51 to 55 dBA near the site, and increase to 65 - 74 dBA at the intersection of Pico Blvd. and Ocean Ave. where there is almost continual traffic at this time of day. The louver of the adjacent Pritikin Center was the most consistent specific noise source in the area, generating a constant 68 dBA. Bicycles, roller skaters, conversation and other activity on the Promenade generated levels up to 60 dBA. Greater activity on the Promenade during the peak summer beach season could be expected to generate 63 - 65 dBA. Passing cars at Pico Blvd. and Appian Way gave noise levels of 59 - 69 dBA. III -17 III. Setting, Impacts, Mitigation Measures Table 4. Noise Levels Near the Proposed Project Site Mea- Ambient Noise Sources of Noise sure- Time Location Levels (dBA) Above Ambient ment Site 29 April 1987 Measurements 1 5:00 Pico & Appian 54 64: plane overhead p.m. S.E. corner 60 -72: cars passing facing center of average 1 car /min.) Pico 2 5:05 Pico & Promenade 51 60: cars pulling p.m. N.W. corner out of parking lot facing site 3 5:10 Pico & Promenade 52 64: plane overhead p.m. S.E. corner 56: bikes passing facing the Priti- 62: cars parking kin Bldg. 4 5:15 South side of Pico 66: cars parking p.m. midblock, facing Pritikin Bldg. 5 5:25 North side of Vi- 53 60: cars on Appian p.m. cente Terr., mid- 66: truck on Appian block between Ocean Ave. & Appian Way, facing south 6 5:35 Pico & Ocean Front 55 59 -70: traffic p.m. Walk, SE corner, facing Pico Blvd. 7 5:40 Promenade, west curb 52 58: bicycles p.m. facing east toward 66: plane overhead site 8 5:50 Pico & Ocean Ave. 65 -74 fairly 74 -85: trucks & p.m. N.W. corner constant buses; facing Pico traffic flow 80: car horns (continued on next page) III -18 III. Setting, Impacts, Mitigation Measures Table 4. Noise Levels Near the Proposed Project Site, Page 2 Mea- Ambient Noise Sources of Noise sure- Time Location Levels (dBA) Above Ambient ment 5 October 1986 11 11:45 SE corner of Pico 52 59 - 69: traffic a.m. & Promenade and Promenade activity 7 11:50 Promenade, west 52 58: talking pedes- a.m. curb, facing east trians toward proposed 60: passing Project site bicyclists 60: roller skaters Source: Bendix Environmental Research, Inc., using a Quest 214 Sound Meter calibrated before use. Measurements taken over 5 minute intervals between 10:00 AM and noon, 3 and 5 October 1986, and between 5 and 6 PM 27 April, 1987. III -19 1986 Measurements 3 October 1986 9 10:15 Pico and the Pro- 50 62: motorcycle a.m. menade, NE corner 59: 1 car passing 2 10:20 end of Pico facing 50: car radio no noise above a.m. site in background ambient level 3 10:25 end of Pico facing 50 64: plane passing a.m. Pritikin Bldg. overhead 50 - 56: foot traffic 4 10:35 mid - block, south 68 at air in- no noise above a.m. side Pico, between take louver ambient level Appian Way & and Promenade 10 11:05 alley north of 51 84: small truck a.m. Appian Apartments passing at Appian Way 69: plane passing overhead 5 October 1986 11 11:45 SE corner of Pico 52 59 - 69: traffic a.m. & Promenade and Promenade activity 7 11:50 Promenade, west 52 58: talking pedes- a.m. curb, facing east trians toward proposed 60: passing Project site bicyclists 60: roller skaters Source: Bendix Environmental Research, Inc., using a Quest 214 Sound Meter calibrated before use. Measurements taken over 5 minute intervals between 10:00 AM and noon, 3 and 5 October 1986, and between 5 and 6 PM 27 April, 1987. III -19 III. Setting, Impacts, Mitigation Measures Table 5. Environmental and Construction Noise Levels. Item dBA mosquito 3 ft. from listener 10 rustling leaves 20 soft whisper 5 ft. from listener 30 minimum night residential area 40 private business office, 50 dishwasher in the next room average conversation l ft from listener 60 passenger car on city street from sidewalk 65 freight train 100 ft from listener, 70 vacuum cleaner 10 ft from listerner foundation work 78 garbage disposal 3 ft from listener, 80 loud speech 3 ft from listener erection work 87 excavation, finishing work, 89 food blender 3 ft from listener diesel truck 50 ft from listener 85 ambulance siren 100 rock music band, loud shout 1 ft from listener 110 threshold of pain 140 -------------------------°_------------------------------------------------ Source: Bolt, Beranek, and Newman, 31 December 1977, Noise from Construc- tion Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appli- ances, USEPA, and Bendix Environmental Research, Inc. III -20 III. Setting, Impacts, Mitigation Measures Aircraft overhead gave a noise level of 64 to 69 dBA. A noisy small truck passing produced 84 dBA on the sidewalk of Appian Way. At Pico Blvd. and Ocean Ave. trucks and buses generated 74 - 85 dBA and automobile horns gave 80 dBA. Table 5, p. III -20, gives the usual noise levels of various activi- ties for comparison to the measured values. Nighttime noise levels are assumed to be within a range of 40 - 45 dBA, based on previous noise studies prepared for similar, medium density residential neighborhoods where the dominant daytime noise sources are automobiles and pedestrian activities. Night noise levels in such environments typically fall 8 - 10 dBA below daytime levels. Given recorded daytime noise levels surrounding the proposed project area of 50 - 52 dBA, an assumed nighttime level of 40 - 45 is conservative. Expressed as Ldn,2 the ambient noise level of the area would be about 50 dBA. The Noise Element of the City of Santa Monica's General Plan identifies acceptable levels of community noise by land use category. These noise levels are expressed in Ldn. The Santa Monica Planning Division reviews proposed projects for their anticipated levels of operational noise. The site lies within a medium density residential neighborhood. Projects in this land use category with anticipated generation of exterior noise levels below 60 Ldn are considered acceptable from a noise standpoint and require no further review. Levels of 60 -65 Ldn require review. Levels of 65 Ldn and above are considered unsatisfactory. IMPACTS Noise level increases due to operation of the proposed project will result from new passenger and service vehicle trips to the hotel. Ventilation and III -21 III. Setting, Impacts, Mitigation Measures other hotel mechanical system facilities are not expected to be audible off - site. A doubling of automobile traffic increases ambient noise levels by 3 dBA. An increase of 3 dBA is a barely perceptible change in ambient noise level. An increase of 10 dBA is perceived as a doubling of ambient noise level. The project will cause an approximately 40% increase in total traffic at Pico Blvd, and Appian. Since this is less than a doubling of trips, it will not cause an audible difference in traffic noise. The additional trips per day resulting from the project at other intersections will represent smaller changes in traffic and will raise background noise levels by less than 3 dBA, an increase most people will not be expected to notice. Noise disturbance from construction activity will last for approximately 20 months. Without mitigation, impulse noise levels could reach levels of 105 dBA at 100 ft. due to impact driving of the piles which will support the structure. Impact pile driving will take place intermittently for 6 to 10 weeks. This noise will be perceived as louder than the loudest trucks currently passing through the area for a distance of 800 feet from the perimeter of the site.3 Where buildings did not absorb the noise, it could be heard in some locations up to three blocks from the construction site. It will be heard by beach users for about three blocks along the beach either side of the construction site. Sheet piles needed to line excavations and dam ground water inflow could be driven with vibrators which will not be expected to generate noise levels as high as pile driving. Table 5, p. III -20, includes typical construction noise levels which can be expected during construction. III -22 III. Setting, Impacts, Mitigation Measures MITIGATION MEASURES 1. Construction should be required to be limited to hours as specified by City of Santa Monica regulations which will eliminate evening and nighttime noise when people are most likely to be in their homes or hotel rooms. 2. The possibility of predrilling for piles in order to decrease pile driving noise should be investigated by the applicant after detailed soil investigations are performed and foundation designs are developed. 3. The project contractor should muffle equipment intakes and exhausts, and shield or shroud impact tools. 4. Sheet piles should be required to be driven with vibrators if techni- cally feasible to reduce noise generation. 5. The Planning Commission should consider requiring phasing of construc- tion so that construction of the western portion of the project proceeds ahead of the eastern portion, shielding the beach from the noise of con- struction on the eastern portion of the site. 6. During construction the portion of the eastern side of the site opposite the Drake Hotel should have a solid fence at least eight feet tall to limit noise disturbance of occupants of the Drake Hotel. 7. The underside of the bridge over Appian Way should be finished with a rough surface to reduce sound reflection and noise levels on this portion of Appian Way. III -23 III. Setting, Impacts, Mitigation Measures NOTES: 1. The decibel (0) is a logarithmic unit of sound energy intensity. Sound waves, travelling outward from a source, exert a force known as sound pressure level (commonly called 'sound level'), measured in decibels. DBAs are decibels corrected for the variation in frequency response of the typical human ear at commonly encountered noise levels. 2. Ldn is an averaged sound level measurement, based on human reaction to cumulative noise exposure over a 24 -hour period, which takes into account the greater annoyance of nighttime noises. Noise between 10 PM and 7 AM is weighted 10dBA higher than daytime noise. The Ldn is derived from logarithmic summing of the hourly daytime and weighted nighttime noise values. In the case of an ambient nighttime noise level of 40 dBA and a daytime noise level of 50 dBA, the Ldn, the sense of how loud the noise would be perceived, would be 50 dBA. 3. Calculated on the basis of the assumption that for each doubling of dis- tance from the noise source there is an approximate decrease of 6 dBA in noise level. III.E. LIGHT AND GLARE 9. Will the proposal produce considerable new light or glare from street lights or other sources? Maybe. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING There is currently no lighting on the site other than the lights from cars parking at night. IMPACTS The Land Use Element of the General Plan of Santa Monica includes the following policies: Policy 3.4.5: "Consistent with legitimate safety concerns, all exterior lighting shall be unobtrusive and constructed or located so that only the intended area is illuminated, long range visi- bility is reduced, and off -site glare is minimized. III -24 -iY III. Setting, Impacts, Mitigation Measures Policy 3.4.6: "To the extent permitted by State law, the placement of off- site advertising shall be prohibited, because of visual clutter, scenic intrusion, and safety concerns. In compliance with Policy 3.4.5, the project applicant's outdoor lighting plans will be designed to reduce long range visibility, to be unobtrusive, and to minimize glare for nearby residences. All windows will be clear glass. No reflective or tinted glass will be used. Some glass blocks may be used on the eastern face of the building on the eastern parcel. The absence of reflective glass will minimize the possibility of glare. No off -site advertising signs are proposed, thus the project would comply with Policy 3.4.6. MITIGATION MEASURES 1. Exterior lighting should be required to be shielded and angled so as to minimize off -site visibility in so far as this is consistent with security requirements. III. F. SHADOWS 10. Will the proposal produce extensive shadows affecting adjacent uses or property? Maybe. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Presently, there are no structures on the site to cast shadows. IMPACTS On June 22, when shadows are the shortest, the proposed project will cast no shadows on other buildings at 9 AM and will shadow the portion of the III -25 III. Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures south side of 'the Drake Hotel which is on the property line at 3 PM. On December 22, when shadows are the longest, the proposed project will shade the south windows of the Appian Apartments and all or portions of five other residential buildings containing eleven dwelling units and rental rooms at 9 AM. At 3 PM it will shade all of the Drake Hotel, except for i the south windows, and will shade the west side of Cheerio's, a restaurant at the southeast corner of the block. See Figures 12 to 15, pages III -27 to III -30, for diagrams of the shadows that will be cast by the proposed project. MITIGATION MEASURES It has been determined that there will be no significant shadow impacts caused by the proposed project. No mitigation measures are proposed. III -26 mProject Shadow Figure 12. Shadow Pattern JUNE 22 9A.M. P.S.T. III -27 al 0 100 I I FEET SOUn CE: Bendix Enehonmental nesearch, INC. CHEERIOS ILIIIL HOTEL DRAKE i --tI APPIAN WAY ? ---- - - - - -' APTS. i i i LL t mProject Shadow Figure 12. Shadow Pattern JUNE 22 9A.M. P.S.T. III -27 al 0 100 I I FEET SOUn CE: Bendix Enehonmental nesearch, INC. 21 Project Shadow Figure 13. Shadow Pattern June 22 3P.M. P.S.T. III -28 al 0 700 FEET SOURCE: Bendlx Environmental Research, INC. Project Shadow Existing Shadow Figure 14. Shadow Pattern December 22 9A.M. P.S.T. III -29 Al 0 100 I � FEET SOURCE: eandix Environmental Research, INC, MProloct Shadow M 0 100 Figure 15. Shadow Pattern FEET December 22 3P.M. P.S.T. SOURCE: Rendix Environmental Research, INC. III -30 III. Setting, Impacts, Mitigation Measures III.G LAND USE 14. Will the proposal result in a considerable alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? Yes. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Site and Surrounding Area. Vacant and asphalt -paved lots make up the site. The western portion of the site is unused (see Fig. 16, page III -32). The portion of the site east of Appian Way is used for parking (see Fig. 16, page III -32). The south side of the latter area is used for parking by the Pritikin Center building (hereafter called Pritikin bldg.), which is on the south side of Pico Blvd., immediately adjacent to the site (see Fig. 17, page III -33 for photo.) Other surrounding uses include the 18 -unit Appian Way Apartments to the north, the Drake Hotel and its parking lot to the east, the State beach to the west and a City -owned parking lot to the north. General land use in the project area is mapped in Fig. 19, page III -35. The western end of Pico Blvd. ends at the Promenade and has metered parking on both sides. The Promenade, which is heavily used by pedestrians and cyclists, is between the site and the beach (see Figure 1, p. II -3). The predominance of hous- ing, hotels and parking lots and the pedestrian orientation of the Prome- nade characterize the area as a residential area devoted to beach access. Housing within two blocks of the site ranges from single - family detached units to 79 -unit apartment buildings. Across Vicente Terrace from the site III -31 1. The western portion of the project site in the foreground, with the Santa, Santa Monica Pier in the background.i View northwest from the site west of Appian Way. a i PtitikinC ar Santa Monica Slate Beach Origin and Direction of the Photos 2. View from the Promenade across the site to the east with the Pacific Shore Hotel on the left and the Drake Hotel on the right. Figure 16. Project Site III -32' SOURCE: Bendix Envir 3. Pritikin Longevity Center across Pico Blvd. from the western portion of the project site. View southwest from the site, across Pico Blvd. y. Hotel Drake on Pico between Ocean Ave. and Appian Way. The parking lot used by the Pritikin Longevity Center is in the foreground and the Pacific Shore Hotel is in the background. View from the western portion of the project east, across Appian Way. i=igurei 7. Neighborhood Land Uses SOURCE: Bendix 111 -33 5^ Sea Castle Apts. on the west side of Appian Way, north of Santa Monica City parking lot~ North view from the middle of the project site. � | 6^ Appian Way Apts^ at the northeast corner of Appian Way | and Vicente Terrace. View northeast from the middle of the western portion of the project site, | 1{1_]4 Research. | ti w cn OCEAN AV. RESIDENTIAL E RETAIL /RESTAURANT RM Figure 19 Land Use E NEILSON WAY 00� OCEAN FRONT WALK SANTA MONICA STATE BEACH D Arm. R5 � 7 t:UN: V VACANT PARK rs R:7.5 Q PROJECT SITE ®o ®® N is '{ V PARKING Environmental Research, Inc. III. Setting, Impacts, Mitigation Measures are single - family units and the Appian Way Apartments (see Figure 18, p. III -34). Across Pico Blvd., in addition to the Pritikin bldg., there are multi - family apartment buildings. Zoning. The property is zoned R4 and R4A (Fig. 20, page III -37). The R4 designation allows uses permitted in RI, R2R, R2, and R3 districts in addi- tion to apartment hotels, hotels, clubs or lodges, and nursery schools.l Hotels are permitted. The RU designation allows R4 uses and identifies the area as an off - street parking district. This classification permits surface parking lots. Other zoning designations in the project vicinity are listed in Table 6, below. Table 6. Zoning Districts ZONING DISTRICTS (See Figure 20, p. III -37) C4: Highway Commercial District CA: Commercial- Administrative District CM3: Main Street Special Commercial District (max. height 35') CM4: Main Street Special Commercial District (max. height 47') R1: One Family Residential District R3: Multiple Residential District R4: Multiple Residential District III -36 w V w APPIAN WAY a / . v® ®® C4 060-60 0 ®4® .1 v_ 000 n a- 0 ® ® ®� OCEAN FRONT WALK R' l SANTA MONICA STATE BEACH PROJECT BOUNDARYOama OFF- STREET ZONING BOUNDARY ®0000 -' PARKING DISTRICT Zoning district codes explained in Notes p. III -13 Figure 20. Zoning Map 1980 Lt NEILSON WAY 000000 ®00000 NO 10 0 100 N L f a0 FEET SOURCE: City, of Santa Monica Planning Dept. and Bendix Environmental Research, Inc. III. Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measure General Plan. The Land Use Element (LUE) of the City of Santa Monica's General Plan was adopted on 23 October 1984. LUE policies relevant to the proposed project are cited in Table 7, pp. III -39 through III -41, and throughout the EIR in the appropriate chapters and subchapters. The project is in the LUE Oceanfront District, as shown in Figure 21, p. III -42. The project is within the Santa Monica Coastal Zone. Approval by the Coas- tal Commission will be required.2 IMPACTS Table 7, pp. III -39 through III -41, includes an analysis of how the proposed project adheres to the LUE policies and objectives. The proposed project falls within two areas. A subdistrict boundary line runs down the center of Appian Way. Therefore, there are different zoning requirements for the two parcels of the project. The LUE limits the inten- sity of the development on the western parcel to a height of 30 ft. and a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 1.0 and development on the eastern parcel to a height of 56 ft. and an FAR of 2.5. Project height characteristics are given in Table 8, page III -43. FAR, setback and height limitation requirements are discussed in turn below. Floor Area Ratio Floor Area Ratio (FAR) compares the size of the building to the size of its site. Floor area ratio defines the general land use intensity that is appro- priate for the site considering the visual mass and bulk of the development and the amount of activity that can be easily accommmodated in the area. III -38 III. Setting, Impacts, Mitigation Measures Table 7. Relationship of Land Use Element Policies to the Project. LAND USE ELEMENT OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES, OCEANFRONT DISTRICT Objective 1.5: "Expand visitor accommodations and related uses in the Oceanfront area, while protecting the existing residen- tial mix." RELATIONSHIP OF PROJECT TO POLICIES Policy 1.5.1: "Devote the Ocean- The proposed Oceanfront project will front District primarily to visi- provide 196 hotel rooms for visitor for accommodations and commercial accommodations and a swimming pool. recreation." Policy 1.5.2: "Conserve the No existing housing will be demolished existing number of residential in connection with the project. units in the area in order to maintain existing land use diver- sity and character." Policy 1.5.3: "Encourage land assembly for visitor accommoda- tions and promote the provision of beach oriented commercial uses and viewing platforms available to the public along the Prome- nade." Policy 1.5.4: "Encourage day and night pedestrian activity along the street frontages on Main Street, Ocean Avenue and the Promenade, by requiring ac- tive uses oriented to walk -in traffic, especially retail and commercial recreation, small inns and restaurants." Parcels in two adjacent blocks have been assembled for beach oriented visi- tor accommodations. The central por- tion of the pool deck level will serve as a beach viewing platform but will not be obviously available to the public. The near ground -level restaurant facing the Promenade will be oriented to walk -in traffic as well as hotel pa- trons. Policy 1.5.8: "The Ocean Avenue No residential uses will be displaced. frontage west of Downtown and the The site is partially vacant and par - area between Ocean Avenue, the tially a parking lot. Promenade, the Pier, and Pico Boulevard shall be devoted to Continued on next page III -39 III. Setting, Impacts, Mitigation Measures Table 7. Relationship of Land Use Element Policies to the Project, Page 2. LAND USE ELEMENT OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES, OCEANFRONT DISTRICT the conservation of the existing mix of residential uses and new visitor- serving uses including hotels. Allowable intensity shall be as follows: "Between Ocean Avenue and Appian Way 2.5 FAR and 4 stories (56'). O "Between Appian Way and the Promenade 1.0 FAR and 2 stories (30'). "Hotel and residential develop- ment heights shall be governed by permitted floor area ratios and building height in feet rather than by number of stories." URBAN DESIGN OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES, COMPATIBILITY WITH URBAN CONTEXT Objective 3.2: "Protect the scale and character of residen- tial neighborhoods adjacent to commercial areas." Policy 3.2.2: "The City shall consider changes to the defini- tion of floor area for hotels and residential development so that it reflects the visual mass and bulk of these types of development." RELATIONSHIP OF PROJECT TO POLICIES The portion of the project east of Appian Way will be 56' tall. See Table 9, page III -46 for FAR. The portion of the project west of Appian Way will be 30' tall. See Table 9, page III -46 for FAR. The project will meet the building height in feet requirements with more stories: 6 stories east of Appian Way and 3 stories west of Appian Way. The Planning Commission will decide how to interpret the FAR requirements of the Zoning Code as they apply to this project. III -40 Continued on next page III. Setting, Impacts, Mitigation Measures Table 7. Relationship of Land Use Element Policies to the Project, Page 3. URBAN DESIGN OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES, CHARACTER OF COMMER- CIAL AND RESIDENTIAL AREAS Objective 3.4: "Enhance the image and the unique character of the commercial districts and residential neighborhoods in the City." Policy 3.4.3: "Require new de- velopment to provide streetscape and /or open space improvements which contribute to the overall public open space system. Open space requirements shall not exceed the project mitigation measures for projects subject to these mitigation measures." The vacated end of Pico Blvd. will be landscaped and developed as public open space providing access to the Promenade and the beach. III -41 i N NEILSON WAY �CFq OCEAN FRONT WALK SANTA MONICA STATE BEACH PROJECT BOUNDARY mo ®®• ZONING BOUNDARY®®®®® Figure 21. General. Plan LUE District I 0 100 �, 0 �!' FEET SOURCE: City of Santa Monica General Plan Land Use Element 1984 and Bendix Environmental Research, i 777 Table 8. Zoning Regulations and Land Use Element Policies in Relationship to the Proposed Project Standard Zoning Land Use Proposed Project Regulation Element WEST OF APPIAN: Hotel permitted yes yes yes Height 65' 30' 30' Stories (for hotels) 6 no limit 3 Front Yard 20' NA1 1' (excl. Pico) 41' (incl. half Pico) 81' (incl. all Pico) Side Yard 5'2 NA 0' w Rear Yard 15' NA 6' EAST OF APPIAN: Hotel permitted yes yes yes Height 65' 56' 56' Stories (for hotels) 6 no limit 6 Front Yard 20' NA 1.6' Side Yard 13'2 NA 0' west side & 11' east side Rear Yard 15' NA 10' ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. NA = not applicable 2. Under City Zoning Regulations, sideyards are determined as follows: buildings 3 stories or under, 5'; buildings over three stories, 5' + (2 x no. of stories over two). Source: Bendix Environmental Research, Inc. ti m a _3 a 0 3 a N C (D N III. Setting, Impacts, Mitigation Measures It is our understanding that the Planning Commission desires to consider both all and none of the floor area of the below grade portions of the pro- ject in separate FAR calculations before they make their decision on the appropriate methodology. Below grade parking areas are specifically exclu- ded from FAR calculations (General Plan, Land Use Element, p. 163). Assumptions used in alternate calculations of the net floor area of the buildings: 1. The entire meeting room /second level, except parking, included in the net floor area. 2. The entire meeting room /second level excluded from the net floor area. The City will decide whether it is appropriate to vacate all, half, or none of the last block of Pico Blvd. These alternatives are graphically repre- sented on Fig. 22, p. III -45. ° Assumptions used in calculation of the site area: A. The entire vacated portion of Pico Blvd. between the Promenade and Appian Way included in the square footage of the western parcel; B. The half of the vacated portion of Pico Blvd., between the Prome- nade and Appian Way, adjacent to the project site, included in the square footage of the western parcel; C. None of Pico Blvd. included in the square footage of the western parcel. These alternatives and the resulting FARs are presented in matrix form in Table 9, p. III -46. III -44 I West of App 25,594 sq.ft. East of Appian Vicente Terrace 27,593 sq.ft. 0 Site Without Pico West of App ,a Mmml E 33,63® sq ft East of Appian Vicente Terrace 7,593 sq. _......_.. «o .,:; _ Pico 811tl.. 0 0 Site With Half of Pico East of Appian Vie.M.. Tertace Figure 22. Possible Site Configurations III -45 rn Table 9. FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR) CALCULATION Below Grade Floor Area Excluded from FAR 30,572 30,572 30,572 EAST BLOCK 23,773 N/A 3,820 27,593 2.5 76,902 2.8(7-02) 27,593 68,605 FAR: I 1.07 ( 2 s9a ) 0.9 (33 6so ) 0.8 ( 30 572 ) I 2.5 (6 05) 27,593 ----------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ * Graphic representation of these three possible site configurations is shown in Figure 22, p. III -45. Source: Bendix Environmental Research, Inc. WEST BLOCK SITE AREA INCLUDING* (sq.ft,):° NONE OF PICO HALF OF PICO ALL OF PICO Block 24,809 24,809 24,809 Pico Blvd. 0 5,086 10,172 1/2 Appian Way 3,785 3,785 3,785 Total Site Area: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 28,594 33,680 38,766 PERMITTED FAR: 1.0 1.0 1.0 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NET FLOOR AREA (sq.ft.) AND CORRESPONDING FAR: Below Grade Non - parking 52,596 52,596 52,596 Floor Area Included in FAR FAR: 1.8( 52,596) 1.6 ( 52,596) 1 4 52,595 ( 28,594 33,680 38,766) Below Grade Floor Area Excluded from FAR 30,572 30,572 30,572 EAST BLOCK 23,773 N/A 3,820 27,593 2.5 76,902 2.8(7-02) 27,593 68,605 FAR: I 1.07 ( 2 s9a ) 0.9 (33 6so ) 0.8 ( 30 572 ) I 2.5 (6 05) 27,593 ----------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ * Graphic representation of these three possible site configurations is shown in Figure 22, p. III -45. Source: Bendix Environmental Research, Inc. III. Setting, Impacts, Mitigation Measures FAR of the West Block. The west block of the site meets the allowed FAR of 1.0 if the entire below grade meeting room /second level is excluded from the net floor area and if half or all of Pico Blvd. is included in the west block. site area. If none of Pico Blvd. is included in the site area, the FAR is 1.07. If all of the occupiable below grade space is included in the FAR, the proj- ect does not meet the FAR requirement. With all of Pico included in the site, the FAR is 1:4; with half of Pico included the FAR is 1.6; and with l none of Pico included the FAR is 1.8. FAR of East Block. The east block of the site meets the allowed FAR of 2.5. if the entire below grade meeting room /second level is excluded from the net floor area. If all of the occupiable below grade area is included, the FAR is 2.8. It should be noted that, given a building of a specified total number of square feet of occupiable space, there is a trade off between above ground visible bulk and permitting underground space that does not count toward FAR. The determination of appropriate methodology for the FAR calculation will be made by the Planning Commission at the time of project approval. A Gen- eral Plan Amendment would be required in order to permit increased FAR in this project. The amendment could deal with the site of this project only, or with the general neighborhood. It could define which underground space is to be counted toward FAR or permit increased FAR. From a general planning standpoint it is undesireable to increase the above ground bulk of buildings near the beach. If it is desired to encourage development of this portion III -47 III. Setting, Impacts, Mitigation Measures of the beachfront area, the least environmentally intrusive way of doing so is to encourage below grade construction. Setback characteristics of the proposed project are summarized in Table 8, page III -43. Setbacks - -West Building The front yard setback of the western building will be adequate if all or half of the proposed vacated Pico Blvd. width is included as part of the front yard. The project will have a 1 ft. average setback without inclusion of the vacated street area. With one half of the street width, it will have a 41 ft, average setback and, with the entire width, it will have an 81 ft. average setback, compared to the present requirement of 20 ft. The western building will have no sideyard setbacks where the present requirement is a 5 ft. setback. The rear of the project, facing a parking lot, will have a 6 ft. setback, where present requirements call for a 15 ft. setback. Lack of a setback near a parking lot has no effect on light access to building windows, landscaping between buildings, or view lines, factors which setbacks are designed to mitigate. Setbacks- -East Building The 1.6 ft. average setback for the Pico Blvd. side of the eastern building will not comply with the present 20 ft. minimum setback requirement. The eastern building will partially comply with the side setback requirements and will not meet the rear yard requirements. The western side setback will be 0 ft. and the eastern side setback from the Drake Hotel and the III -48 a� III. Setting, Impacts, Mitigation Measures' parking lot will be 11 ft., where the present requirement is 13 ft. The 10 ft. rear setback from Vicente Terrace will be 5 ft. less than the required setback of 15 ft. Variances will be required for the proposed project, as currently designed, because setbacks, in some cases, do not satisfy Code requirements. Height The Code defines building height "as the vertical distance measured from the average level of that portion of the lot covered by the building to the highest point of the roof." The heights of the buildings have been deter- mined by the architect in accordance with the Code. The location of the transect does not affect the height determination because there is less than 0.5 foot of north -south grade on the site. The 56 ft. eastern building would be compatible with the 65 to 75 ft. Pri- tikin bldg. and the 30 ft. western building would be similar in height to the three -story Appian Way Apartments and the two- and three -story apart- ments on Pico Blvd. The project buildings would be shorter than the six- story Sea Castle Apartments, one block north on Appian Way. Neither build- ing would be as tall as the seven -story Pacific Shore Hotel on the east side of Ocean Avenue. Heights of buildings in the project area in stories are shown in Figure 23, page III -50, and depicted in photograghs in Figures 16, 17 and 18, pages III -32 through III -34. To obtain the desired square footage for the project without increasing the height, the project applicant has incorporated into the hotel design a below - grade level in which a portion of the building's activities will be con- ducted. III -49 e cn C) HEIGHT IN STORIES Figure 23. NEILSON WAY PARK PARKING oc" _._.__._._ OCEAN FRONT WALK m a 1 PARK p 100 6. FEET ix Environmental III. Setting, Impacts, Mitigation Measures MITIGATION MEASURES 1. The FAR of the project could be reduced to meet FAR targets and reduce the bulk of the project. Area reductions required to meet FAR under the alternative assumptions stated on p. II1 -44, and tabulated in Table 9, p. III -46, are summarized in Table 10, p. III -52. 2. A General Plan Amendment could be approved that would allow increased FAR in this project. 3. The Planning Commission should consider requiring the applicant to meet setback requirements. This could be done in conjunction with imple- mentation of measure 1, above. Alternatively, variances could be approved to achieve consistency with setback requirements. See also related discus- sion under Aesthetics, p. III -111. NOTES: 1. R1 permitted uses include 1 family dwellings, parks, playgrounds, beaches, community centers, schools, libraries, and transitional dwel- ling uses permitting 1 dwelling unit for each 3,000 sf of lot area on a lot. R2R permitted uses include all R1 uses, 2 family dwelling and transitional residential uses (permitting 1 unit per 1,250 sf). R2 permitted uses include all R1 and R2R uses, 2 family dwellings, and transitional residential units (permitting 1 per 1,000 sf). 2. Teresa Henry, California State Coastal Commission, telephone conversa- tion, 3 April 1987. III -51 III. Setting, Impacts, Mitigation Measures Table 10. Project Area Reductions Required to Meet FAR Targets Allowed Planned Reduction Required sq.ft. sq.ft. to Meet FAR sq.ft. WEST OF APPIAN WAY, FAR TARGET 1.0 Entire below grade excluded: Pico not included 28,594 30,572 1,978 including half Pico 33,680 30,572 0 including all Pico 38,766 30,572 0 Entire below grade included: (excluding parking) Pico not included 28,594 52,596 24,002 including half Pico 33,680 52,596 18,916 including all Pico 38,766 52,596 13,830 EAST OF APPIAN WAY, FAR TARGET 2.5 Entire below grade excluded: 68,983 68,605 0 Entire below grade included: 68,983 76,902 7,919 (excluding parking) Source: Bendix Environmental Research, Inc. III -52 III. Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures III.H. HOUSING 15. Will the proposal a. Create a considerable demand for additional housing? b. Have a considerable impact on the available rental housing in the commun- ity? Maybe. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Santa Monica has a population of approximately 90,000 persons living in 46,400 dwelling units, according to the 1980 Census. At that time, the housing was 21 °% owner - occupied, 74% renter - occupied, and 5% vacant or migra- tory housing. Addition to the City's housing stock is constrained by cost of construction, limited land availability, parking and other local land use regulations. TMDAr7C The construction of the project would create about 250 person -years of con- struction jobs.1 Construction workers would not be expected to move to Santa Monica for a job of this size; therefore, they would not create local housing demand. The project would create about 185 permanent jobs, see Table 11, p. III -54. These would be expected to be distributed approximately as follows: 45% food and beverage service; 32% housekeeping, laundry, and room services; 13% in sales, administration and administrative support; and the remaining 15% would be in maintenance, security and other services.2 Most hotel jobs are held by low- and moderate - income persons. These jobs would be expected to be largely held by present local residents who would generally not move to be nearer their place of work. Project employees are III -53 III. Setting, Impacts, Mitigation Measures not expected to have a detectable effect on local housing demand. The pro- ject could contribute to cumulative demand for visitor - oriented business and thus create some secondary jobs in the area. MITIGATION MEASURES 1. Hotel jobs should be advertised locally in order to attract local em- ployees who would not create new housing demand. The hotel operator should give first priority to City residents for all Hotel jobs. The City should consider requiring advertisements for hotel jobs in local newspapers. NOTES: 1. Assuming 50% of construction cost to be labor costs and $40,000 /year/ person total labor costs for wages plus fringe benefits. 2. Based on median staffing levels from Laventhol & Horwath, 1982, U.S. Lodging Industry, 1981, cited in Final EIR for Post /Mason Hotel, 81.400E, 1983, San Francisco. Table 11. Estimated number of full -time employees Land Use Hotel (196 rooms) Restaurant (7,398 sq.ft.) Health Club (1,560 sq.ft.) Total Job Generation Factor* 0.8 employees /room 1 employee /300 sq.ft. 1 employee /350 sq.ft. Estimated emolovees 157 25 4 186 * Colorado Place Phase III EIR, SCH #86073009, Santa Monica, 1986. Source: Bendix Environmental Research, Inc. III -54 �I III. Setting, Impacts, Mitigation Measures III.I. UTILITIES 16. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems or major alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? c. Water? d. Sewer or septic tanks? e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste and disposal? Maybe. I.I. POWER AND NATURAL GAS ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The Southern California Edison Company (SCE) and the Southern California Gas Company (SCG) maintain electrical and gas distribution systems, respec- tively, throughout the project vicinity. There is an underground 16 kV electric power line available at the project property line. Existing aboveground facilities near the project will not provide electrical service to the project but may be in the way during con- struction. IMPACTS The estimated electrical demand for the hotel is 1.9 million kWh (kilowatt hours) per year (as calculated in Table 12, p. III -56). SCE will have no problem providing electrical service to the project. SCE has an active energy conservation advisory program for its customers and has offered its services to the project.l The estimated natural gas demand is 8.1 million cubic feet per year (as calculated in Table 13, page III -56). SCG has indicated that the existing distribution system will be adequate to serve the project without causing any adverse impacts to existing consumers or the system.2 III -55 III. Setting, Impacts, Mitigation Measures Table 12. ESTIMATED ELECTRICAL DEMAND Land Use Hotel (130,240 sq.ft.) Restaurant (15,390 sq.ft.) Health Club (1,560 sq.ft.) Total ______ __ ___ ___ __ _________ Consumption Factor* (kWh /sq.ft. /year) 12.6 17.2 4.4 Annual Consumption (million kWh /year) 1.64 0.26 0.01 1.91 --------------------------------------------- * Consumption Factors from South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Handbook for EIRs, December 1983. Source: Bendix Environmental Research, Inc. Table 13. ESTIMATED NATURAL GAS CONSUMPTION Land Use Hotel (130,240 sq.ft.) Restaurant (15,390 sq.ft.) Health Club (1,560 sq.ft.) Total Consumption Factor (cf /year / sq.ft.) 57.6* 34.8 ** 18.0 ** Annual Consumption (million cubic feet) 7.50 0.54 0.03 8.07 --------------------------------------------------------------.,__-_--_----- * South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Handbook for EIRs, December 1983. ** Colorado Place Phase III FEIR, September 1986, SCH # 86073009. Source: Bendix Environmental Research, Inc. III -56 III. Setting, Impacts, Mitigation Measures MITIGATION MEASURES 1. The heating /ventilation /air conditioning system (HVAC) should be de- signed to permit use of outside air for air conditioning when temperatures are appropriate. 2. The balconies and trellises should shade many windows, limiting solar heating in the middle of the day in summer. The lower solar angles of win- ter should permit some sun to shine into the rooms, providing heat and light. 3. Bathroom hot water should be limited to a temperature of 110 °F in order to limit natural gas consumption for heating water. 4. The project applicant should consider use of double -paned glass on the I' west sides of the buildings in order to limit solar heat gain through these windows. Double -paned glass can cut heat gains and losses through windows by 50 %. A decision should be made after a comparison is made of the costs of installation and the savings in HVAC costs. 5. Electrical appliances should be chosen on the basis of energy efficiency to reduce the amount of electricity consumed by installed appliances. 6. Occupant - controlled light switches on each light fixture and thermostats should be provided in each room to permit individual adjustment of lighting and room air conditioning, ensuring that energy would not be consumed. I unnecessarily in maintaining occupant comfort. 7. The project applicant should be required to relocate any gas or electric lines in conflict with project construction. III -57 III. Setting, Impacts, Mitigation Measures I.2. WATER CONSUMPTION ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Water supply service in the vicinity of the project site is provided by the City of Santa Monica. Half of the water used in Santa Monica comes from local wells, and half comes from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. Maintenance and administration of the distribution facilities and water supplies is performed by the City Department of General Services, Water /Wastewater Division. Existing water mains in the area include a 12 -inch main under Appian Way which runs through the site. IMPACTS The proposed project will require an estimated 49,000 gallons of water daily, as calculated in Table 14, p. III -59. A 4 -inch domestic water ser- vice connection will need to be installed to connect the project with the existing 12 -inch main under Appian Way. Fire flow water volume require- ments are discussed in Emergency Services - -fire Protection, p. III -96. The Santa Monica Water /Wastewater Division has stated that the project's daily water requirements and fire flow requirements could be served without ad- verse effect on City supplies.3 To aid in water conservation, the project applicant has specified low -flow shower heads, faucets, and toilet fixtures. MITIGATION MEASURES 1. The project applicant should consider the use of drought resistant plants in the landscaping design, where feasible. III -58 III. Setting, Impacts, Mitigation Measures Table 14. ESTIMATED WATER CONSUMPTION Land Use Hotel (196 rms) Health Club (1560 sq.ft.) (Assumes 100 sq.ft. /guest)2 Administration (186 employees, full- time)3 Restaurant (325 seats)4 Total Consumption Factor Per Day 150 gallons /rooml 75 gallons /guest2 30 gallons /employeel 40 gallons / seat5 Estimated Daily Water Consumption 29,400 1,170 5,580 13,000 49,000 gpd6 1. Consumption factors from "EIR Manual for Private Projects," City of Los Angeles Planning Department, August 1975. 2. From Colorado Place Phase III EIR, September 1986; SCH #86073009. 3. See Table 20. Estimated number of employees, p. III -104. 4. Including 150 restaurant and 25 bar seats on lobby level and 75% of the 200 capacity restaurant section on the meeting room level; Bendix Envi- ronmental Research, Inc., analysis 1987. 5. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., "Wastewater Engineering: Treatment, Disposal, Reuse," McGraw -Hill, Inc., 1979, P. 19. 6. Does not add due to rounding. Source: Bendix Environmental Research, Inc. III -59 III. Setting, Impacts, Mitigation Measures 2. The project applicant should be required to relocate any water supply lines in conflict with project construction. I.3. WASTEWATER GENERATION ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Wastewater from the City of Santa Monica is treated at the Hyperion Treat- ment Plant (HTP) at Playa del Rey, which is operated as a regional facility serving most of the Los Angeles Basin. The wastewater is conveyed to the HTP by means of a sewage collection system and two pump stations. Existing sewer facilities in the vicinity of the project include a 20 -inch sewage line under the Promenade and an 8 -inch line, which feeds into the 20- inch line, under Vicente Terrace. The sewage lines feed into the Moss Lift Pump Station near the Santa Monica Pier. HTP is operated by the City of Los Angeles, and jurisdictions using the HTP are under contract to Los Angeles to participate in the cost of having their wastewater treated at the City's facilities. The HTP was designed and constructed in the early 1950's to process 420 million gallons per day (mgd) of wastewater. Presently, all flows receive primary4 treatment and 100 mgd receives secondary treatment5. The treated liquids (effluent) from both treatment processes are mixed and discharged to the Ocean through a 5 -mile outfall into Santa Monica Bay. The solids (sludge) are biologically digested and discharged through a 7 -mile outfall to the rim of a submarine canyon. The City of Santa Monica is currently guaranteed a sewage flow of 11.2 mgd to the HTP. Presently, the actual Santa Monica flow is approximately 13 mgd, III -60 III. Setting, Impacts, Mitigation Measures or over the guaranteed flow by 1.8 mgd. The guaranteed flow is calculated as a fixed percentage of the total flow into the HTP. The HTP has embarked on a project entitled the Hyperion Energy Recovery System to comply with an EPA Consent Decree order to stop discharging sludge into Santa Monica Bay. In this project the sludge will be dewatered and burned, and the resulting ash will be landfilled. HTP will also improve the liquids handling processes to treat all plant effluent to full secondary I!, standards. This program will require new facilities and modernization of existing facilities.6 IMPACTS It is estimated that the proposed project would generate 46,600 gallons of sewage per day, as shown in Table 15, p. III -62 (assuming 95% generation of water consumed).7 Wastewater generated at a site is assumed to be 95% of the water consumption because of water loss by evaporation and soil absorption. Peak hour flow has been estimated at 200 gallons per minute. The City of Santa Monica Water /Wastewater Division recommends that the project use the 20 -inch sewage line under the Promenade. The sewer main on the Promenade is adequate to meet proposed project needs.8 The intended use of low -flow shower heads, faucets, and toilet fixtures will aid in decreasing the amount of wastewater generated by the project. III -61 III. Setting, Impacts, Mitigation Measures Land Use Hotel (196 rooms) Health Club Administration Restaurant Total Table 15. ESTIMATED WASTEWATER GENERATION Daily Wastewater Generatedl 2 /,,;t L 1,100 5,300 12,300 46,600 gpd2 1. Wastewater generated at a site is assumed to be 95% of water consump- tion. (Jack Hoagland, 11 June 1987.) 2. Does not add due to rounding. Source: Bendix Environmental Research, Inc. I.4. STORMWATER /DRAINAGE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The project site is just north of the Pico - Kenter Canyon Storm Drain. This system was built before the extensive coastal urban development of recent years with an associated increase in runoff due to increased impermeable surface area. The drain would be pressed to accomodate a 10 -year storm.9,10 III -62 III. Setting, Impacts, Mitigation Measures Presently, the drain is usually at capacity when it is raining and occa- sionally overflows in areas above sea level. The storm drain has a capacity of approximately 2,700 cubic feet per second (cfs) along Pico Blvd.9 IMPACTS Excavation for the subsurface levels of the project will extend below the top of the water table so that dewatering will be required to prevent water in the bottom of the excavation from impeding construction. Pumped ground- water will be discharged to existing storm drains. Excavation will be expected to take place during dry weather, so ample storm drain capacity should be available for the dewatering discharge. If permanent dewatering is considered for the lower levels of the garage, this discharge could exceed the capacity of local storm drains during heavy rains and could interfere with the City's low flow treatment plans. From the Runoff Coefficient Curves for a #13 soil classification zone (see Figure 29, p. A -20), which converge at approximately 3 inches /hour of rain- fall intensity, one can surmise that the amount of runoff generated from a 10 -year storm event would be roughly the same for an undeveloped area and a commercial development.11 Assuming 100 percent runoff from the completed project (49,255 square feet ground coverage), approximately 4.1 cfs (0.15 of capacity) would be discharged into the drainage system during a 10- year storm event (see Appendix 3, p. A -21, for calculations). The drain system is currently overloaded by major storms about once in five years. Project runoff could contribute to local street flooding during such storms. III -63 III. Setting, Impacts, Mitigation Measures MITIGATION MEASURES 1. If permanent dewatering of building areas below the present water table should be deemed to be necessary by the project engineer, this would create a permanent additional load on the storm drain system. The capacity of the local storm drain system to accommodate this flow should be discussed with the Los Angeles County Department of Flood Control, and design measures to mitigate this impact should be incorporated into the project, if necessary. 2. If it is determined that the permanent dewatering volumes would be a pro- blem for the storm drain system and will contribute to street flooding, the project applicant should be encouraged to improve the design of the base- ment so that even if the water table is above the bottom of the parking level, there will be no leakage into the basement. I.5. SOLID WASTE GENERATION ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Solid waste collection and disposal services are provided to commercial and residential users by the Sanitation Division of the Santa Monica Department of General Services. Solid waste is taken to the North Valley Landfill in Sylmar. The landfill has an estimated lifespan of 4 -20 years, depending on area acceptance of the landfill operator's expansion plans.12 In a report prepared by the California Waste Management Board, it has been determined that the solid waste disposal capacity in Southern California. is at a critical point, with less than ten years of capacity remaining. The County of Los Angeles, itself, which produces approximately 38% of all of Califor- III -64 III. Setting, Impacts, Mitigation Measures nia solid waste, is estimated to have eight years of disposal capacity remaining.13 IMPACTS It is estimated that the proposed project would generate 95 tons of solid waste per year (as calculated in Table 16, p. III -66). Ninety -five tons is 0.11% of the 86,000 total tonnage of solid waste generated in the City of Santa. Monica in 1986. The Sanitation Division has reported that, as a pub- lic service that is entirely user fee supported, the project can easily be ('! served.12 MITIGATION MEASURES 1. The project applicant should consider a modest solid waste recycling program to reduce the solid waste generated by the project. Some hotels in Santa Monica participate in the City's recycling program and collect bot- tles, aluminum and newspapers for pick -up by the Santa Monica program. The City is currently examining the economic feasiblilty of continuing their program. The project sponsor has indicated that there would be sufficient space for recycling bins in the dock area should the hotel operator decide to implement a recycling program. 2. When the project is finished, the project sponsor should have any usable excess paint delivered to the City of Santa Monica's Paint Exchange program. This program, operated by the City's recycling program, provdes a method for disposal of excess paint (classified as a hazardous waste) and a source of free paint for anyone wishing to use it.14 III -65 III. Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Table 16. ESTIMATED SOLID WASTE GENERATION Land Use Hotel (196 rooms) Restaurant & kitchen (15,390 sq.ft.) Health Club (1,560 sq.ft.) Administration (7,444 sq.ft.) Total Generation Factors 2 lbs /room dayl 5 lbs /1000 sq.ft. /dayl 2 lbs /1000 sq.ft./day2 6 lbs /1000 sq.ft. /dayl Annual Generation (tons /year) 72 14 r 95 tons /year3 1. Factors from "EIR Manual for Private Projects," City of Los Angeles Planning Department, 1981 revision. 2. Factor from Colorado Place Phase III EIR, Sept. 1986; SCH #86073009. 3. Does not add due to rounding. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Source: Bendix Environmental Research, Inc. III -66 III. Setting, Impacts, Mitigation Measures NOTES: 1. Mr. Don Gregg of Southern California Edison, telephone conversation of 26 March 1987. 2. Mr. Jeff Nielsen of Southern California Gas Company, NW Division, tele- phone conversation of 26 March 1987. 3. Jack Hoagland of the Santa Monica Water /Wastewater Division, telephone conversation of 29 April 1987. 4. Primary sewage treatment = the first major (sometimes the only) treat- ment in a wastewater treatment plant, usually sedimentation and the skimming off of floating material. A substantial amount of suspended ( matter is removed but little or no colloidal (very fine suspended matter) or dissolved matter, resulting in approximately 50% removal of pollu- tants. 5. Secondary sewage treatment = the treatment of wastewater after primary treatment, which involves removal of about 90% of the total pollutants. 6. Hyperion Treatment Plant information provided by Mr. Farshid Fashangi of the Wastewater Systems Engineering Division, City of Los Angeles, letter of 12 March 1987. 7. Jack Hoagland, telephone conversation of 26 February 1987. 8. Jack Hoagland, telephone conversation of 3 April 1987. 9. Glen Drogin, Los Angeles County Dept, of Public Works, personal commu- nication to Geo /Resource Consultants, Inc., EIR subconsultant, 1987. 10. A 10 -year storm for the area is approximately 3.7 inches of rainfall in a one -hour period. Peter Peterson, Los Angeles County Dept, of Public Works, personal communication to Geo /Resource Consultants, Inc., 1987. 11. Scott Nelson, Staff Geologist, Geo /Resource Consultants, Inc., tele- phone conversation of 24 February 1987. 12. Carl Hood, Santa Monica General Services, Sanitation Division, telephone conversation of 15 March 1987. 13. California Waste Management Board, "State Disposal Capacity Up in Last Two Years," California Waste Management Bulletin, Spring 1987, p. 4. 14. Local Government Commission Reports, Vol. 4, No. 5, May 1987, p. 2. III -67 III. Setting, Impacts, Mitigation Measures J. TRANSPORTATION /CIRCULATION 18. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of considerable additional vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or move- ment of people and /or goods? f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehi- cles, bicyclists or pedestrians? Items a and f are checked maybe. Items b and d are checked yes. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Circulation The Santa Monica Freeway (Interstate 10) joins the Pacific Coast Highway (State Highway 1) about half a mile north of the site. The Santa Monica Freeway is an eight -lane, east -west freeway which provides a 'linkage to the metropolitan Los Angeles freeway system. A westbound off -ramp at Fourth St. gives access to Ocean Avenue. Eastbound Olympic Ave, serves as a frontage road for the Freeway from Fourth St. to the eastbound on -ramp east of Lincoln Blvd. The street network in the vicinity of the project site is basically a grid system running north- south, except for a diagonal portion of Ocean Ave. south of Pico Blvd. Pico Blvd. is an east -west, 60 foot wide, 4 -lane arterial, which provides the major access to the site and is the south boundary of the project. Appian Way, a north - south, 40 foot wide, local street with stop signs at the intersection with Pico Blvd, divides the site approximately in two. Appian Way experiences an approximate 40 foot jog eastward at Pico Blvd. where its name changes to Ocean Front Walk. The applicant will be granted an easement by the City for the first block of Appian Way north of III -68 d III. Setting, Impacts, Mitigation Measures Pico Blvd. for the purpose of constructing a bridge across Appian Way and building underground hotel space below Appian Way. After construction of the below grade portion of the project, the street will be restored. It is expected that arrangements will be made for the City to continue to maintain the street. Vicente Terrace, which is the northern boundary of the site, is a 15 ft. wide, westbound one way, one -lane local street north of the inland portion of the site and has been vacated between Appian Way and the Promenade. Pico Place runs east -west through the block bounded by Pico Blvd., Appian Way, Vicente Terrace and Ocean Ave. The eastern portion of Pico Place has been vacated. The western portion of Pico Place is a 10 ft. wide alley used by garbage trucks as access to the Drake Hotel. This portion of Pico Place will be vacated for construction of the project. On- street parking is permitted on Pico Blvd., Appian Way and Vicente Terrace. The terminal block of Pico Blvd. has 21 parking meters. The 20 -foot wide Promenade on the beach side of the project site is exten- sively used by bicyclists, rollerskaters and pedestrians. The west end of Pico Blvd. provides access to the Promenade and the beach. Existing Traffic Volumes Traffic in the project neighborhood is relatively light. The beach is the main trip generator. Intersection counts were made by Newport Traffic Studies, Newport Beach, i CA, on Monday, 30 March 1987, at the intersections of Appian Way and Pico Blvd., Neilson Way and Ocean Park Blvd., Ocean Ave. and Colorado Ave., and Ocean Ave. and the Pacific Coast Highway ramp. Counts for the intersec- III -69 III. Setting, Impacts, Mitigation Measures tions of Ocean Ave. and Pico Blvd., Main St. and Pico Blvd., and 4th St. and Pico Blvd. were taken from the 1986 234 Pico EIR.1 These seven inter- section were selected for investigation by the City. Existing 5 -6 PM traffic at the unsignalized intersection of Pico Blvd. and Appian Way, which would sustain the greatest impact from the proposed project, is given in Table 17, below. Traffic counts are given in Fig. 24, p. III -71, and in Appendix 4, pp. A -28 to A -31. The "Webster" method of intersection analysis was used to determine the ex- isting operating conditions during the evening peak hour at the signalized intersections. The methodology, based on the Highway Capacity Manual, 1985, uses the turning movement volumes, intersection configurations and signal timing to calculate the average vehicular delay. The delay is used to determine the level of service for each location. Table 17. Existing 5 - 6 PM Traffic at Pico Blvd. and Appian Way. Left Through Right Turns Traffic Turns Appian Way SB 134 46 1 Pico Blvd. WB 34 11 62 Appian Way NB 0 13 24 Pico Blvd. EB 1 11 3 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB = southbound, WB = westbound, NB = northbound, EB = westbound Source: Newport Traffic Studies counts, Wallen Associates & Bendix Envi- ronmental Research, Inc. II1 -70 levard i{l OF K 12 6 C 104!]` 150 233 6� 20 20 j v ri 791895 776 � ��� 1134 —� ��y � 106289 ) O ���j 21 82—�, Ocean Avenue Neilson Wav 13 �V � -7649 �7T4 E-- -23692 O+ 4 -3960 64320 ,�' 21 4 441 134 b 11 10 611 ,� 13 621 34 Appian Way ®a Freeway 24 Ramp 13 41 �(� 0 11 Proposed Project Site. Figure 24. Existing Traffic III -71 SOURCE: Wallen Associates III. Setting, Impacts, Mitigation Measures Level of service is a qualitative measure used to describe the condition of traffic flow, ranging from excellent conditions at level of service (LOS) A to overloaded conditions at LOS F. LOS C is the level of operation typically used as a design standard, while LOS D is typically considered to be accept- able for urban street systems. Level of service definitions for the "Web- ster" method are included in Appendix h, p. A -23. The 1985 Highway Capacity Manual, Chapter 10, Unsignalized Intersections, is based on the conceptual approach: "The method generally assumes that the major street traffic is not affected by the minor street flows." The Pico /Appian Way intersection does not fit the major street /minor street intersection definition. Because Pico west of the intersection is a dead end, and because relatively few westbound Pico Blvd. motorists turn left, we have an atypical situation. Pico Blvd's. predominant traffic consists of westbound right turns, the Appian Way's predominant traffic is southbound, and there is no conflict between the two movements. In effect, the eastern leg of Pico Blvd. and the northern leg of Appian Way constitute the major street, while the traffic contribution of the other two legs is negligible. The terms "major" and "minor" can be misleading in this case, and no LOS has been calculated for this intersection. Public Transit Santa Monica Municipal bus lines serving the site are the #1 Venice -Santa Monica Blvd. -UCLA line which travels north -south on Ocean Ave. and Main St., the #7 Pico Blvd. -Los Angeles line which runs north -south on Ocean Ave., then east on Pico Blvd into Los Angeles and the #10 Santa Monica - Downtown III -72 III. Setting, Impacts, Mitigation Measures Freeway Express running north -south on Ocean Ave. and Main Street. Local buses cost $0.50 for a one -way ticket. There is no monthly bus pass. Riders can purchase fifty bus tokens at one time for $22.50 for a savings of $0.05 per ride. Transfer connections are available to routes operated by SCRTD. Routes servicing the project vicinity include: #20, #22, #320, #322, #434, and #436. I' Parking. Vacant and asphalt paved lots make up the privately -held part of the site. The western portion of the site, other than the western end of Pico Blvd., is unused. The portion of the site east of Appian Way is used for parking. There are 68 marked parking spaces, and 36 spaces on the south side of this portion are used for parking by the Pritikin Center, which is directly across Pico Blvd. from the western portion of the project site. See Figure 17, p. III -33, for a photograph of the lot. The western end of Pico Blvd. butts on the Promenade and has metered parking on both sides. There is metered parking on both sides of Ocean Front Walk south of Pico Blvd. The parking meters at the end of Pico Blvd, are heavily used. There is City- operated beach parking both immediately north of the project site and south of the Pritikin Bldg. Locations of parking lots are shown in Fig. 19, p. III -35. Currently, the City of Santa Monica parking lots near the beach area require a $4.00 fee for all day parking, and area residents can purchase a monthly lot parking sticker for $20.00. Since the lots are often full, the monthly i parking stickers are popular and sometimes difficult to obtain. An indivi- dual or a company cannot contract with the City to 'provide parking for their employees in the City lots.2 III -73 III. Setting, Impacts, Mitigation Measures IMPACTS Circulation: Project Trip Generation Traffic to and from the hotel would consist of trips to the proposed project entrance and turnaround area on the north side of Pico Blvd., west of Ap- pian Way (see Fig. 2, p. II -5), and trips to the hotel garage entrance on the east side of Appian Way, approximately 130 feet north of Pico Blvd. Most of the trips to the hotel garage would be linked to trips to the hotel entrance because most of the parking would be valet parking. An operator has not been selected for the proposed hotel, but the water- front location and project design suggest that the patronage would be mixed business, meetings, and vacation travel. Trip generation has been analyzed on the basis of ITE (Institute of Transportation Engineers) 310-- Hotel.3 About half of project employee trips are expected to be during daytime hours.4 Some of these trips may coincide with the AM peak traffic hour. The extent of employee traffic would be a function of the availability and cost of employee parking and the convenience of bus routes, schedules and fares. According to ITE, hotel traffic generally peaks in the AM after the AM peak hour of the adjacent street traffic. During the PM, hotel traffic peaks vary between 3 and 4 and 6 and 8, with a lessor volume between 4 and 6. Hotel traffic will be relatively constant and background traffic levels will vary with season, day of the week and weather. Good beach wea- ther will bring peak traffic levels on summer weekends. III -74 III. Setting, Impacts, Mitigation Measures The following assumptions have been made in the traffic analysis: O Primary routes to and from the site will be via the Santa Monica Freeway and 4th Street and via Lincoln Boulevard. Lesser numbers of trips will be via Wilshire Blvd. and the Pacific Coast Highway. U Most trips to and from Los Angeles Airport will be via Lincoln Blvd. The freeway would be used by many people. Local traffic will be primarily from the site to the tourist and shopping areas to the north of the site using Ocean Ave. and to the south via Ocean Ave, and Main Street. Trips to and from regional destinations such as Hollywood and Disneyland will use the Santa Monica Freeway. The PM peak traffic hour is from 5 to 6 PM and the PM peak hour has heavier traffic than the AM peak hour. The PM peak hour, therefore, represents the worst case condition and has been the primary focus of analysis.5 L0 Background traffic levels not associated with specific nearby Santa Monica projects increase at 2 -1/2% per year. Project trip generation has been estimated on the basis of ITE 310. The restaurant, bar, meeting room, and health club are included in the pro- posed project peak trip generation estimates for the 1 Pico Hotel given in Table 18, p. III -76. 0 Percentage distribution of hotel trips will be as shown in Fig. 25, p. III -77.6 III -75 III. Setting, Impacts, Mitigation Measures Table 18. Predicted Peak Hour Project Vehicular Trip Generation. A.M. P.M. In Out Total In Out Total Trips /hotel rooml Trips /196 rooms 0.57 0.28 0.85 112 55 167 0.36 0.37 0.73 71 73 144 1. Generation factor from ITE 310, Hotels in suburban areas outside central business districts. These factors are similar to, but slightly higher than, the suburban hotel factors in the FHWA 1985 "Development and Application of Trip Generation Rates." Use of the more conservative factor gives a worst case prediction for project trip generation. Source: Wallen Associates. Table 19. Existing and Existing + Project 5 - 6 PM Traffic at Pico Blvd. and Appian Way.* Left Through Right Turns Traffic Turns Exist- With Exist- With Exist- With ing Project ing Project ing Project Appian Way SB 134 199 46 50 1 1 Pico Blvd. WB 34 34 11 15 62 125 Appian Way NB 0 0 13 17 24 24 Pico Blvd. EB 1 1 11 15 3 3 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB = southbound, WB = westbound, NB = northbound, EB = westbound * For information on the other intersections analyzed, see Appendix 4, pp. A -36 to A -44. --°------------------------------------------------------------------------ Source: Newport Traffic Studies counts, Wallen Associates & Bendix Envi- ronmental Research, Inc. III -76 a LEGEND: 5 =Five percent o1 hotel traffic on street segment `' 0 =Intersections included in level of service analysis N NO = Project Site Figure 25. Distribution of Hotel Traffic SOURCE: Wallen Associates III -77 III. Setting, Impacts, Mitigation Measures Circulation: Project Impacts The greatest traffic impact of the project would be at the intersection cf Pico Blvd. and Appian Way. Existing and predicted PM peak hour traffic through this intersection are shown in Table 19, p. III -76 and on Fig. 26, p. III -78. Through traffic and number of turning vehicles are presented in Appendix 4, p. A -36. The number of vehicles turning right from Pico Blvd. onto Appian Way will approximately double, from one per minute to two per minute. Present traffic levels at this intersection do not meet criteria for signalization nor would the cumulative traffic with the project in 1.992. A Level of Service7 (LOS) cannot be calculated by the Webster Method for this intersection because the intersection does not meet the criteria for application of the method (see p. III -72). At the intersection of Pico Blvd and Ocean Ave. (and Neilson), the largest project effect will be on eastbound Pico Blvd., where 18 left turns, 44 through trips, and 7 right turns will be added, for a total of about 21% of the present eastbound traffic. Forty -two through westbound trips on Pico Blvd. will be added, which will be about 3.5% of the present west- bound traffic. The..LOS at the intersection is F and will remain F without mitigation measures (present conditions were analyzed on the basis of a Friday, 20 June 1986 traffic count which represents a worst case condition when many people were leaving for the weekend). Neither the proposed proj- ect nor the other nearby specified developments will add northbound through trips or southbound left turns, which are mainly responsible for congestion at this intersection. At Ocean Ave. and the Pacific Coast Highway Ramp, the project will contri- bute 11 trips each northbound and southbound, which will be 0.8% of both III -78 v a 0 b ro 0 0 0 U 7 M Lincoln Blvd. J 5 r ro 1 1 a Street �r a k d ro v r{ 4th Street d to C' M N rl N d N rl r cc d' r- Freeway M d �4 d Ramp o Appian way M, =Project Site P.M. Peak Hour JIII -79 <- Cn Y �r M--> M Wallen Associates Main Street M r{ d to C' M rl N �--r 'ocean Avenue Neilson r cc d' r- Freeway M d �4 d Ramp o Appian way M, =Project Site P.M. Peak Hour JIII -79 <- Cn Y �r M--> M Wallen Associates III. Setting, Impacts, Mitigation Measures the northbound and southbound trips through the intersection. The probable error of individual traffic counts is about 10 %. Therefore, the estimated future traffic level, which is based on counts of existing traffic, has a i probable error of at least 10 %, and project - related traffic increases of about 1% will be undetectable in the presence of a 10% error in predicted total traffic. The LOS at Ocean and the Pacific Coast Highway is now E and will degrade to F in 1992. The project will contribute approximately 30% of the increase in northbound left turns which are the main contribution to congestion at this intersection. The greatest effects of the project on the intersection of Ocean Park Blvd. and Neilson Way will be the four trips each making southbound right turns and westbound right turns, contributing 0.3 and 0.9 %, respectively to the total southbound and westbound traffic. This intersection will remain at the present LOS B level. At the intersection of Pico Blvd. and Main Street, the project will" result in about 36 through trips each eastbound and westbound, or about 4.3 and 2.8 %, respectively, of east- and westbound traffic. This intersection will change from LOS C to LOS D in 1992, which will still be considered a satisfactory LOS. The project will contribute about 30% of the increased trips through this intersection. At Pico Blvd. and Fourth St., the project will create about 22 southbound right turns and 22 eastbound left turns, or 1.0 and 2.3% of the south- and eastbound traffic, respectively. These effects will not be noticeable against a background of day to day traffic variations. This intersection will degrade from LOS B to LOS Fin 1992 (see Table 21, p. III -85), mainly III -80 III. Setting, Impacts, Mitigation Measures as a result of the increase in eastbound left turns. This intersection will have the greatest effect on circulation around Santa Monica Civic Center of the intersections studied, but most of the increase will not be due to the proposed project. The project garage entrance /exit on Appian Way and the service entrance from Vicente Terrace will keep turning movements of vehicles coming or going from the garage or the loading docks at the 1 Pico and Drake Hotels from interfering with traffic on Pico Blvd. which is an arterial. The bridge over Appian Way will provide a safe means for pedestrians to cross the street without interacting with vehicular traffic. This will minimize the opportunities for pedestrian /vehicular accidents and will minimize pedestrian delays to traffic on Appian Way. Inclusion of a ramp in the design of the new beach access from Pico Blvd. will preserve wheelchair and bicycle access to the beach. Emergency ser- vice vehicles will not be able to drive to the Promenade. Going down the stairs or ramp on foot will delay emergency personnel about ,a minute, which will be of concern only in a serious emergency. (See Emergency Services - -Fire Protection, p. III -96, for discussion of emergency access.) Vehicles dropping joggers, beach users, etc., off at the head of the stairs could interfere with vehicles driving into the hotel entrance. Circulation: Construction Construction vehicles will not cause as many trips as the operation of the hotel, but the larger construction vehicles could have a similar effect on traffic for the greater number of smaller vehicles. Construction vehicles will have the greatest impact during the summer when use of the beach and III -81 III. Setting, Impacts, Mitigation Measures visitors to the Santa Monica Pier peak. The greatest construction impact will occur during excavation of Appian Way for the facilities to be placed under the street. This will require closure of the street to through traf- fic. Circulation: Cumulative Analysis Traffic conditions were predicted for five years from the present, i.e. to 1992, taking into consideration existing traffic, project - related traffic, traffic generated by other approved projects in the area of the proposed hotel, and ambient traffic growth. The cumulative traffic impact analysis has been based on the impacts of the following projects: Edgemar Farms museum /retail /office, Pacific Plaza- office /retail /restaurant, Hyatt Regency Hotel, 234 Pico Blvd. - Retail /Office /Mixed Commercial /Theaters, 4th Street Hotel, 1636 -5th St. and the 1438 -2nd St. Youth Hostel.8 The list of nearby projects (within a 3/4 mile radius) considered in the cumulative traffic analysis is shown in Table 20, p. III -83 and in Figure 27, p. III -84. The effects of project traffic and cumulative traffic on the LOS at nearby intersections are shown in Table 21, p. III -85. If future development brings significant convention facility development to Santa Monica Civic Center, the 1 Pico Hotel could become a major conven- tion satellite facility. This could increase the hotel occupancy factor; and the relative proportions of pure tourists and conventioneers using the hotel. The latter could, in turn, influence the origin and destination distribution of trips to and from the hotel. The analysis of the impacts of any such potential future changes in trip distribution is beyond the scope of this document. III -82 I III. Setting, Impacts, Mitigation Measures Table 20. Other Projects in the Project Vicinity Considered in the Cumulative Traffic Analysis.* Project Identification 1. Edgemar Farms Museum /Retail Office 2. Pacific Plaza Office /Retail Restaurant 3. Hyatt Regency Hotel 4. Commercial Develop - ment: Retail/ Office /Mixed Com- mercial /Theaters 5. 4th Street Hotel 6. Commercial Develop- ment /Office 7. Youth Hostel Location ** 2435 Main Street 1401 Ocean Avenue 1700 Ocean Avenue 234 Pico Blvd. 1723 4th Street 1636 5th Street 1438 2nd Street Description P.M. Peak Hour Traffic (In -Out) Renovation 20,600 sq.ft. + 13,900 Office 30,000 sq.ft. Office 15,000 sq.ft. Retail/ Restaurant 349 Rooms 255 Rooms 40,000 sq.ft. Office /Retail 17,700 sq.ft. 200 Beds 65 370 255 515 515 50 40 * This list of projects for cumulative analysis was selected by Ray Davis, P.E., and Martin Wallen, P.E., on the basis of probable contribution to cumulative traffic impacts in 1992 at intersections where project trips would occur. ** The locations of these projects are shown in Figure 27, p. III -84. Sources: Santa Monica Planning Division, Martin Wallen, P.E., and Bendix Environmental Research, Inc. III -83 oo a E s PROJECT SITE 0 1000 ft. SOURCE: Eendix Environmental Research, ING. III. Setting, Impacts, Mitigation Measures Table 21. Existing LOS and LOS in 1992 with Project and Other Cumulative Development. Intersection Existing 1992 % of Increase LOS1 LOS Due to Project2 Ocean Ave. & Colorado Ave. B B 6 Ocean Ave. & Pacific Hwy. Ramp E F 303 Pico Blvd. & Ocean Ave. F F 04 Pico Blvd. & Main St. C D 30 Pico Blvd. & Fourth St. B F 75 Ocean Park & Neilson Way B B 20 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. LOS = Traffic Level of Service, see Appendix 4, p. A -25, for defini- tions of LOS "A" to "F." "A" represents the best conditions, "F" the worst. LOS calculated with a Webster Method computer program by Al Grover of Mohle, Grover & Associates. 2. Calculated as total project trips through the intersection divided by trips from other cumulative development through 1992 + project trips x 100, unless otherwise indicated. 3. Calculated as % of northbound left turns because these constitute the critical movements of the intersection. 4. Calculated as % of northbound through trips and southbound left turns because these constitute the critical movements of the intersection. 5. Calculated as % of eastbound left turns because these constitute the critical movements of the intersection. Source: Bendix Environmental Research, Inc. III -85 III. Setting, Impacts, Mitigation Measures Parking: Project Demand. The City of Santa Monica Zoning Code requires 135 parking spaces for the proposed project, as shown in Table 22, p. III -87. The project will provide 350 spaces, or 215 more spaces than required. The project applicant has contracted with the Pritikin Center to provide replacement parking for 150 cars (for which the Pritikin Center will pay "the going monthly rate ").9 The City will require project applicant to provide replacement parking for the 36 spaces that Pritikin currently is using and for the 21 metered curb spaces which would be lost with the closure of the end of Pico Blvd. to vehicular traffic. The City has expressed concern that the beach parking lot at 1750 Appian Way, approximately one block north of the project site, will not be able to accomodate more vehicles because the Sea Castle apartment building resi- dents, at 1740 Appian Way north of the lot, already use that beach lot and the lot is "nearly always full ".10 The project will provide parking for 350 vehicles within its parking garage, which is 215 more than the 135 required by the present Zoning Regulations. If project parking is not adequate to meet project demand, or if some project - associated vehicles were to seek cheaper parking than project parking, demand for space in the beach lot would increase, potentially displacing beach users. The main entrance to and exit from the parking garage will be on the east side of Appian Way, mid -way between Pico Blvd. and Vicente Terrace. The Circulation Element encourages parking access from "side streets and alleys as long as potential traffic intrusion into residential neighborhoods i's minimized." There is no available alley for parking access to the project. Use of Vicente Terrace for parking access would be inapproporiate because III -86 III. Setting, Impacts, Mitigation Measures Table 22. Project Parking Demand I Municipal Code Requirements 196 Room Hotel 1 space for first 40 hotel roof 1 per each 3 hotel rooms above 1 per 250 sq.ft. of commercial ° meeting room @ restaurant /bar @ ns..... .............................40 40 (156 rooms /3) ...................52 space: 3,940 sq.ft. 6,698 sq.ft. 10,638 sq.ft ...................43 Total Required Parking Spaces ........ ............................135 Parking Spaces in Proposed Project ... ............................350 Excess Spaces Over Code Requirement .. ............................215 Replacement of lost metered curb spaces ...........................21 Replacement of lost Pritikin spaces .. .............................36 Excess over code required minus replacement spaces ...............158 Source: Bendix Environmental Research, Inc. III -87 III. Setting, Impacts, Mitigation Measures of the narrow width of the street and the residential character of the north side of the street. The project design includes a drop -off area for passenger loading and unloading at the main entrance to the hotel at the end of Pico Blvd., just west of Appian Way. Currently, the project applicant intends to provide valet parking for all guest vehicles and self - parking spaces for the general public. There is a common entrance to the self -park and valet - parking areas. The possibility of separation of these two groups of vehicles by means of independent access /egress areas was considered. This would be inadvisable because any potential conflicts of the two streams of vehicles would be moved from inside the building onto Appian Way where they would interfere with the flow of traffic on Appian. Final parking arrangements will be determined by the parking garage operator, subject to City approval. Twenty one parking spaces along the section of Pico Blvd. that is proposed to be vacated will be removed. People who have been parking there will be displaced to other street parking and nearby beach lots. They will be able to use the self -park section of the hotel garage after construction is com -„ pleted. The project may increase the demand for Cheerio's parking because of parking displaced from the project site. The project will provide 3 loading spaces for truck deliveries per City requirements. III -88 III. Setting, Impacts, Mitigation Measures MITIGATION MEASURES Circulation 1. Delivery truck access to the Drake Hotel should be provided from Vicente Terrace along the east side of the project to replace the present access from Pico Place, which would be eliminated by the project. 2. The garage entry area should be designed with interior queuing space for three vehicles in order to prevent backing up of cars onto Appian Way and blocking of vehicular and pedestrian traffic. 3. The City should require a Transportation Systems Management (TSM) plan to encourage car - pooling and use of public transit and other alternatives to the single occupant private vehicle by employees. 4. Santa Monica has a policy of encouraging employers to provide some form of mass transit subsidy for their employees. The project applicant should contribute 50 -100% towards the public transportation costs of hotel employ- ees. This would discourage the use of private vehicles in the project vicinity, and decrease the accompanying air quality, noise and traffic impacts that they would add to the project area. 5. Bus schedules should be provided in the hotel lobby in order to encour- age use of public transit instead of rental cars or taxis. 6. Bus schedules should be provided in the employees lounge area to encour- age employees to use public transit. 7. Employee carpooling should be encouraged by provision of a bulletin board or other carpooling information center. III -89 III. Setting, Impacts, Mitigation Measures 8. The project applicant should be required to design the end of Pico Blvd. to provide an area for drop off of beach users which is clearly identified and separated from the hotel entry. 9. The hotel operator should be required to provide promotional informa- tion and maps of destinations that are within walking /transit /bicycling distance of the hotel. 10. The hotel operator should be required to routinely request persons mak- ing meeting /banquet room reservations to encourage maximization of vehicle occupancy among attendees. 11. The hotel operator should be required to regulate the meeting /banquet schedule to group sizes that can be accomodated by on -site parking capacity unless specific arrangements for off -site, off- street parking are made. 12. The hotel operator should be required to arrange for appropriate van or bus service to and from Los Angeles International Airport for hotel guests. This may be done in cooperation with other nearby hotel operators. 13. A street sign indicating the direction of the Santa Monica Pier should be 'installed on Appian Way south of the project bridge to ensure that people do not lose their way thinking that Appian Way becomes private at the bridge. 14. When the City grants an easement for use of Appian Way it should stipulate that the City retains surface rights to a height of 15 ft. above curb elevation, to guarantee that Appian Way will remain a viable vehicular i access to the Pier. III -90 III. Setting, Impacts, Mitigation Measures MITIGATION MEASURES Circulation 1. Delivery truck access to the Drake Hotel should be provided from Vicente Terrace along the east side of the project to replace the present access from Pico Place, which would be eliminated by the project. 2. The garage entry area should be designed with interior queuing space for three vehicles in order to prevent backing up of cars onto Appian Way and blocking of vehicular and pedestrian traffic. 3. The City should require a Transportation Systems Management (TSM) plan to encourage car - pooling and use of public transit and other alternatives to the single occupant private vehicle by employees. 4. Santa Monica has a policy of encouraging employers to provide some form of mass transit subsidy for their employees. The project applicant should contribute 50 -100% towards the public transportation costs of hotel employ- ees. This would discourage the use of private vehicles in the project vicinity, and decrease the accompanying air quality, noise and traffic impacts that they would add to the project area. 5. Bus schedules should be provided in the hotel lobby in order to encour- age use of public transit instead of rental cars or taxis. 6. Bus schedules should be provided in the employees lounge area to encour- age employees to use public transit. 7. Employee carpooling should be encouraged by provision of a bulletin board or other carpooling information center. III -89 III. Setting, Impacts, Mitigation Measures 8. The project applicant should be required to design the end of Pico Blvd. to provide an area for drop off of beach users which is clearly identified and separated from the hotel entry. 9. The hotel operator should be required to provide promotional informa- tion and maps of destinations that are within walking /transit /bicycling distance of the hotel. 10. The hotel operator should be required to routinely request persons mak- ing meeting /banquet room reservations to encourage maximization of vehicle occupancy among attendees. 11. The hotel operator should be required to regulate the meeting /banquet schedule to group sizes that can be accomodated by on -site parking capacity unless specific arrangements for off -site, off- street parking are made. 12. The hotel operator should be required to arrange for appropriate van or bus service to and from Los Angeles International Airport for hotel guests. This may be done in cooperation with other nearby hotel operators. 13. A street sign indicating the direction of the Santa Monica Pier should be installed on Appian Way south of the project bridge to ensure that people do not lose their way thinking that Appian Way becomes private at the bridge. 14. When the City grants an easement for use of Appian Way it should stipulate that the City retains surface rights to a height of 15 ft. above curb elevation, to guarantee that Appian Way will remain a viable vehicular access to the Pier. III -90 III. Setting, Impacts, Mitigation Measures 15. The landscaping for the end of Pico Place should be required to be sufficiently different in design style and species of plants used in order to visually differentiate between the public area and beach access from the adjacent hotel landscaping. This will prevent people from thinking that the area is private hotel beach access. The design requirement should not preclude a sufficient degree of design relationship between the two adjacent landscaped areas to provide visual harmony. Signing should be included to indicate public beach access. 16. The City may wish to consider the realignment of Appian Way and Ocean Front Walk, creating a more direct north -south throughfare, so as to miti- gate circulation impacts at the intersection of Appian Way and Pico Blvd. Parkin 1. Project applicant should designate some spaces in the self -park portion of the parking garage for employees who carpool. These spaces should be free. 2. There should be a sign indicating that there is self- parking available to the public in the project garage. The sign should be visible at the end of Pico Blvd. 3. The California Coastal Commission requires the incorporation of bicycle 'racks into the parking plan to encourage employees who live nearby to use bicycles to get to work. They recommend racks to accomodate approximately 50 bicycles.11 The bicycle racks should be provided in a secure area of the parking garage. 4. The Planning Commission should require the applicant to provide 36 replacement parking spaces for the Pritikin Center for their employees' and III -91 III. Setting, Impacts, Mitigation Measures clients' use, for as long as there is demonstrated need for this parking. If the Planning Commission desires to require additional project parking to be reserved for the Pritikin Center then this should be dependent on the performance of a parking study to determine Pritikin Center parking demand., 5. The project applicant should be required to pay for the removal of the 21 meters at the foot of Pico Blvd. 6. The City should consider whether it is appropriate to require the applicant to reimburse the City for lost revenue from the meters that will be removed. It has been estimated that the City obtains approximately $400 per year in revenue and $800 per year in fines for each meter located on Pico Blvd. between Appian Way and the Promenade. 7. The design inside the entrance to the parking area should be required to be laid out so that cars queuing to get into the self - parking area cannot block access or egress for valet- parked vehicles. This would mini- mize potential delays or accident hazards due to avoidable interactions of self -park and valet -park vehicles. 8. The hotel operator should instruct persons doing valet parking not to queue on Appian Way so that they minimize interference with Appian Way traf- fic. Construction 1. The Planning Commission should consider requiring that construction under Appian Way take place at a time of year when tourist traffic is not at a peak in order to minimize impacts on circulation and interference with vehicles travelling north on Appian Way to the Santa Monica Pier. III -92 III. Setting, Impacts, Mitigation Measures 2. The Planning Commission should consider requiring that construction be phased, so that the eastern portion of the site can be used as a staging area for construction vehicles and materials for construction of the beach portion of the project. This would also provide off- street parking for construction workers during this phase of construction. 3. Use of the beach as a construction staging area should be prohibited. 4. The Planning Commission should consider requiring provision of incen- tives to encourage carpooling by construction workers in order to minimize neighborhood parking impacts during construction. The applicant should be required to provide the City with written information about the incentive program and its implemention within 30 days of the commencement of construc- tion. NOTES: 1. 234 Pico Blvd. Environmental Impact Report. 2. Telephone conversation with Ray Davis, P.E., 3 April 1987. 3. Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, Third Edition, 1982. 4. Ibid., "Approximately 49 percent of the employees work during the daytime hours." 5. Ray Davis, P.E., City of Santa Monica Traffic Engineer, indicated at a meeting of 2 April 1987 with EIR Traffic Engineer Martin Wallen, P.E., of Walden Associates, that only the PM peak hour traffic should be ana- lyzed. 6. Trip assignments by Martin Wallen, P.E. 7. See Appendix 4, p. A -23, for definitions of traffic Levels of Service. 8. Projects appropriate for cumulative analysis selected by Ray Davis, P.E., and Martin Wallen, P.E. 9. Telephone conversation with Bruce Parton, Vice President of Development for the Pritikin Longevity Center, 17 March 1987. III -93 III. Setting, Impacts, Mitigation Measures 10. Telephone conversation with Don Arnett of the Recreation and Parks Department of Santa Monica, 24 March 1986. 11. Telephone conversation with Teresa Henry of the California Coastal Commission, 5 May 1987. III.K. PUBLIC SERVICES 19. Will the proposal have a considerable effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? e. Maintenance of public facili- ties, including roads? These items are checked "maybe ". K.I. EMERGENCY SERVICES - POLICE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The Santa Monica Police Department employs 152 sworn police officers. The Department's Crime Prevention Coordinator characterizes the project vicinity as an active area with high nighttime activity.1 A relatively high night- time activity level deters crimes which are easily visible, such as mugging and car theft, but increases the potential for crowd - related crimes such as picking pockets. Crime activity tends to be higher in the summer as the volume of, activity rises. Although pedestrian activity is great, the area is not considered a high crime area in relation to other parts of the City. IMPACTS The proposed hotel will not require the Police Department to hire addition - al staff to cover the project areal The Crime Prevention Coordinator indicated interest in occupant security - related design aspects of the buildings, such as: degree of control at hotel entrances, placement of security guards, quality of security devices (such as locks and alarms) and adequacy of outdoor lighting. Security measures have not been specified III -94 III. Setting, Impacts, Mitigation Measures at this stage of the planning process, but it is expected that, as is stand- ard practice with most hotels, these measures will be addressed and a security plan established by the hotel management. The project will result in increased activity in the vicinity, but it will not require additional Police Department staff; therefore, the impact is not considered significant. MITIGATION MEASURES 1. The hotel operator should develop a building security plan in consulta- tion with or to be reviewed by the Community Relations Division of the Police Department. Police Department recommendations should be incorporated into the plan. The project applicant should recommend implementation of this measure to the hotel operator who would make the decision on implemen- tation. K.6. EMERGENCY SERVICES - FIRE PROTECTION ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Engine Companies #1 and #2 of the City of Santa Monica Fire Department provide fire protection services for the project vicinity. Engine Co. #2, the closer of the two companies to the site, at 2nd and Hollister Streets (222 Hollister), is 5 blocks from the site. Engine Co. #1, on 7th St. between Santa Monica Blvd. and Broadway (1444 7th Street), is 9 blocks from the site. Engine Co. #1 includes one fire engine and a truck with an aerial ladder. Engine Co. #2 has 1 fire engine and 1 paramedic ambulance. Both engine companies would respond to emergency calls at the site. Engine company #2's response time to the site would be from 1.5 to 2 minutes.2 III -95 III. Setting, Impacts, Mitigation Measures IMPACTS In the event of a fire, the Fire Department will be concerned about access to the site and adequacy of water supply. By Fire Department standards, this project is considered a low -rise building because the tallest section of the project is 56 feet and ladders would reach to the windows of the top floor. Therefore, there will be no requirement for on -site storage of water for fire fighting purposes.3 The Fire Department has expressed concern that, with the vacation of the foot of Pico Blvd. and the addition of stairs and landscaping, the Department will lose one of the main emergency access points to the beach. In case of fire, the Department will need access to the western faces of the Pritikin Center and the proposed hotel. Without access at Pico Blvd., the Department has stated that they could gain access at Bay Street. In non -fire emergen- cies, the victim is usually carried from the beach to The Promenade where emergency equipment and vehicles are waiting.4 The proposed changes to the foot of Pico Blvd. will require the approval of the appropriate City agencies, including the Police Department and the Fire Department. The buildings will be fully sprinklered. The project will be built to Type II -fire resistive construction standards.5 The project engineer has estimated a fire flow demand of 750 gallons /minute for the fire sprinkler system. This is not considered a significant flow for a 12 -inch water main.6 The Fire Department has begun calculations on the adequacy of fire L flow for the proposed project and will reserve final judgement on the project until they can examine the final building plans. Given the Appian III -96 I ,r III. Setting, Impacts, Mitigation Measures i Way 12 -inch water main, the Fire Department does not anticipate any need for upgrading the present water supply infrastructure.3 The Fire Department has stated that they are not concerned about the Appian Way bridge.2 The Santa Monica Fire Department believes that other projects in the pro- ject vicinity will not impair the Department's ability to provide fire protection services. The probability of more than one hotel fire in the vicinity at the same time is low.3 MITIGATION MEASURES 1. Adequate access for fire equipment should be maintained during construc- tion. This could be assured by coordination between the contractor and the Fire Department. K.3. STREET MAINTENANCE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The City of Santa Monica maintains the streets in the project vicinity. IMPACTS The project will include the vacation of Pico Blvd. between the Promenade and Appian Way and the granting of an easement for the block of Appian Way between Pico Blvd. and Vicente Terrace. Appian Way will remain open to vehicular traffic. The western end of Pico Blvd. will be closed to vehicu- lar traffic and will include a landscaped area with stairs and a ramp to the beach. Pico Blvd. will remain open to vehicular traffic in front of the hotel main entrance. The area is intended to be used as a drop -off III -97 III. Setting, Impacts, Mitigation Measures point for hotel guests and for beach goers. The project applicant will arrange to have the City of Santa Monica continue maintaining Appian Way and the remaining open area of Pico Blvd. after they are reconstructed to City standards. The landscaped section of Pico Blvd. will be maintained by the project applicant. MITIGATION MEASURES There will be no significant impact from the project on street maintenance so no mitigation measures are recommended. NOTES: 1. Don Umber, Crime Prevention Coordinator, Santa Monica Police Department, telephone conversation of 15 October 1986. 2. Inspector Jeffrey Nichol, Santa Monica Fire Department, telephone con- versation of 15 Oct. 1986. 3. Steve Locati, Santa Monica Fire Department, telephone conversation of 2 March 1987. 4. Chief Paul Stein, Fire Marshal, Santa Monica Fire Department, telephone conversation of 22 June 1987. I 5. Project developer, telephone conversation of 16 March 1987. 6. Gilbert G. Bendix, P.E., California registered fire protection engineer, evaluation on 6 March 1987. III.L. FISCAL 20. Will the proposal have a considerable fiscal effect on the City? This item is checked "maybe ". ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING In the absence of improvements or significant business activity on the project site, the only revenue the city obtains from the privately -held part III -98 III. Setting, Impacts, Mitigation Measures of the site is the property tax. If this land is assessed at $400,000, at an estimated current tax rate of $1.00 per $100 of assessed valuation, the total tax yield is $4,000 per year. The westernmost block of Pico Blvd. produces varying amounts of parking meter revenue. No attempt has been made to quantify current municipal costs of the site. Maintenance of the street areas now in the public domain, but expected to be vacated, would probably be the only meaningful cost since no services are being provided on the site. The City would continue to maintain Appian Way after granting an easement. The end of Pico Blvd. and Pico Place would cease to require public maintenance. Current revenue should be more than adequate to cover all public costs of the site. IMPACTS Expected Revenue Upon Completion of Project. The major revenue the City of Santa Monica would collect upon completion of the project would be from the transient occupancy tax. Based on the 1987 tax rate of 8 %, an average room rate in 1987 dollars of $90 /room, and a worst case occupancy rate of 65 %, the transient occupancy tax would be approximately $330,000 per year.l The hotel business license fee would generate $10 for the first $10,000 of hotel revenue and $1.25 for each additional $1,000 of hotel revenue, which would add up to about $5,230.2 The restaurant and bar business license fee would generate $50 for the first $50,000 of sales, $0.60 for each additional $1,000 of sales up to $250,000, and $1.25 for each additional $1,000 of sales thereafter. Assuming $250 of annual sales per sq.ft., total sales would be $1,850,000 per year3 and the tax derived therefrom would be $2,170 per year.4 The total business III -99 III. Setting, Impacts, Mitigation Measures license fee would be $7,440 (the combination of the hotel business license fee of $5,230, and the restaurant and bar business license fee of $2,170). The City's share of the sales tax collected by the State is 1 %. Sales tax revenue would be $18,500 per year.5 The current estimated assessed value of the site is $400,000. Street vaca- tions would increase the current lot area of 46,386 sq.ft. by 12,368 sq.ft. The new assessed land value would be $507,000, assuming the assessed value per sq.ft. to be the same as the assessed value of adjacent lots.6 The expected construction cost is $20 million. The assessed value of improve- ments would be $5 million.7 The total assessed value would be $5,507,000. At a tax rate of $1.00 per $100 of assessed valuation, the property tax would be $55,000 per year.8 The City's utility users tax rate is 5 %. It is estimated to yield about $0.17 per sq.ft. per year (excluding garage area)9 or about $23,000 annually. Total municipal revenue would be about $440,000 per year. Municipal Costs Police protection costs are estimated at $100 per guest room per year and at $0.50 per sq.ft. per year for other commercial space.9 Where fully sprinklered fire resistant buildings have replaced lower den- sity, older facilities, municipal fire departments have been able to sub- stantially reduce fire suppression companies serving the area, because fires seldom spread beyond the room of origin. The main fire department costs of this project would probably consist of fire inspections, fire drills and other training of hotel staff. A cost of $40 per guest room per year and of $0.25 per sq.ft. per year for other commercial space would be a conservative estimate.10 III -100 III. Setting, Impacts, Mitigation Measures Public works costs, including street maintenance and traffic signalization, can be estimated to amount to $22.50 per guest room per year and $0.05 per sq.ft. per year for other commercial space.9 Based on suggested costs in the City's 1982 fiscal analysis adjusted for inflation, parks and tree maintenance costs would amount to $9.00 per employ- ee per year.9 Support of administrative departments (personnel, purchasing, etc.) serving L: direct cost departments are estimated at 12% of direct costs.9 Total annual costs would be about $67,000 per year. A summary is provided in Table 23, p. III -102. NOTES: 1. 0.08 X $90 /room /day X 365 days /yr X 196 rooms X 0.65 = $330,000 1yr. 2. $10 1yr + $ 1.25 ($90 /room /day X 365 days /yr X 196 rooms X 0.65 $1,000 - $10,000 1yr) = $5,229/yr. 3. $250 /sq.ft. /yr X 7,400 sq. ft. = $1,850,000 /yr. 4. First $ 50,000: $ 50 /yr Next 200,000: $ 200,000 X $ 0.60 = 120 1yr 1,000 Next 1,600,000: $1,600,000 X $ 1.25 = 2,000 /yr TOTAL $1,850,000 11000 $2,170 /yr 5. 0.01 X $1,850,000 /yr = $18,500 /yr. 6. 46,386 sq. ft. + 12,368 sq. ft. X $400,000 = $507,000. 46,386 sq. ft. 7. 0.25 X $20,000,000 = $5,000,000. III -101 III. Setting, Impacts, Mitigation Measures 8. $ 1.001 r X $5,507,000 = $55,070. 100 9. Factors from the Colorado Place Phase III DEIR, Santa Monica, 1986, SCH #86073009. 10. Source of Factors = Gilbert G. Bendix, P.E., California registered Fire Protection Engineer. Table 23. Annual Municipal Costs Service Cost /Guest Room Cost /sq.ft. Cost /Employee Police $100.00 $ 0.50 Fire 40.00 0.25 Public Works 22.50 0.50 Parks $ 9.00 Subtotal 162.50 $ 1.25 9.00 Costs to City 196 Guest rooms x $162.50 /guest room = $31,850 j I 20,900 sq.ft. commercial space x $1.25 /sq.ft. = 26,125 186 employees x $9.00 /employee = 1,674 Subtotal $59,649 12% Administrative Services x $59,649 = 7,158 TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS $66,800 (rounded) TOTAL ANNUAL REVENUES $440,000 NET ANNUAL REVENUE $377,000 Source: Bendix Environmental Research, Inc. III -102 III. Setting, Impacts, Mitigation Measures III.M. RECREATION 21. Will the proposal result in a considerable impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? This item is checked "may - be". ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The Santa Monica State Beach is the most heavily used beach in the Los Angeles County Coastal Zone.1 Some estimates indicate that on high use days up to 100,000 people may be on the Santa Monica beaches. There are 17 (' lifeguards posted by Los Angeles County along the beaches in Santa Monica. Lifeguard station #18 is situated on the beach at the foot of Pico Blvd. Numbers 17 and 19 are located approximately 100 yards away, on either side of the Pico station. Lifeguards are on duty during the summer months from 7 AM until 8 PM and during the winter months from 9 AM until 5 PM. Twenty- four hour emergency response is always available.2 Between the project site and the beach is the Promenade, which is regularly used by beach goers as a jogging and bicycle path. runnrrc The Recreation and Parks Department of Santa Monica believes that there will be no impact on demand for parks from this size hotel. (See also discussion about beach parking on p. III -86.) The project applicant has indicated his plans to plant 5 -10 Palm trees and related plants just west of the Promenade, near the center of the western edge of the project. The Department of Recreation and Parks and the State Lands Commission have jurisdiction over Santa Monica State Beach. They III -103 III. Setting, Impacts, Mitigation Measures reserve judgement on this portion of the landscaping plans until they i examine final plans which will include types and locations of all plants and trees to be planted west of the Promenade.3 The landscaping flanking the Pico stairs and ramp will provide an area of public green space near the beach. This landscaping is to be maintained by the project applicant. MITIGATION MEASURES 1. Presently, the Pico drain outlet is fenced in by a cyclone fence. The project applicant should consider the visual mitigation measure of providing a limited amount of landscaping with trees and bushes surrounding the cyclone fence area of the storm drain as it leads onto the beach to limit drain visibility from the project. A decision to implement this measure would be made after discussion with the Recreation and Parks Dept. and agencies with jurisdiction over the drain. NOTES: 1. Report of the Pico - Kenter Storm Drain Task Force to the Santa Monica City Council, 27 January 1987. L 2. Telephone conversation with Howard Lee of the Los Angeles County Depart- ment of Beaches and Harbors, 6 March 1987. 3. Telephone conversation with Don Arnett of the Recreation and Parks Dept., City of Santa Monica, 30 March 1987. III -104 M III. Setting, Impacts, Mitigation Measures III.N. AESTHETICS 23. Will the proposed project result in: a. The obstruction of any scenic vista or view or view open to the public? d. Any negative aesthetic effect? These items are checked "maybe ". ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The dirt and weeds of the western portion of the site and the asphalt paving and parked cars of the eastern portion of the site provide no visual interest or amenities. There is nothing on the site to obstruct views of the beach. IMPACTS Visual Impacts. The project would add visual interest through landscaping at the end of Pico Blvd., the presence of a large central tree in the entry area, and the general presence of new buildings with landscaping. The land- scaping flanking the Pico stairs and ramp will provide an area of public green space near the beach. This landscaping will be maintained by the project applicant. The strip of landscaping along the eastern face of the project will be seen by people parking in Cheerio's parking lot. Inclusion of underground occupied space in the project decreases the visible height and bulk of the building associated with a given amount of gross usable floor area. The project buildings' size and bulk will be mitigated by the use of plants over trellises and wrought iron balcony railings as design elements of the project which will provide visual interest, tie together the design of the buildings on the two sides of Appian Way, and make the buildings appear smaller. The separation of the two beachfront main building masses by the lower elevation pool deck will give the pro- fject a less massive appearance than the neighboring Pritikin building. III -105 III. Setting, Impacts, Mitigation Measures The stepped back design of the balconies on the beach side of the eastern building will provide a visual transition from the lower to the taller building and will mitigate the bulk and mass of the taller building. The minimal project setbacks on Pico Blvd. could make the Pico Blvd. approach to the beach less attractive. The possibility of a tunnel -like appearance under the bridge over Appian Way will be avoided by edging the bridge with plants over trellises. View Impacts. Beach views will be blocked for windows on the north and west sides of the Drake Hotel. Since part of the west wall of the Drake Hotel is on the property line, any development on the project site would block views from the two windows in this portion of the building. The pre- sent view of the beach from the affected windows is across parking lots and the vacant portion of the project site. Project blockage of views from the west windows of the Drake Hotel will be mitigated by the landscaped setback on that side of the project. Views of the beach will also be partially blocked from the apartments across Pico Blvd. from the site east of Appian Way, from the north windows of the Pritikin Bldg., from the south and west windows of the Appian Apart- ments, and from the south windows of residences on the south side of Vicente Terrace between Appian Way and Ocean Ave. The direct views from the beach - side Appian Apartments windows towards the beach will not be affectedo The existing Drake Hotel partially blocks views from the restaurant at the northwest corner of Pico Blvd. and Ocean Ave. These windows will be further blocked by the proposed project. III -106 9 III. Setting, Impacts, Mitigation Measures Views from Cheerio's restaurant to the southwest are blocked by existing buildings on the south side of Pico Blvd. The view to the northwest is i blocked by the Appian Way Apartments. The southern half of Cheerio's restaurant already has its western facing views blocked by the Hotel Drake (see Figure 16, p. III -32). The present views across parking lots to the Ocean from the northwest corner of Cheerio's would be blocked. Views from the eight -story Pacific Shore Hotel on the northeast corner of Ocean Ave. and Pico Blvd., which are partially blocked by the restaurant and the Drake Hotel, will be further blocked, with elimination of all di- rect views toward the beach. The beach will be visible from the west win- dows of the building looking northwest, past the building over the three - story Appian Apartments and looking southwest of the Pritikin Bldg. Some windows will have a view down Pico Blvd. between the project and the Pri- tikin Bldg. The bridge across Appian Way connecting the two sides of the project will block some views to the north up Appian Way from Pico Blvd. These views do not include the beach or the Santa Monica Pier. The project will not be in the viewshed south of the Pritikin Bldg., identi- fied in the Visual Resources Map in the Land Use Plan of the Local Coastal Program, because of the topography of the area (there is a small hill between the project site and the viewshed area). The low midportion of the beachside building will provide direct views of the beach from the west windows of the taller hotel building. The 30 ft. height of the western building will permit views of the beach over the project from the upper floors of the north side of the Pritikin Bldg. III -107 III. Setting, Impacts, Mitigation Measures Planters on the pool deck and views of the trellises from above should be provided to mitigate the views of building top surfaces from the top floor of the Appian Apartments and the third and higher floors of the Pritikin Bldg. Satisfying LUE Objectives and Policies. The Land Use Element of the General Plan of Santa Monica includes a number of polices which relate to aesthetics. Relevant policies and project relationship to these policies are given in Table 24, p. 109. MITIGATION MEASURES 1. All street trees used in the project landscaping should be required to be provided or maintained in a manner consistent with the City's Tree Code, per the specifications of the Department of Recreation and Parks and the Department of General Services. 2. It is recommended that the western wall of the eastern building be designed so as to conceal the fact that part of the parking garage is above grade at that point; there should be no windows looking out onto the side- walk from the parking area. 3. It is recomended that the Architectural Review Board approve a sign program for this project as a means to control the design of on -site exter- ior signs to avoid garish and distracting elements. 4. The buildings should be required to be light in color to blend with the color of beach sand to make the buildings less visually intrusive. III -108 III. Setting, Impacts, Mitigation Measures Table 24. Project Compliance With LUE Aesthetics Standards. LUE POLICIES CITY WIDE SCALE AND CHARACTER Objective 3.1: "Preserve Santa Monica's existing solar access, low scale, and cultural re- sources consistent with the overall goals of the Land Use Element." Policy 3.1.2: "Encourage the maintenance of high aesthetic standards and architectural in- novation consistent with the surrounding community and en- courage large buildings to be predominantly light color and materials that fit in with the existing context. Prohibit large expanses of highly re- flective materials such as black glass and mirrored metal. RELATIONSHIP OF PROJECT TO POLICIES The north faces of the building will have some articulation to provide a visual relationship with the smaller buildings across Vicente. Terrace. The south side of the larger building will be divided into several horizontal elements. This, together with the three - element roof design, will provide design relationship to the apartment buildings across the street. The articulation of the eastern face of the building will visually break up the building mass and help it to relate to the smaller Drake and Cheerio's build- ings. The western, shorter building will be shorter than the Pritikin Bldg. No reflective or tinted glass will be used. All windows will be clear glass. There is no sense of architec- tural continuity in the project area, therefore no dominant style to which the project might conform. III -109 (continued on the next page) III. Setting, Impacts, Mitigation Measures Table 24. Project Compliance With LUE Aesthetics Standards, Con't. L.UE POLICIES RELATIONSHIP OF PROJECT TO POLICIES Policy 3.1.3: "Encourage reten- The Pritikin Building across the street tion of historic and architec- from the smaller project building is turally significant resources. architecturally the most important Design of new buildings should building in the neighborhood. It will respect the character of nearby be taller and more massive than the new historic resources." building, therefore will not be dominated by it. The new designs will be less or- nate than the Pritikin Bldg., but the de- signs in the repeated balcony railings will contribute detail to the facades. The design will not have any design ele- ment that reflects the cornice line or the decorative band above the second floor windows. The project will have muntinedl windows similar to those of the Pritikin Bldg. Policy 3.1.4: "Encourage the The project applicant indicates that art incorporation of public art in works will be incorporated into the all new development over 15,000 lobby's interior design.2 The lobby square feet." will be open to the public but will probably be largely used by hotel and restaurant patrons. OCEANFRONT DISTRICT: Policy 3.4.6: "To the extent No off -site advertising signs are pro - permitted by State law, the posed, thus the project will comply with placement of offsite advertising Policy 3.4.6. shall be prohibited, because of visual clutter, scenic intrusion, and safety concerns. Objective 3.5: Maximize the In addition to beach views from the benefit of Santa Monica's great- beach side of the western building, the est physical asset -- its ocean eastern building will have balconies front setting and view." with decorative railings facing west on each floor from which the ocean and the beach could be seen. Policy 3.5.1: "Encourage provi The project will have balconies on all sion of usable terraces, balco- four sides of floors four through six. nies, and public viewing plat- forms above the third floor of new development." III -110 III. Setting, Impacts, Mitigation Measures 5. The Planning Commission should consider requiring landscaped setbacks along Pico Blvd. to improve the visual appearance of the approach to the beach. The landscaping should be integrated with the design of the area to be vacated at the end of Pico Blvd. 6. The Planning Commission should consider requiring a landscaped setback at the side of the project next to the Drake Hotel in order to mitigate blockage of views toward the beach. 7. The bridge should be designed to be strong enough to support large plants. The plants should be required to be large enough to be easily visible to motorists on Appian Way in order to improve the appearance of the bridge. NOTES: 1. Muntins are moldings that separate and support small panes of glass within a larger window. l2. Telephone conversation, with project applicant, 17 March 1987. III.0. NEIGHBORHOOD EFFECTS 24. Will the proposal have considerable effects on the project neighbor- hood? This item is checked "maybe ". Construction noise will be audible above existing ambient and activity noise levels for the 20 -month construction period. Noise on the beach could be mitigated by appropriate construction scheduling. See discussion of neigh- borhood construction noise impacts on p. III -22. III -111 III. Setting, Impacts, Mitigation Measures The project will provide jobs for low- income and currently unemployed persons in the project area. Potential jobs for local residents are dis- cussed on p. 1II• -54. Direct vehicular access to the promenade and beach at the end of Pico Blvd. will be replaced by a landscaped area at the end of Pico Blvd. with a ramp down to the Promenade. With appropriate design and signing so that people know that this is a public access point, the landscaped area should be an amenity for the neighborhood, increasing green space without expense to the taxpayer. See further discussion in EIR pp. III -81, III -90, III -91, and III -96. The project will displace present Pritikin parking and parking meters at the end of Pico Blvd. Persons who have regularly been using the meters may find themselves displaced by persons associated with the hotel and will turn to the sometimes already crowded beach parking lot, north of the site, for parking. This will increase the demand for existing street and off- street parking in the project area. This impact will be particularly noticable during construction before completion of the project's replacement parking. See parking impacts discussion on p. III -86. The project will obstruct some views of the beach from existing residences. The greatest view obstruction will be for hotel accommodations. To the extent that existing vacant land and parking lots will be replaced by modern buildings and landscaping, the views will be improved. Impacts on views from buildings in the project neighborhood are discussed on pp. III -106 and III -107. III -112 III. Setting, Impacts, Mitigation Measures III.Q. IMPACTS DETERMINED TO BE INSIGNIFICANT Some environmental effects of the proposed project will either be insigni- ficant or will be mitigated through measures incorporated into the project design. These require no further environmental analysis and will not be addressed in the EIR. These effects are described briefly below. For additional information see the Initial Study, Appendix A, page A -1. Earth -- Topographic Impacts. The project will not result in extensive change in topography of ground surface relief features because the site is nearly level. The project design will not result in the creation of abrupt grade differences between the public beach and private property. Earth -- Geological Features. The project will not affect any unique geolo- gical or physical features because there are no such features on the site. Earth -- Erosion. The project will not increase wind or water erosion of soils on or off the site because it will not increase exposed grades or earth surfaces and will decrease open surface area open to erosion. The project will not affect water currents and, therefore, will not affect depo- sition of sand on the beach. The portion of the building next to the beach will be 30 ft tall and will not be tall enough to significantly affect wind l movement of sand on the beach. Earth -- Geologic Hazards. The existing grade on the site is not sufficient to cause a landslide or mudslide hazard. Earthquake- associated hazards will be similar to those expected at all Southern California sandy beach sites and are discussed in the EIR. Air - -Odor. The project could produce food odors from the restaurant. These will not be considered objectionable. III -113 III. Setting, Impacts, Mitigation Measures Air -- Climate. The taller, eastern building could affect wind speed within a hundred feet of the base of the building when the wind is blowing from the east, which is not the prevailing direction of the wind. No wind effects will be expected when winds are blowing from the north, east or south because other buildings will shift air currents up off the ground and the differential in height between the project and upwind buildings will not be great enough to result in a noticeable effect (an approximately six story difference in height is required for impacts of potential concern). Microclimate wind impacts are generally associated with smooth building faces oriented perpendicular to the direction of the oncoming wind. The balconies on the inland side of the project building will break up the flow of air down the side of the building and will be expected to mitigate wind impacts to insignificance. Air- -Air Pollution. The project will not involve the generation of unusual amounts or types of pollutants such as might be generated by an industrial facility. Water. The project will not affect ocean or stream currents because it is not in or near enough to any body of water to have such an effect. The pro- ject will not create a significant discharge into any natural surface body of water. The project will not affect any public water supply since no water supply sources are present in the project area. Plant and Animal Life. Elimination of the sparse volunteer plants and asso- ciated animals on the western block of the site will not affect the diver- sity, number of species, or the normal replenishment of existing species in the project area. No trees or shrubs are present on the site. No endan- III -114 III. Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures gered species are expected to be found on the partially paved and highly urbanized site. Project landscaping would not be expected to introduce any new plant species to the Santa Monica area. No significant existing wild- life habitat will be affected. Energy and Natural Resources. The project will not be energy or rare materi- al - intensive. The increase in demand upon existing sources of energy and materials will not require the development of new sources of energy or materials and will be within the amounts expected and provided for in the project area. Noise. The construction and operation of a hotel does not involve any unu- sual generation of high noise levels. The effects of construction and pro - ject traffic noise are be discussed on p. III -22. Risk of Upset. The project will not involve the use or storage of signifi- cant amounts of hazardous materials, such as gasoline or pesticides, or the potential of accidents associated with such materials. Human Health. No potential health hazards will be involved in the project. Population. The visitors occupying the 196 rooms of the hotel and the simi- lar number of permanent hotel employees will not cause significant changes in the distribution, density or growth rate of population in the project area. Since no existing buildings will be demolished, no housing or jobs will displaced. Land Use. The project will not result in demolition, relocation or remodel - ling of any buildings because there are no buildings on the site. III -115 III. Setting, Impacts, Mitigation Measures Utilities -- Communication systems. Telephone service to the project will not result in the need for new facilities or major alterations to existing facilities. Right of Wa- -Grade differential. The unbuilt portion of the site will remain essentially at the existing grade level; therefore, no abrupt grade differential will be created between public and private property. Transportation /Circulation. As a hotel, with 196 rooms, the project will not have a considerable impact on existing transit systems or result in alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic. Public Services. Hotel visitors are non - residents and will not affect local schools. The majority of hotel employees are expected to live locally and would not be moving into the area for project jobs. No detectable change in demand for school facilities is expected. Cultural Resources. No known prehistoric or historic archeological remains, ethnic cultural resources, religious or sacred uses are associated with the site. Aesthetics. Project buildings and landscaping will not create an aestheti- cally offensive site open to public view. There will be no destruction of any locally recognized desirable aesthetic natural feature. III -116 IV. Alternatives CHAPTER IV. ALTERNATIVES A. NO PROJECT If the proposed project were not built, the site would remain undeveloped. The beach side of the site would continue to grow weeds and the inland side would continue to be used as a parking lot. No views of the beach would be interrupted, no traffic increase would occur, no construction noise would be audible in the area, and land use policies encouraging development of the site for visitor- oriented services would not be implemented. No increase in tax revenue to the City of Santa Monica would occur. No construction or permanant jobs would be created. The project sponsor has rejected this use because it would not provide any income other than parking income and because it provides no use fora prime beachfront site. B. MULTI - FAMILY RESIDENTIAL HOUSING The site could be developed for housing of permanent residents in apartments or condominiums. A housing project with the same number of square feet, about 99,000 sq.ft., would have about 99 dwelling units. However, under the R4 zoning standards a total of only 73 residential units would be permitted on the site. Permanent housing would be compatible with neighborhood land uses which are a mixture of permanent housing and hotels. The project would have similar shadow impacts to those of the proposed project. IV -1 IV. Alternatives The ITE 221 Low -Rise Apartment trip generation rates are used to calcu- late the trip generation for this alternative because they come the closest to the description of the alternative. During the P.M. peak hour, a factor of 0.7 trips per unit per hour predicts 76 trips generated by a 109 -unit apartment building. This is 68 trips less than what has been estimated for the project as proposed, indicating that this alternative would generate less traffic. The project would not provide hotel tax, business license tax, or sales tax revenue. A similar number of construction jobs would be provided as compared to the proposed project. Relatively few permanent jobs would be created. A housing project would not attract tourists to the area and would not create increased demand for transient- oriented services. This alternative would increase demand for services, such as restaurants, by permanent resi- dents which would partially overlap services to transient visitors. The project applicant has rejected this alternative because it would not meet the visitor- oriented use preferences for the area and would not provide as much income as the proposed use. C. OFFICE USE WITH GROUND FLOOR RETAIL. This alternative would have about 69,000 sq.ft. of office space and about 40,000 sq.ft. of commercial space, for the same gross area as the proposed project. Office use would not be compatible with local land uses and is not permitted by the zoning code. Traffic impacts would be greater than those of the pro- posed project and office - related trips would occur at peak traffic hours. IV -2 IV. Alternatives About 275 office jobs would be createdl and 90 retail jobs2 would be cre- ated. The commercial space would serve the office workers, neighboring residential uses and beach user walk -in traffic, but might exceed demand for such services. View and shadow impacts would be similar to those of the proposed project. Project applicant has rejected this alternative because it is not permitted by Santa Monica zoning. D. HOTEL DEVELOPMENT WITH NO SUBTERRANEAN ACTIVITY AREAS Under this alternative the project would be reduced by 30,300 sq.ft. (the below grade, non - parking square footage of the proposed project). This 99,200 sq.ft. project would have about three - quarters (77 %) of the net floor area of the proposed project. Assuming proportional reduction in area of each type of use, the project would include: ° 64,300 sq.ft. of guest rooms (151 rooms) ° 11,900 sq.ft. of restaurant /kitchen space 13,600 sq.ft. of public space ° 5,700 sq.ft. of lobby /administrative space ° 3,000 sq.ft. of meeting rooms The alternative would comply with FAR by any method of calculation. View and shadow impacts would be similar to those of the proposed project. Con- struction cost would be lower than for the proposed project because there would be less construction underground and less total construction. All other impacts would be approximately 25% lower than for the proposed project. The project applicant has rejected this alternative because it would provide a lower return on investment than the proposed project. IV -3 IV. Alternatives E. BUILDING EAST OF APPIAN WAY WITH ONE LESS FLOOR This alternative would have a building one floor lower than the proposed project on the east side of Appian Way. The building would be about 47 ft. tall, have 13,280 fewer square feet, and 30 fewer rooms. This alterna- tive would meet FAR requirements as calculated with and without the below grade floor area, as shown in Table 25, below. Underground facilities would be the same as in the proposed project. This alternative would have less effect on views from the Pritikin Bldg. and the Pacific Shore Hotel on Ocean Avenue than the proposed project because of the lesser height. Most other view impacts would be similar to those of the proposed project because the building would still be as tall as or taller than other nearby buildings. The project would not appear as large as the proposed project. Other impacts would be about 15% less than those of the proposed project because there would be 15% fewer rooms. The project applicant has rejected this alternative on the grounds that the view to the north is not the primary beach view from the Pritikin Bldg., the view from the Pacific Shore Hotel is already partially blocked toward the beach by existing buildings between Ocean Avenue and the project site, and the smaller building would give less revenue. Table 25. FAR Calculated for Alternative Project With One Less Floor. East of Appian Way Building Only; FAR target: 2.5. excluded 2.0 (2.5) Below grade level: included 2.3 (2.8) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ( ) = FAR calculated for the proposed building East of Appian Way, presented here for purposes of comparison. Source: Bendix Environmental Research, Inc. IV -4 IV. Alternatives F. BUILDINGS WITH LARGER SETBACKS THAN THE PROPOSED PROJECT This alternative would consist of buildings with larger setbacks than those included in the design of the proposed project. This is another manner in which the project could be altered in order to meet Zoning Code density requirements. In addition, buildings set back further would provide a more inviting approach to the beach area and have a less bulky appearance. G. ALTERNATIVE WITHOUT BRIDGE This alternative would consist of buildings identical to those planned for the proposed project except that the fifty foot wide pedestrian bridge at the fourth level over Appian Way would not be included. Absence of the 1 bridge would eliminate the visual impact the bridge would have on Appian Way and it would result in an increase in pedestrian traffic crossing } Appian Way to pass from one building to the other. This would increase pedestrian /vehicle interaction on Appian Way which could slow this traffic flow. Hotel guests would be able to get from one building to the other through the second /meeting room level under Appian Way. The second level passage connecting the two portions would be designed to preclude inter- ference with activities on the second level. The project applicant has re- jected this alternative because the bridge results in a better integrated project design and reduces pedestrian traffic hazards on Appian Way. H. ALTERNATIVE DESIGN CONCEPT An earlier design approach to this site involved the same street vacation and easement, a similar entrance to the underground parking from Appian Way, and the same loading entrance access from Vicente Terrace. This IV -5 IV. Alternatives Alternative had a height of 30 feet on the western portion of the site and a height of 56 feet on the east side of the site, as does the presently proposed design. The design had a structure about 140 feet wide over Appian Way with rooms going to the 30 foot elevation of the beach side of the project. This would have given the appearance of a tunnel to Appian Way, would have given a more massive building appearance when viewed from the north and south of the site, and possibly allowed the accumulation of carbon monoxide under the structure. The project was designed with a relatively narrow public pedestrian access to the Promenade along the southern side of the vacated portion of Pico Blvd., which could have made the rest of the vacated area appear to be part of the landscaping of the project rather then a public access to the Prome- nade and the beach. This alternative had 166 rooms, or 15% fewer than the proposed project. Impacts correlated with the number of rooms, such as water, energy consumption and tax revenues, would have been about 15% less than for the proposed project. The main hotel entrance would have been from Pico Blvd. to the eastern portion of the site instead of the western portion as proposed in the proposed design. At times when many visitors were arriving or departing, this hotel entrance location would have caused more interference with traffic than the proposed entrance because of poten- tial effects on all vehicles travelling west on Pico and turning north or south on Appian Way. The project applicant rejected this alternative because of the massiveness of the design, the view impacts of the wide structure over Appian Way, the greater emphasis on relation to the beach of the proposed entrance on the west side of the site as compared to this Alternative, the potential effects IV -6 IV. Alternatives on Pico Blvd. traffic of the hotel entrance on the east side of Appian Way, and the reduced revenue potential of a smaller number of rooms. NOTES: 1. Calculated on the basis of 250 gross square feet of office space per job. 2. Calculated on the basis of 450 gross square feet of commercial space per job. IV -7 V. Growth Inducing Impacts CHAPTER V. GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS The presence of the proposed hotel would tend to increase the number of above average income persons in the area above the number now attracted by the Pritikin bldg. The increased presence of visitors in the area would tend to increase patronage of restaurants, gift shops, drug stores, camera shops and other commercial enterprises in the area. Persons staying at the hotel can be expected to spend over $50 per day in Santa Monica.l The project alone would not be expected to create enough demand to cause new shops to be opened in the project area. The cumulative demand of this and other tourist - attracting development in the project area of Santa Monica will create markets attracting tourist - oriented businesses. The cumulative effect of more tourists in the area will raise the average income level of persons patronizing local businesses and can be expected to create some pressures for upgrading of existing commercial services in the area. Such upgrading may in turn increase the attractiveness of area shops to beach users and tourists staying outside of the immediate project area, thus increasing local retail growth pressures. The project will be within the range of development planned for and anticipated in implementation of the Santa Monica General Plan. To the extent that the project satisfies existing unmet demand for hotel space in Santa Monica, it will satisfy a portion of unmet City -wide demand and decrease City -wide growth pressures while contributing to a cumulative local increase in growth and growth- inducing pressures. V -1 V. Growth Inducing Impacts NOTES: 1. FEIR, The Santa Monica Civic Center Hotel and Commercial Complex, 19 85, p. 92. V -2 VI. Significant Effects That Cannot be Avoided If The Project Is To Be Implemented CHAPTER VI. SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS THAT CANNOT BE AVOIDED IF THE PROJECT IS TO BE IMPLEMENTED The primary impact of the proposed project would be a change in land use from undeveloped and parking lot use to hotel use. Construction on the site, as for any beach front site, would impact some existing views of the beach while creating new vantage points from which the beach can be seen. The development is within the types of development called for in the General Plan and provided for by the existing infrastructure, although the Planning Commission may find that quantitative project changes are necessary to comply with the Zoning Code or desirable to mitigate density or view im- pacts. Although the project's contribution to existing air pollution and roadway congestion would not be detectable, additional vehicles would be using already congested intersections, and additional primary air pollutants would be generated in a nonattainment area. VI -1 VII. Consultants, Agencies, and Individuals Involved CHAPTER VII. CONSULTANTS, AGENCIES, AND INDIVIDUALS INVOLVED IN THE EIR PREPARATION PROCESS EIR CONSULTANTS Bendix Environmental Research, 1390 Market Street, Suite 902 San Francisco, CA 94102 Principal -in- Charge: Selina Bendix, Ph.D. Project Manager: Pamela Hodgins Contributors: Gilbert G. Bendix, P.E. Karen Miller Terry Whisler Beatrice Thys B. Douglas Wilson PROJECT APPLICANT R. E. International 9460 Wilshire Boulevard Beverly Hills, CA 90212 PROJECT DEVELOPER Embarcadero Center Ltd. Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 2600 San Francisco, CA 94111 Mark R. Solit Inc. Wallen Associates 5820 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 304 Los Angeles, CA 90036 Martin Wallen, P.E. VII -1 Traffic analysis Geo /Resource Consultants, Inc. 851 Harrison Street San Francisco, CA 94107 Scott Nelson, Staff Geologist Seismology & Hydrology PROJECT ARCHITECT AiGroup, Inc. Architecture International 1197 Peachtree Street Atlanta, GA 30361 VII. Consultants, Agencies, and Individuals Involved CITY OF SANTA MONICA STAFF Division of City Planning Karen Rosenberg, Associate Planner Dept. of Recreation and Parks Don Arnett, Director Fire Department Engineer Steve Locati Inspector Jeffrey Nichol Chief Paul Stein Department of General Sanitation Division Carl Hood Police Department Don Umber, Crime Prevention Coordinator Water /Wastewater Division Jack Hoagland Services, Department of Public Works Division of Traffic Engineering Ray Davis, P.E., Traffic Engineer OTHER ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED California State Coastal Commission Teresa Henry, Coastal Program Analyst III City of Los Angeles Wastewater Systems, Engineering Division Farshid Fashangi Heal the Bay Dorothy Green Los Angeles County Lifeguard Assn. Ira Gruber, President Pritikin Longevity Center Bruce Parton, Vice President of Development Southern California Gas Company Jeff Nielsen Southern California Edison Don Gregg VII -2 Los Angeles County Dept, of Beaches Howard Lee Los Angeles County Flood Control District John Mitchell Los Angeles County Health Dept. Richard Kebabjian, Chief of Swimming Pool Program Los Angeles County Public Works Department Glen Drogin Regional Water Quality Control Board Los Angeles, CA Michael Sowby Tina and Manny Hellerman Santa Monica residents VIII. Comments and Responses CHAPTER VIII. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES In accordance with the City's environmental review procedures, a public review period relative to the Draft EIR was opened on July 24, 1987 and concluded September 8, 1987. During the review period the City received comments from the following City Departments, State Offices, and private individuals: R.E. International, project applicant City of Santa Monica, Department of Recreation and Parks City of Santa Monica, Police Department City of Santa Monica, Fire Department City of Santa Monica, Department of General Services and the Department of Engineering City of Santa Monica, Department of General Services, Water /Wastewater Division City of Santa Monica, Department of Public Works, Division of Traffic Engineering California Regional Water Quality Control Board Paula Boelsens Anne Owens - Sterman, owner of the Hotel Drake Libby Willis Dr. N.J. and Gudrun Goldstein Residents of Vicente Terrace and Seaview Terrace These written comments, sometimes edited, and the corresponding responses are presented in the following pages. Each set of written comments is in- cluded, unedited, thereafter. VIII -1 VIII. Comments and Responses Comments from R.E. International, project applicant ....... September 4, 1987 COMMENT #1: Updated Plans and Floor Area Data: The project design has been slightly modified since the preparation of the Draft EIR. The Final EIR should include the revised plans attached hereto correcting and updating the information in Figures 2 through 10 in the Draft EIR. The Final EIR should also include the tables attached hereto correcting the floor area data contained in Tables 1, 9, and 10 in the Draft EIR. RESPONSE: The project applicant has submitted final design revisions since the submission of this comment. There have been changes in the following aspects of the project: Appian bridge width, ground level promenade frontage use, parking, design of the east building, setbacks, floor area (and, therefore, the FAR calculations) , realignment of Appian Way, and service truck access. These changes are discussed in more detail in the following comments. See pp. VIII -3 through VIII -16 for updated plans. See pages following VIII -54 for project applicant submissions. COMMENT #2: The design has been modified to minimize the building area over and under Appian Way. In repsonse to concerns regarding visual impacts, the width of the pedestrian bridge has been reduced. The clearance under the bridge has been increased to fourteen feet ... (This) modification will serve to reduce the visual impact of the bridge on views and on the public's perception of Appian way as a public thoroughfare. RESPONSE: The project applicant has revised the design of the Appian Way bridge and reduced its width from 56 ft. to 54 ft. See the response to Comment #32 for a City comment regarding clearance under the bridge over Appian Way. The City has stated that they may require a 16 foot clearance. Note also the last Mitigation Measure of p. III -90. COMMENT #3: The space to be occupied under the street has been substantially reduced and will now consist of one or two service tunnels for use by VIII -2 PROMENADE PICO BLVD. ELEVATION --711 777 G H H `I :. U z r �zs r z p AV WAY • .ni I.q ._�u .oa «w O IFI. _YIiMNFNI_ li.11 1.1 .PiNIPµlMlll IIIMIIOHo1"1INza.zmL A 1- I-- jPKYIIaP IMF MTPIGN I:M %M:.'.IFNi.P!.nell.= PP!1.1= - �• a,u BUILDING SECTION 81012 Iwlmo Ine':re• 8 I 1 r -� 1 � 4. I B -3 LEVEL 48.56 I B -4 LEVEL 39.68 VVV - - -7- - UW� 00 �x� b QUM H H H I [� LJ TP �awm LEVEL 132, PROMENADE 'gyp " 3 l< uo Z0 oon hyl z 0 z N N - - i how y O a I 1 �.J DPAKE I ----------- Wq - -_ - - . p -- 1 _ �w O)ti.3 �+,auro3 LEVEL 84.00 t�- ri. L I Id Y.11_ .... ..... ... -77 7F7 LEVEL 92.67 61)l UWQ oo° -1 --4A I UW< a a u 0 z V xs z w 1 tanYB> LEVELS 101.33, 110.00/ 118.67, 127.33 0 7 H H H I 1-� ti ti ti VICEN . ......... tl z 0 \\M 41, 110ENTE TERRACE Lf X PARCEL B VACATED PICO PkDa P100 BOULEVARD F SITE & FOOTPRINT PLAN Uw< Zz 000 Z 0 �7 z VIII. Comments and Responses hotel employees... The modifications will also reduce the need for excavation under the street and, thus, reduce the temporary impacts on traffic of the construction activity. RESPONSE: The project applicant has revised the subterranean parking design since the submission of this comment. See pp. VIII -7 -9 for current proposal. The space to be occupied under Appian Way has not been substantially changed from the design discussed in the DEIR. The understreet staff utility tunnels preserved from the original design may still require utility relocation, at the applicant's expense, and temporary street closure. COMMENT N4: Ground Level Promenade Frontage: The current design contains public, pedestrian- oriented uses including restaurants and retail along the entire ground level frontage of The Promenade. This modification better achieves the Land Use Element policies encouraging pedestrian- oriented uses in this area and the Coastal Commission's policy to increase public uses on the beachfront. There are no longer any guest rooms planned on the promenade level frontage. RESPONSE: See p. VIII -9 for the revised Promenade frontage uses. COMMENT N5: All parking is now proposed to be located under the parcel east of Appian Way and there are no parking spaces or ramps under Appian Way. There is also additional parking planned, for a total of 430 parking spaces. These modifications will improve circulation into and in the parking area and will provide over 200 spaces more than necessary to meet code and replacement parking requirements. RESPONSE: The project applicant has revised the subterranean parking design since the submission of this comment. See response to Comment N3. See DEIR, p. III -86 for code parking requirements. See p. VIII -10 for the revised parking gargae entry. The revised garage plan includes 21 metered public spaces on the ground floor and increases the total number of parking spaces to 495. VIII -17 VIII. Comments and Responses All parking (except for metered spaces) will be valet parking. There will be approximately 220 tandem spaces. The redesigned garage will have 4 parking levels below grade under the eastern building and 2 parking levels below grade under the western building and Appian Way. The project presented in the DEIR has 4 below grade parking levels with one of these levels under the western building and Appian Way. The redesigned project will require excavation to be approximately 13 feet deeper than the project which is described in the DEIR. Referenced from the eastern side of Appian Way, there will be an approximately 35 foot deep excavation. This additional excavation may require additional dewatering. See DEIR, pp. III -2, III -63, Mitigation Measure 5, p. III -4, and Mitigation Measures 1 and 2, p. III -64 for discussion of the water table and dewatering. COMMENT N6: East Building Design: The building on the parcel east of Appian Way will no longer have an atrium design or the progressive setback of balconies. The building will remain the same height above grade but will include an additional level of guestrooms. The number of guestrooms per floor has been reduced from 32 to 28. This design significantly reduces the overall massing of the east building by providing an open "horseshoe" facade facing the beach, rather than a large, single block with an interior atrium. The effect will be visually lighter and more compatible with the beachfront area. This design modification also provides all guestrooms with exterior windows for light and ventilation and almost all guestrooms with direct or partial ocean views. { RESPONSE: The horseshoe facade will make the east building appear less massive when viewed from the beach. The elimination of the progressive setback of balconies will make the building appear more massive in views from the north and south of the building. ffiltenu- VIII. Comments and Responses COMMENT Y1: Setbacks: The building footprint has been relocated and set- backs increased on Pico Boulevard and The Promenade. These proposed set- backs are now 5' on Pico Boulevard and 2' on The Promenade which will achieve the mitigation of visual impacts on the beachfront and beach ap- proach discussed in the Draft EIR. (DEIR, p. III -111) RESPONSE: The Pico Blvd. setback implements Mitigation Measure 5, DEIR, p. III -111. The setback next to The Promenade will soften the edge of the project and provide a strip of planting next to The Promenade for visual interest. See p. VIII -15 for revised project setbacks. COMMENT #8: Financial Projections: The revenue projected for the hotel in the Draft EIR are extremely conservative and are based upon a lower than anticipated average room rate and a bed tax rate of 8 %, rather than the current 10% rate. (DEIR, p. III -99.) The City will realize a much larger financial benefit from the proposed hotel than is stated in the Draft EIR. The project sponsor has provided the Planning Division with an analysis of the projected benefits to the City prepared by Kenneth Leventhal a Company. This analysis is available to the public in the Planning Division office. Benefits generated by the City's transient occupancy tax are projected to be $1,058,000 in 1990, increasing to $2,222,000 in 1999. Benefits to the City from sales tax revenues are projected to be $81,000 in 1990, increas- ing to $143,000 in 1999. Benefits to the City from property taxes are estimated at $94,000 in 1990, escalating at two percent annually. The net present value, in 1987, of the projected net benefits to the City of Santa Monica, including all tax and fee revenue and deducting all public service costs created by the hotel, is approximately $15,053,000. RESPONSE: The primary source of revenue to the City is the hotel bed tax which is directly proportional to the room rental rates. The tax is cur- VIII -19 VIII. Comments and Responses rently 10 %, increased from 8% in August 1987. The EIR is not a financial planning document and, therefore, the Leventhal financial report, a much deeper analysis of this aspect of the project will provide a more detailed financial representation. See the discussion of fiscal impacts in the DEIR, p. III -98. The applicant's projection of a tax and fee revenue of $15,053,000 implies that future project revenues can be predicted to the nearest hundredth of one percent. COMMENT #9: Relocation of Pico Boulevard Metered Parking: The metered par- king currently existing on Pico Boulevard will be relocated by the project sponsor to the hotel parking area at the project sponsor's expense. The metered spaces will be in close proximity to their present location, will be easily accessible at the street level close to the parking entrance, and will be readily identifiable as public spaces. This measure will have two effects which should be noted: 1) no revenue will be lost to the City from these meters as is currently stated on page III -92 of the Draft; and 2) the removal of the meters will significantly enhance the sense of open space along that section of Pico Boulevard. This open space effect will contribute to the improved beach views and beach access provided by the project on Pico Boulevard and will relieve the need for increased setbacks on this frontage of the hotel. RESPONSE: The project applicant is proposing to relocate the 21 metered parking spaces into the project's parking area. The meters will be located in the project garage just inside the street entrance level. Garage en- trance vertical clearance will be approximately 10 feet which would accomo- date the majority of campers and vans. (As a point of reference, City WtIKi1 VIII. Comments and Responses buses are 11 feet in height.) It is not clear if the meters would remain 10 -hour meters at the same meter rate. If so, these meters would provide cheaper parking than the project garage's "standard going rate" and would probably be used by either hotel patrons, hotel employees (if employee parking is not free or carefully monitored), or the employees of surrounding businesses whose parking may become more expensive after the proposed hotel is built. There is no simple way of controlling these parking meters so that they are available for beach users or local residents, however the City should consider re- quiring appropriate signage to .indicate that these spaces are for public use, not hotel use. COMMENT 110: Realignment of Appian Way: The Draft EIR discusses the rea- 1 lignment of Appian Way and Ocean Front Walk to mitigate traffic impacts at Pico Boulevard and Appian Way (DEIR, p. III -91). The project sponsor has agreed to provide a 25 foot radius curb return and stop signs at all inter- section approaches. The City Traffic Engineer has agreed that this measure i will solve any potential circulation problem created by this project at the intersection. RESPONSE: Comment noted. COMMENT 111: Project History: There is no mention in the Draft EIR of the history of this proposed project. The project sponsor originally approached the City with a proposal for a three lot land assemblage project and a 400 -plus room hotel. The project has been considerably scaled -down and redesigned to accommodate many suggestions and concerns of the Santa Monica Planning Division and the Coastal Commission staff. The current design addresses concerns expressed about development intensity and appropriate VIII -21 VIII. Comments and Responses beachfront development. The project sponsor now believes that the hotel project represents a design which will be aesthetically, environmentally and financially beneficial to the City of Santa Monica. RESPONSE: Comment noted. One earlier design approach is discussed in the DEIR, p. IV -5, Alternative H. COMMENT f12: Alternative D: It should be noted that this alternative would provide substantially less revenue to the City due to reduced size and income generation. There would be a similar reduction in the number of temporary and permanent jobs provided. This alternative is economically infeasible considering the investment required for this project. The pro- ject sponsor has submitted an analysis prepared by Kenneth Leventhal b Company demonstrating that a hotel under 150 rooms will not generate suffi- cient cash flow to service the required debt. This analysis is available to the public in the Planning Division office. RESPONSE: Alternative D provides for 151 rooms, DEIR p. IV -3. The statement that "All other impacts would be approximately 25% lower than for the pro- posed project" includes City revenues and jobs. COMMENT 413: Alternative E: This alternative would also result in a reduc- tion in tax revenue and jobs. Because the project complies with all height regulations, and because the view impact on the buildings to the north and east has been found to be insignificant, the alternative design suggested seems to have no benefit over the proposed design. This alternative is also economically infeasible due to the reduced room count. RESPONSE: Comment noted. View impacts were found to be insignificant to the extent that no aesthetic natural features would be destroyed and no offensive conditions would be present on the site (p. III -116). See DEIR VIII -22 VIII. Comments and Responses pp. III -106 and III -107 for discussion of view impacts on buildings to the north and east of the proposed project. COMMENT #14: Alternative F: This alternative requiring larger setbacks would result in a smaller hotel generating less tax revenue and providing fewer jobs. Such a reduction in the size of the hotel and the room count will render the project economically infeasible for the project sponsor. Increased setbacks will not significantly change the visual effect of the hotel. The hotel's attractive design will enhance the appearance of the [! area, through the use of the Pico Boulevard landscaping and stairway design, through the elimination of on- street and off - street surface parking in the area, and through the attractive architectural features of the building. RESPONSE: As a major access point to the beach, the openness of Pico Blvd. affects people's perception of the beach area. Increasing building setbacks increases the feeling of openness and provides the public the amenity of increased landscaping. It is understood that any decrease in project size decreases applicant's revenue, jobs and City tax revenue. The City balances these impacts against planning criteria and questions of image and identity. 1 COMMENT #15: Alternative G: This alternative is infeasible due to the cur- rent design of the hotel which eliminates the subterranean access between the hotel buildings, except for a service tunnel for use by hotel employees only. Elimination of the pedestrian bridge would increase traffic impacts due to heavy pedestrian traffic across Appian Way of hotel patrons. The elimination of the pedestrian bridge would have no environmental signifi- cance because the bridge does not contribute to any adverse environmental impacts. RESPONSE: Elimination of the bridge eliminates a feature visible from the north and south of the project and eliminates the possibility that strangers VIII -23 VIII. Comments and Responses driving north to the Santa Monica Pier would be confused and think Appian Way is private street. Any increase in pedestrian traffic across Appian Way would impede the flow of traffic. COMMENT #16: Alternative Sites: the EIR should state that due to existing development and proposed land use in the area, there are no comparable, feasible alternative sites for a beachfront hotel in this area. RESPONSE: Comment noted. COMMENT #17: Jobs: The Draft EIR is conservative in its estimate of the number of full -time, permanent jobs to be created by the hotel project. The hotel will be operated as a full- service, first quality hotel with a high employee to room ratio. The project sponsor and the proposed operator predict that the hotel will employ 300 to 400 full -time employees, rather than the 185 employees stated in the Draft EIR. (DEIR, p. I -4) RESPONSE: The estimate of 185 employees was originally agreed upon by the project applicant and the City's Environmental Consultant. (See p.•III -54 of the DEIR for calculations.) The formula was derived from a previously published FEIR in Santa Monica and accepted by the Planning Division. Conservative fiscal assumptions ensure that the EIR does not depend on a particular future condition of the national and local economy and overesti- mate tax revenues to the City or job creation. Any increase in tax revenue or jobs over that estimated can be viewed as a benefit to the City. COMMENT #18: Grading Impacts: The following information has been obtained regarding the grading proposed for the project. The project will require approximately 13,314 cubic yards of excavation which will require exporta- tion. Grading will also include approximately 1,500 cubic yards of back - fill. This grading will not result in any permanent geologic changes. The VIII -24 VIII. Comments and Responses soil removal will require approximately 12 days of hauling at a rate of 12 trucks per day. The trucks used to haul this soil will cause a temporary traffic impact similar to the impact of construction vehicles in general discussed in the Draft EIR at pages III -81 to III -82. RESPONSE: The redesigned project will require excavation for the eastern building to be 13 feet deeper than the project which is described in the DEIR. Referenced from the eastern side of Appian Way, there will be a 35 foot deep excavation. See response to Comment #5for further discussion. COMMENT #19: Cumulative Impacts: The Draft EIR (Table 20, p. III -83) identifies other proposed development projects in the project vicinity considered in the cumulative traffic analysis. These projects should also be considered in relation to the cumulative impacts of proposed development on the utilities and public services discussed in the Draft EIR. RESPONSE: Cumulative impacts are discussed in the DEIR for all relevant issues including: traffic, p. III -82; fire protection, p. III -97; and growth induction, p. V -1. The following statement should be added to the Wastewater section: The Santa Monica Water /Wastewater Division has expressed concern that the local sewage collection system and lift stations may be overburdened in the future by the cumulative effect of the sewage generated by the increased development in Santa Monica and areas north. COMMENT N20: Pritikin Parking: The Draft EIR incorrectly states that the 150 Pritikin parking spaces will be "replacement" spaces on page III -86. In fact, these spaces will be new spaces for Pritikin; in addition, the sponsor will I be replacing 36 parking spaces lost to Pritikin on the project site. Therefore, I the word "replacement" on line 4, p. III -86 should be deleted. VIII -25 VIII. Comments and Responses RESPONSE: Comment noted. COMMENT #21: Parking on Appian Way: The Draft EIR incorrectly states that on- street parking is permitted on Appian Way on page III -69. This should be deleted as parking is currently prohibited on this section of Appian Way. RESPONSE: Comment noted. COMMENT #22: Vehicular Access to the Promenade: The Draft EIR incorrectly states that there is vehicular access to the beach and The Promenade from Pico Boulevard on pages I -8 and III -81. In fact, there is no such vehicular access at present. RESPONSE: The Santa Monica Fire Department stated that vehicular access to the beach is possible for emergency vehicles when the locked metal pipes are removed from their positions lining The Promenade at the foot of Pico Blvd. (See p. III -96 for discussion of emergency beach access.) Comments from the City of Santa Monica, Department of Recreation and Parks, Don Arnett, Director, and Doug Stafford ....................September 3, 1987 COMMENT #23: Would the project interfere with use of the Promenade /Bike Path? RESPONSE: The following Mitigation Measure should be added: "The project permit should contain a provision prohibiting construction encroachment on the Promenade /Bike Path." The Promenade /Bike Path is intended for use by both pedestrians and bicyclists. The project, as redesigned, will incorporate retail establishments into the Promenade level frontage, as discussed in Comment #4, which will increase pedestrian traffic on the Promenade. These types of pedestrian- VIII -26 VIII. Comments and Responses serving retail establishments are commonplace on other sections of the Promenade. COMMENT N24: There would be noise from beach maintenance and bike path sweepers. RESPONSE: Comment noted. COMMENT #25: We should reserve the right to make any improvements we want to the beach area without the hotel's approval. RESPONSE: Such a provision could be made a condition of project approval. COMMENT /26: Additional information about beach lot parking fees should be presented. RESPONSE: The first half of the last paragraph on p. III -73 should read as follows: "Currently, the City of Santa Monica parking lots near the beach area require a $4.00 fee on weekdays, and a $5.00 fee weekends for all -day I parking. Monthly lot parking stickers can be purchased by area residents for $10.00 and by non -area resident, day parkers for $20...' COMMENT 027: "Paving patterns" to be added to Mitigation Measure #15, P. III -91. RESPONSE: line one, p. III -91, should be revised to read: "The landscaping, including paving patterns, for the end of Pico Blvd, should be required to be sufficiently different in design style..." COMMENT #28: Beach parking is critical in this area. Residents are now unable to find overnight parking spots in walking distance. Construction parking, workers and employees cannot impact this area. All available street and beach lot parking is now used by residents for overnight parking. The applicant should be required to provide on -site employee parking in the VIII -27 a VIII. Comments and Responses parking structure. Parking is so critical in this area that the loss of one space can impact 400 people. RESPONSE: The following Mitigation Measures have been added: The Planning Commission could require the project applicant to provide the City with an employee parking plan as a condition of project approval. (See p. III -86 for the discussion of beach parking.) The project applicant could be required to arrange for off - street parking for all construction workers. The parking meters will be relocated into the project parking garage. See response to Comment 69 for discussion of parking meters. COMMENT 629: Use of beach parking lots as a construction staging area should be prohibited. RESPONSE: The following Mitigation Measure is added: Use of the beach parking lot north of the project as a construction staging area should be prohibited. (See discussion of Construction Mitigation Measures on DEIR, p. III -93.) Comments from the City of Santa Monica, Police Department, Donn Umber, Crime Prevention Coordinator ... ...........................July 29, 1987. COMMENT 630: The residents who live adjacent to this project indicate that they experience a significant level of night -time criminal activity inclu- ding disturbances of the peace, vehicle burglaries, and narcotics activity. Police records show this to be true upon occasion. For this reason, a close look should be given at proposed security measures and design consi- derations when the time becomes appropriate. RESPONSE: The Mitigation Measure on p. III -95 could be made a condition of project approval. VIII -28 VIII. Comments and Responses Comments from the City of Santa Monica, Fire Department, En ineer Steve Locati .............. .........................August 3, 1987. COMMENT #31: I have reviewed the draft EIR for the 1 Pico Hotel and find no significant problems. I don't agree with the calculated fire flow included for the project. That issue can be resolved at sometime in the future. RESPONSE: Comment noted. (Subject is discussed in DEIR, p. III -96.) Comments from the City of Santa Monica General Services Department, Stanley E. Scholl, Director, and Desi Alvarez, City Engineer ... September 11, 1987. COMMENT #32: The clearance above Appian Way for the "bridge" should be a minimum of 16 feet from right -of -way line to right -of -way line. RESPONSE: The bridge will need to be redesigned if the City Engineer requires a 16 foot clearance. See Mitigation Measure 14, DEIR, p. III -90, and Comment #2. COMMENT #33: The proposal to have the parking garage extend under Appian Way for 2 levels will require extensive relocation of several utilities. The cost of this relocation would, of course, be borne by the developer. An engineering study is necessary before the City can make a decision regarding the feasibility of this part of the project, thus, the arrangement and amount of total parking is unclear at this time. RESPONSE: The project applicant has redesigned the underground parking. The current design allows room under Appian Way for existing utilities. See p. VIII -7. See responses to Comments #3 and #5 for further discussion. COMMENT #34: The proposal to vacate the end of Pico Boulevard has several problems. It may interfere with proposed improvements that the City would be VIII -29 VIII. Comments and Responses making to the Pico Kenter Storm Drain outlet system. These improvements would not be fully developed for approximately 5 months. RESPONSE: The following Mitigation Measure is added: "The project applicant should confer with the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works to coordinate the design and construction schedule of the landscaping of the west end of Pico Blvd with the County's planned construction for the Pico /Kenter outfal1. Coordination with the Department of Public Works should be considered a condition of project approval . Landscaping at the end of Pico would not be allowed to interfere with plans to upgrade the Pico Drain." (See discussion of the Pico /Kenter Storm Drain on DEIR pp. III -62 and II1 -104, and discussion of the west end of Pico Blvd. landscaping on DEIR pp. III -91 and I11 -112.) COMMENT #35: The parking spaces to be displaced are proposed to be relocated within the hotel. The replacement is not at all equivalent from the viewpoint of ease of public use. We recommend that payment be made for each space to be relocated of $10,000 per space to the Parking Authority so that additional public surface parking can be developed nearby. This payment will be in addition to the provision of "public spaces" within the building on the first level below the street. RESPONSE: The mitigation for the loss of the 21 metered spaces will require discussion between the City of Santa Monica and the project applicant. The project has been redesigned to provide space for parking meters visible to the public. See further discussion in the response to Comment #9. As discussed in the DEIR, p. III -88, "final parking arrangements will be deter- mined by the parking garage operator, subject to City Approval." COMMENT #36: If the street end is vacated, the owner across the street, Pritikin, will have control over the south half of the street. It is unknown if they agreed to the proposed landscaping plan. VIII -30 VIII. Comments and Responses RESPONSE: The Vice President of Development for the Pritikin Center has expressed satisfaction with the general landscaping concept that has been proposed for the foot of Pico Blvd. (telephone conversation of 17 March 1987, EIR Consultant with Bruce Parton of the Pritikin Center). COMMENT #37: This development should incorporate wastewater reclamation in the plumbing system in order to mitigate the increased sewage loading that will result. It would be necessary to recycle all wastewater in the hotel and to reduce the flow by approximately 80% over that which would otherwise be generated by an equivalent -sized hotel (46,000 gallons per day X .8 = reduction necessary). RESPONSE: This request to recycle hotel wastewater will require an in -house wastewater treatment system. The system will require the approval of the County Health Department and the RWQCB. There are available, currently, wastewater treatment systems designed for installation in projects of this size. These systems are designed to treat some of the wastewater produced in the facility to standards that would allow water reuse for landscaping water needs or for disposal directly into the Pico Drain. Further study is required for this issue. The project applicant and City Engineers should discuss the various systems that are available. A general wastewater treatment plan will be required j for project approval. These plans should also include water conservation measures to aid in reduction of wastewater generation (as discussed in the DEIR, pp. III -58 and -61). COMMENT #38: No interruption of the bikeway will be permitted during construction or any other time. VIII -31 VIII. Comments and Responses RESPONSE: The project applicant should be required to protect the Promenade with a standard pedestrian safety covered structure during construction of the western section of the project. COMMENT #39: Provide paved detour road onsite for Appian Way 24 feet in width throughout the construction. RESPONSE: The project applicant should be required to provide plans for phased construction which would include a period where a detour would be routed through the project site to be used by Appian Way traffic while construction is going on below Appian Way. Because the bridge over Appian must be anchored to new buildings on both sides of the street, it is probable that Appian Way traffic cannot be rerouted on site during construction. This traffic would have to detour via Ocean. As in the case of construction under Appian Way (DEIR p. III -92, Mitigation Measure 1) , there should be a requirement that construction over Appian Way not take place during a peak tourist time of year. Comments from the City of Santa Monica, Department of General Services, Water/ Wastewater Division, John E. Hoagland, Administrative Water Engineer ...................... ........................August 17, 1987. COMMENT #40: I have reviewed the subject EIR. The storm drainage section, I.4. does not mention plans to reconstruct the Pico /Kenter outfall by raising the elevation four to ten feet above the existing grade. This construction, envisioned within the next two to four years, would have a significant impact on the developer's plans for Pico Blvd. west of Appian Way. All other portions of the EIR, pertaining to the Water /Wastewater Division appear to be substantially correct. RESPONSE: See response to Comment #34. VIII -32 VIII. Comments and Responses Comments from the City of Santa Monica, Department of Public Works, Division of Traffic Engineering, Ray Davis, P.E., Traffic Engineer.. August 25, 1987. COMMENT #41: The addition of "on non -peak days" and "is proposed to" on page III -69. RESPONSE: The sentence beginning on line 12, p. III -69, is revised to read: "This portion of Pico Place is proposed to be vacated for construction of the project." The sentence which begins the "Existing Traffic Volumes" section on p. III -69, is revised to read: "Traffic in the project neighbor- hood is relatively light on non -peak days." COMMENT #42: The new Highway Capacity Manual provides a methodology to analyze non- signalized intersections. This methodology should be used for the intersection of Appian and Pico. RESPONSE: The intersection of Appian Way and Pico Blvd. has been analyzed assuming Appian Way to be the "major street." The intersection is at LOS "A" and would remain at LOS "A" with the project and five years of cumula- tive traffic increase. (A copy of these analyses is available for public viewing at the City Planning Division.) See DEIR p. III -72 for a discussion of the applicability of this method to this intersection. Given the wide margin by which the LOS "A" is achieved by the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual method, the LOS would not be expected to be affected by the particular nature of this intersection. COMMENT #43: The discussion of probable error of traffic counts is confu- sing and should be eliminated from the body of the report. RESPONSE: Comment noted. This discussion is located at the top of p. III -80. COMMENT #44: The construction plan does not address how the removal of soil from the job site will be facilitated. Where will the vehicles be staged, VIII -33 VIII. Comments and Responses etc.? In addition, there is no discussion as to how traffic should be detoured. RESPONSE: The project applicant has not provided staging information. The City could impose conditions on staging areas in order to minimize impacts on traffic. See response to Comment #18 for further discussion of construc- tion traffic. The City should require relocation of utilities under Appian Way early in construction while traffic can still be detoured on site. The City should require all traffic detouring plans to be discussed with 6 - the City Traffic Engineer. The City could prescribe routes for large trucks to minimize construction impacts by restricting trucks to streets best able to handle additional traffic. The City could require that hauling of excavated soil not take place during rush hours to minimize truck effects on area traffic. The City could require that major deliveries of construction materials be scheduled during non -rush hour times. COMMENT 145: How will the displaced parking during construction be facil- itated? RESPONSE: Project applicant could be required to make a study of off - street parking availability within about 4 to 6 blocks of the site before the initiation of construction and to make information about parking facilities, not generally full, available to the Pritikin Center, apartment managers near the project and any other major users of the site. The construction site could be posted with such information for beach goers. VIII -34 VIII. Comments and Responses COMMENT #46: Is mitigation measure 1 suggesting a public easement to fa- cilitate access to the Drake Hotel? RESPONSE: Mitigation Measure 1 in the DEIR, P. III -89, suggests an arrange- ment to be made between the operator of the proposed hotel and the operator of the Drake Hotel that would allow the Drake Hotel's delivery trucks to access the Hotel by way of the proposed hotel's loading dock driveway. The project design in the DEIR includes a driveway, located within the project site boundaries, along the eastern edge of the hotel from Vicente Terrace to approximately the present location of Pico Place. This would be a private driveway, not available to the general public. Whatever arrangements are made should be legally binding and provided at no cost to the Hotel Drake which is entitled to permanent truck access. The project has been revised and the footprint of the eastern building has been relocated so that the 11 ft. setback along the eastern edge of the project has been partially eliminated. (See plans on p. VIII -16.) The service driveway has been relocated to allow access by way of a 6 ft. service alley off Pico Blvd., along the eastern edge of the project exten- ding to the vacated Pico Place. The alley entrance is at the southeast cor- ner of the project. This design will also allow truck access to the service entrance of the Hotel Drake. This Mitigation Measure is added: Provision for truck access to the Hotel Drake should be required as a condition of project approval. COMMENT #47: No mitigation measures have been recommended for any of the impacted intersections. RESPONSE: The impacted intersections have been examined by a California- registered traffic engineer. He observed the traffic signal phasing and VIII -35 VIII. Comments and Responses the lane configurations and concluded that the intersections would not be improved by any mitigation measures. (See memo from Martin Wallen, P.E. to Gilbert Bendix, P.E., September 22, 1987, following the set of Comments.) COMMENT #48: Parking mitigation measure 2 should emphasize that the desig- nation of the public parking spaces be clearly marked and signed so they are in fact used by the public. RESPONSE: Mitigation Measure 2 on p. III -91 is revised to read: "There should be a sign which clearly indicates that there is self- parking avail- able to the public in the project garage. The sign should be visible at the end of Pico Blvd." COMMENT #49: There is no real cost associated with parking Mitigation Measure 5, DEIR p. III -92. RESPONSE: Comment noted. Comments from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los i Angeles Region, Michael Sowby, Environmental Specialist IV ... July 31, 1987. COMMENT #50: We have reviewed the document... In general we are advising that the sanitary sewer system within the Hyperion service area is currently experiencing capacity problems. A written confirmation stating that there will be available capacity at the time of connection must be obtained from the City of Los Angeles, Bureau of Sanitation with a copy sent to this Regional Board. RESPONSE: The Planning Commission should require that this written confir- mation be obtained by the project applicant from the City of Los Angeles as a condition of project approval. (See the discussion of Hyperion Wastewater Treatment Plant on p. III -60.) VIII -36 VIII- Comments and Responses Comments from Paula Boelsems ...... .........................August 15, 1981 I believe that the following will be adversely effected and would like the EIR to properly address them: COMMENT 951: The city has just removed up to 20 metered spaces one block away (south) at Appian and Bay. The south beach parking lot has been reduced by 100 -200 spaces. RESPONSE: The 20 metered spaces were removed from Bay St, at Appian Way when the area was landscaped by the City to provide a more park -like quality to the area and to allow a reconfiguration of the parking lot traffic lanes for more efficient beach parking lot access. It is not clear which south beach parking lot is being referred to in this comment. The Traffic Divi- sion was contacted and was unaware of this loss of "100 -200 spaces." COMMENT 952: (Pico is) ... one of three of four streets that you may drive a handicapped, disabled or young child close to sand and let them out. (The others)...are much narrower and not as safe. RESPONSE: The project applicant has included a stairway, a ramp and a vehicle drop -off area in the proposed vacated landscaped area of Pico Blvd., west of Appian Way (see Mitigation Measures 98 and 915, pp. III -90 and -91). City Council approval of street vacations will be required. See discussion of handicapped access in the DEIR, p. III -81. COMMENT 953: Narrowing of Barnard Way and new traffic patterns south of Pico congests traffic. RESPONSE: The City of Santa Monica Traffic Division has reconfigured the area south of Pico Blvd. There is no longer a roadway running directly from Barnard Way to Ocean Front Walk and ultimately to Appian Way. The proposed project will not have a direct effect on Barnard Way traffic. VIII -31 VIII. Comments and Responses COMMENT 854: Effect of these factors inhibit the access to the beach area by the public and reduces still further parking in an area that requires more now and will need more in the future. I object to the giving of public property and right of way for private property benefit. RESPONSE: Comment noted. COMMENT 855: People with vans and campers cannot park in garages. RESPONSE: See response to Comment 89. Comments from Paula Boelsems ........ ......................September 3, 1987 COMMENT 856: As a private citizen who has lived in the city of Santa Monica for over 50 years, I am writing to express my opinion of the EIR ... I do not object to a hotel being built on this property. However, I do believe the development should not adversely effect the area and the general public to such a degree as proposed. RESPONSE: Comment noted. COMMENT 857: A traffic count made on a Monday Evening, March 30 between 5 and 6 p.m. would be irrelevant to the main traffic on this street and would produce an inaccurate count for the intersection of Appian Way and Pico... I use the streets in this area regularly... I object to the traffic count that is being used for this EIR. The day and time the count was made would be dusk or dark on a more than likely cold, possibly rainy, day. If it were taken during the afternoon of a warm California day, the count would be much different. The street of Appian Way services the beach traffic which is very heavy throughout the year on any warm to hot week -end and even more so during any sunny day of the summer months. RESPONSE: On March 30 in Santa Monica, sunset is after 6:00 p.m., so the count was made before dusk or darkness. Time of count was chosen after the VIII -38 VIII. Comments and Responses EIR consultant observed the intersection on a clear, warm Sunday afternoon (October 5, 1986) and found traffic to be light. According to the National Climatic Data Center, on March 30, 1987, in Santa Monica, morning tempera- tures reached 74° F with scattered cloud cover between 10 and 50 %. At 6:00 p.m., the temperature was 63° F with between 60 and 90% cloud cover, visi- bility of 20 miles and winds at 14 knots. This period of weekday evening commute hours was chosen for the traffic study because there was concern expressed by the Traffic Division about general cumulative commuter traffic impacts and the cumulative traffic impacts of vehicular access to Civic Center offices, open on weekdays. COMMENT #58: On week -ends, it (Appian Way) is most often backed up in both directions from Pico to the Pacific Coast Highway ingress approximately 10 blocks to the North. All traffic entering at this point must continue to Pico on Appian as there is no left hand turn allowed until this intersection except for one alley... Contrary to the report that the streets are in grid formation, there is only one street other than Pico on which there is two way traffic between the beach and Ocean Ave. This creates a traffic jam which is unique to the area. The other street is Seaside Terrace. This street is a vital road leading to and from Ocean Avenue directly to the Lifeguard Headquarters and also to the few Beach parking lots in the area. At the intersection of Seaside Terrace and Ocean Avenue there is no left hand turn North for the traffic going East, up the hill, on Seaside so all of this traffic must proceed South on Ocean to the intersection of Ocean Avenue and Pico or make unsafe U -turns on Ocean Avenue. RESPONSE: "Grid formation" does not imply two -way traffic, only that I intersecting streets are at right angles to each other. VIII -39 VIII. Comments and Responses The DEIR includes a discussion of the predicted increase in traffic on Ocean generated by the proposed hotel (p. III -78). These calculations include the cars that were required to travel south on Ocean Avenue briefly before making a U -turn at the intersection of Pico and Ocean to allow travel north on Ocean (an activity suggested by the commenter). COMMENT #59: There is no traffic survey for the intersection of Seaside Terrace and Ocean Avenue or for Seaside and Appian which will be greatly affected on beach days. RESPONSE: Traffic counts were performed at the seven intersections which were selected for investigation by the City of Santa Monica Traffic Divi- sion on the basis of perceived greatest potential impact by the proposed project. COMMENT 060: Entrance and exit to the large parking lot North of the Santa Monica pier and six smaller beach parking lots south of the pier to Vicente Terrace must use Appian Way for entrance and exit. All of these lots fill easily and remain so during the day in summer and on week -ends through out the year. RESPONSE: The DEIR concurs that "the lots are often full" (p. III -73) and discusses the City of Santa Monica's specific concern about the parking lot at 1750 Appian (p. III -86). COMMENT #61: The proposed garage entrance on the East side of Appian Way will disrupt the flow of traffic on this street. The proposed planned hotel entrance on the West side of Appian at the vacated Pico Boulevard will also disrupt the present traffic flow more than stated in the report. With valet parking it will mean that the cars will be driven out of the i proposed motor court facing East on Pico to make a left hand turn into VIII -40 VIII. Comments and Responses Appian Way in a northerly direction. On the return trip the car will be driven out of the garage on the East side of Appian Way, make a left hand turn to the South and proceed to the motor court. The angle of this proposed garage entrance seems to invite left hand turns from southbound traffic on Appian Way. Both of these factors will increase the traffic flow and danger on this small street causing more congestion and the possibility of accidents. The garage on the opposite side of the street will increase pedestrian crossing. Entrance for the proposed hotel and garage on the same side of the street would ff disrupt the flow of traffic less than this proposed plan. I RESPONSE: The project applicant has located the main hotel entrance in the j western building of the project, nearer to the beach, to emphasize the beach i" resort nature of the hotel . The parking garage entrance is located on Appian Way for the reasons cited in the DEIR pp. III -86 and -88. Relocation of the garage entrance to west side for the Appian Way would require the valet attendants to make two left turns when driving to the garage but no left turns when returning the car to the motor court, for the same number of left turns required by the proposed design. According to the project applicant's current plans, valet parking will be provided for all hotel guests. Therefore, one would not expect much hotel guest pedestrian traffic between the garage entrance on I the east side of Appian Way and the hotel entrance on Pico Blvd., west of j Appian Way. The Appian Way bridge is the design element intended to reduce hotel guest pedestrian traffic crossing Appian Way (see DEIR, p. III -81). See Mitigation Measures 7 and 8 DEIR, p. III -92, for discussion of valet parking. As stated in the DEIR, p. III -88, "final parking arrangements will be determined by the parking garage operator, subject to City approval." COMMENT N62: Although the number of parking spaces to be provided by the project is stated as 350 places, I do not believe this is a sufficient number for VIII -41 VIII. Comments and Responses a project of this size or for the planned activities. This is an area where there is a shortage of parking for the people who live or work there. Many thousands more come regularly to enjoy the beach, pier and open area. The majority of the housing in this area was built when parking was not required and there was plenty of public transportation. RESPONSE: As is discussed in text on p. III -86 and presented in Table 22, p. III -87, of the DEIR, the project applicant is required by the City of Santa Monica to provide 192 parking spaces. The project has been redesigned to provide 495 parking spaces, 145 more than originally proposed in the DEIR. COMMENT #63: According to how the footage is counted by the developers, it is stated that they only need 135 spaces to meet the city requirement. This is for 196 rooms, 187 employees, plus a restaurant, meetings rooms and a health club, all of which will draw people with cars... At a proposed occupancy rate of 65% there would be approximately 108 cars plus those cars of staff and any people using the restaurant, a meeting room, the health club, visiting guest, etc. and, in my opinion, would mean that 135 required parking places are insufficient. RESPONSE: The project parking demand has been calculated using the standard formula in the Santa Monica Municipal Code and by a Traffic Engineer on the basis of standard engineering practice (see DEIR, p. III -86 and -87) . COMMENT #64: The statement of 158 excess parking places being built over code and replacement requirement is misleading. Although there is mention of the replacement of the 21 street parking places on Pico to be lost and the 36 Pritikin Group parking spaces on the lots to be vacated there is no mention of the 68 other parking spaces on the lots that will be lost and are used regularly. It also mentions that Pritikin Group will contract monthly for the use of 114 more parking spaces. The total of these two groups of parking places not VIII -42 VIII. Comments and Responses accounted for in the report is 182. 215 parking spaces minus 182 is 33 parking spaces that may be left for the publ ic, but more than 1 ikely will be needed by I the hotel guest and staff. RESPONSE: The project applicant has increased the number of parking spaces from 350 in the DEIR to the redesigned project with 495. See response to Comment N5. The City is requiring that the project applicant replace 36 parking spaces presently on the project site. As discussed in the DEIR, p. III -86, the project applicant has entered into a private contract for parking with the Pritikin Center. This contract provides parking for the Pritikin Center beyond what is required by the City. (See Mitigation Measure 4, DEIR, p. III -91 for discussion of Pritikin parking demand.) Hotel staff parking is discussed in Mitigation Measure 4, DEIR, p. III -91. COMMENT A65: Not mentioned in the report is that parking on Vicente Terrace will probably have to be eliminated. This residential street is 15 feet wide and will not accommodate some of the delivery trucks that will be forced to use it. This will add to the parking problems. There is an apartment building with 18 units plus several duplexes and 3 houses all with rental units and no parking on i site on Vicente Terrace... The use of Vicente Terrace as a delivery street is unfair to the residents of that street. RESPONSE: The entrance to the service truck alley has been moved to Pico Blvd. Therefore, Vicente Terrace will not be used for truck access. See response to Comment N46 for further discussion. VIII -43 VIII. Comments and Responses COMMENT #66: Hotel garages cannot take vans and trucks, therefore owners of these vehicles will have less choice to park in the beach area. RESPONSE: See response to Comment #9. COMMENT #67: Of all the factors of why Pico Boulevard West of Appian Way should not be vacated in the favor of this project is the magnificent view open to al l coming West down the hill on Pico. It is the only street where the ocean and breakers can be seen unobstructed. RESPONSE: The Ocean view as seen by people coming down Pico Blvd. may be affected by the Pico landscaping. The project has proposed adding a fountain in the center of the drop- off /turn- around section, just west of Appian Way. This area will be raised to provide a level area extending from the Pico /Appian intersection to the top of the stairs. From that point, the stairs and ramp will descend down to the beach. In addition, the redesigned landscaping includes lawn berm areas on the beach. The City should require assurance by the project applicant that these berms will not be built up to an elevation that could interfere with the Ocean view down Pico. Due to the considerable grade of Pico Blvd. east of Appian, the view impact of the raised grade of the fountain area will be noticeable in the stretch of Pico immediately east of Appian, but this effect will taper off rapidly for points further east. All landscaping should be designed and reviewed with open Ocean views in mind to preserve the view corridor. COMMENT #68: According to the drawings in the EIR, it appears the plans are to build underneath Pico; (I could find no mention in the text) . One proposed level for parking under the street level as it is now and raise the level for the proposed patio at the foot of Pico one level all the way from Appian Way to the steps that will then lead down to the Promenade. This will effect the VIII -44 VIII. Comments and Responses Environment in several ways: 1) It will block the unique view. 2) It will limit the access to the beach by the public, the handicapped, the very young and the very old. 3) It will increase traffic congestion. RESPONSE: There are no plans to build under Pico Blvd. See the response to the previous Comment for view concerns. See response to Comment #52 for beach access concerns. Since Pico west of Appian has been and will continue to be a dead -end, the vacation and redesign for the foot of Pico Blvd. will have no noticeable effect on traffic congestion. COMMENT #69: I suggest the city not vacate the end for Pico and the developers of the hotel use part of their own property to have their motor court and car turn around. RESPONSE: Comment noted. COMMENT #70: The proposal of connecting the two buildings with a bridge over Appian Way will change the view and feel of the street. A bridge of 50 foot width (over street of 40 foot width) will create a tunnel effect. Awalkway of 15 to 20 feet would be sufficient. The ample promenade along the beach is only 20 feet. RESPONSE: The project applicant has redesigned the Appian Way bridge, narrowing it from 56 ft. to 54 ft. COMMENT #71: It (the area under the Appian Way bridge) will lend itself to graffiti. RESPONSE: The hotel management will have a marketing incentive to keep all building surfaces clean. VIII -45 VIII. Comments and Responses COMMENT #72: The placing of a kitchen underground in this area does not seem practical: Water table level is very high and will probably have to be pumped constantly... Inquiries should be made into the problems encountered in Venice with the new building built on the promenade known as the Venice plunge or Bathhouse while it was being developed. It took several years to finish due to the water problem during the original excavation for construction. RESPONSE: See DEIR, pp. III -2, III -63, and Mitigation Measure 5, p. III -4 and Mitigation Measures 1 and 2, p. III -64 for discussion of the water table and dewatering. The Comment referring to the Venice excavation problems is noted. The construction contractor should discuss the possibility of encountering similar problems during this project with City engineers. COMMENT #73: Proximity (of the kitchen) to the water disposal channel that frequently has had a higher pollution ratio than is considered safe is poor planning..... There will be a definite hazard of polluted water seepage after a run off from a storm. RESPONSE: The project has been redesigned to locate one -third of the kitchen facilities on the Lobby Level, above grade. It is difficult to determine if there would be a problem with seepage from the Pico Drain. This could be determined at the time of excavation. If the Los Angeles County Health Department expresses concern about the location of the remaining below grade kitchen facilities, the project applicant will be required to relocate those facilities. (See DEIR, Mitigation Measure 2, p. III -64.) The quality of the water flowing out of the Pico Drain has been the subject of public and governmental agency discussions for several years. There is currently a joint program being developed by the City of Santa Monica, the Los Angeles County Department of Flood i Control, the Los Angeles County Health Department, and the RWQCB to improve VIII -46 VIII. Comments and Responses the quality of this water which flows into Santa Monica Bay, (See DEIR, P. III -62, for discussion of the Pico Drain.) COMMENT #74: If planned excavation under Appian Way is proposed for the i dry season, it means a major beach thoroughfare will be closed during the height of the beach season. RESPONSE: See DEIR, p, 111-81-82, for this discussion. See response to Comment #39 for discussion of construction activity under Appian Way, COMMENT #75: Lack of tinted glass on the west side of building is not considerate of their guests. RESPONSE: This Comment does not address an environmental impact, therefore a response is not considered necessary, COMMENT #76: Required set back variances are requested for every lot line except the Promenade. This seems unwise to overbuild on a site in an area that the City has tried to prevent crowding for 30 years and therefore, began the Ocean Park Development Project. The standard set backs are for a purpose and should be followed in this case to prevent the walled in, tunnel feeling in an area in which everyone should enjoy the openness of the beach area. RESPONSE: See response to Comment #7 for discussion of setbacks. COMMENT #77: Vicente Terrace is vacated for vehicular traffic West of Appian Way but is a much needed and used walkway for the public. It is also used to park motorcycles and bicycles and should not be built upon. RESPONSE: In the revised plan, the project applicant has proposed that the section of Vicente Terrace west of Appian Way is to remain a public beach VIII -47 VIII. Comments and Responses access but the area would be landscaped with lawn and bordering trees. .Presumably, no motorcycle parking would be allowed. COMMENT #78: The use of the hotel for large gatherings will adversely effect the area traffic and noise level. No matter what the city may request, a hotel cannot restrict the use of automobiles by their customers. RESPONSE: Comment noted. See discussion of noise levels in the DEIR, p. III -22, and traffic impacts, beginning on P. III -74. COMMENT X79: Bicyclists, pedestrians, and beachgoers will be adversely effected in their access to the beach from the removal of a street that has been used by the public for 100 years. RESPONSE: See response to Comment #52. COMMENT #80: Where will the taxis queue? RESPONSE: The taxis will queue in the turn - around /drop -off area within the hotel court and then, presumably, any overflow queuing will spill over into the fountain /drop -off area. The project does not anticipate more than 4 or 5 taxis queuing at the hotel entrance at one time. COMMENT 881: Closing of Pico will restrict easy access to the beach front for emergency vehicles, fire trucks, police and lifeguards. RESPONSE: See discussion of emergency access in the DEIR, pp. III -81 and -96. VIII -48 VIII. Comments and Responses the quality of this water which flows into Santa Monica Bay. (See DEIR, P. III -62, for discussion of the Pico Drain,) COMMENT #74: If planned excavation under Appian Way is proposed for the dry season, it means a major beach thoroughfare will be closed during the height I of the beach season. RESPONSE: See DEIR, p, 111-81-82, for this discussion. See response to Comment #39 for discussion of construction activity under Appian Way. COMMENT #75: Lack of tinted glass on the west side of building is not considerate of their guests. RESPONSE: This Comment does not address an environmental impact, therefore a response is not considered necessary. COMMENT #76: Required set back variances are requested for every lot line except the Promenade. This seems unwise to overbuild on a site in an area that the City has tried to prevent crowding for 30 years and therefore, began the Ocean Park Development Project. The standard set backs are for a purpose and should be followed in this case to prevent the walled in, tunnel feeling in an area in which everyone should enjoy the openness of the beach area. RESPONSE: See response to Comment #7 for discussion of setbacks. COMMENT #77: Vicente Terrace is vacated for vehicular traffic West of Appian Way but is a much needed and used walkway for the public. It is also used to park motorcycles and bicycles and should not be built upon. RESPONSE: In the revised plan, the project applicant has proposed that the section of Vicente Terrace west of Appian Way is to remain a public beach VIII -47 VIII. Comments and Responses access but the area would be landscaped with lawn and bordering trees. .Presumably, no motorcycle parking would be allowed. COMMENT N78: The use of the hotel for large gatherings will adversely effect the area traffic and noise level. No matter what the city may request, a hotel cannot restrict the use of automobiles by their customers. RESPONSE: Comment noted. See discussion of noise levels in the DEIR, p. III -22, and traffic impacts, beginning on P. III -74. COMMENT N79: Bicyclists, pedestrians, and beachgoers will be adversely effected in their access to the beach from the removal of a street that has been used by the public for 100 years. RESPONSE: See response to Comment t52. COMMENT #80: Where will the taxis queue? I RESPONSE: The taxis will queue in the turn - around /drop -off area within the hotel court and then, presumably, any overflow queuing will spill over into the fountain /drop -off area. The project does not anticipate more than 4 or 5 taxis queuing at the hotel entrance at one time. COMMENT N81: Closing of Pico will restrict easy access to the beach front for emergency vehicles, fire trucks, police and lifeguards. RESPONSE: See discussion of emergency access in the DEIR, pp. III -81 and -96. VIII -48 VIII. Comments and Responses Comments from Anne Owens- Sterman . ......................September 6, 1987 COMMENT #82: I am the owner of the small "Drake Hotel." This building would engulf: my air space, circulation, sun -light and most importantly, my livelihood. RESPONSE: The Hotel Drake will be affected by the proposed project in several ways. Shadow impacts are discussed in text on p. III -26 and illus- trated on pp. III -28 and -30. A measure to mitigate the impact of the vacation of Pico Place with the resulting loss of the delivery truck access route for the Hotel Drake is presented on III -89 in the DEIR with further elaboration in the response to Comment #46. In the revised design, there will be a 6 ft. wide truck access alley on the eastern edge of the project with access from Pico Blvd (see p. VIII -16 for location). When two properties have a common property line either one will be effected by construction on the other. COMMENT #83: The arrogance of the project changes the Master Plan... RESPONSE: The need for a General Plan Amendment will depend on the final design of the project and Planning Code interpretation by the Planning Commission and staff. See DEIR, p. III -47 for discussion concerning the General Plan Amendment. COMMENT #84: ...and tax - payer's rights to beach access by vacating Pico Blvd. RESPONSE: See the response to Comment #52. COMMENT #85: The proposed patio is private. RESPONSE: The proposed patio, at the Promenade /beach level, is adjacent to the southwest corner of the site, located at the foot of Pico Blvd. in the VIII -49 VIII. Comments and Responses area proposed to be vacated. The Planning Commission will decide if the patio will be allowed as part of the project, when it determines how much of the foot of Pico Blvd. is to be vacated. See discussion of this vaca- tion in the DEIR, pp. I -2, I -8, II -4, and III -44. COMMENT #86: The proposed bridge is private. RESPONSE: The bridge is included in the project to provide continuity for the two halves of the site. It also provides a safer route for pedestrian travel between the buildings (see discussion in the DEIR, p. III -81). See responses to Comments #2 and #70 for further discussion. COMMENT #87: To close public streets so that the developer can increase the size of his building, which is already beyond 56 ft at Appian Way is not uniform growth as currently on the book. RESPONSE: Comment noted. The eastern building of the proposed project will conform to the 56 foot height limit of the Land Use Element. COMMENT #88: Appian Way and Vicente Terrace would be inaccessible for sev- eral months... RESPONSE: See responses to Comments #3, #33 and #44. COMMENT #89: ... not to mention the taking of my police, fire, guest and emergency access of Vicente Place, the alley behind my building. RESPONSE: Access to the Hotel Drake by way of Pico Place off Appian Way will be lost following the building of the proposed hotel on the site. Pico Place will be vacated and covered by the eastern building of the hotel. See the response to Comment #46 and Mitigation Measure 1 in the DEIR, p. III -89 for discussion of access to the Hotel Drake. COMMENT #90: This area is zoned for hotels, and I encourage the development VIII -50 VIII. Comments and Responses of hotels here, however not at my and the beach -going tax - payer's inconven- ience. As a business- women, and a member of a minority group (black), who has brought jobs to the area, this project would put me out of business. It is already difficult to remain in business in Santa Monica. RESPONSE: Comment noted. Comments from Libby Willis ......... ......................September 7, 1987 COMMENT #91: I object very strenuously to a hotel being built south of the Pier at Pico and Promenade. Removing the 20 parking meters and parking places at the foot of Pico and use of this for a hotel patio is ignoring the needs of residents of Santa Monica. There will be a greater loss of parking spaces, it will add to our traffic problems and will make it impos- sible on weekends to visit the beach. Please reconsider and veto the Hotel Plans. RESPONSE: See responses to Comments #9 for parking meters discussion, and #85 for the patio discussion. Comments from Dr. N.J. and Gudrun Goldstein ...............September 7, 1987 COMMENT #92: ...It will interfere with the development of a nice residential area on this street... Vicente Terrace is a short narrow street with tremen- dous shortage of parking for the people who live here: Most of the houses were built when parking was not required There is an apartment building with 18 units plus several duplexes and 3 houses all with rental units and no parking on site on Vicente Terrace. ° Guests from the Bar and Restaurant "Mucky Duck" take over many parking spaces on Vicente Terrace (and surrounding streets) every night. ° There are thousands of beachgoers all year long, especially on sunny weekends driving down this street looking for parking. Studying the plans carefully, I feel that parking on Vicente Terrace will VIII -51 VIII. Comments and Responses probably have to be eliminated. Our street is only 15 feet wide and will not accomodate some of the delivery trucks that will have to use this street to get to the delivery entrance. Considering all this, the closing down of parking lots and parking on Pico Blvd., there is not sufficient 1 parking spaces provided by the developers, even if they meet more than the City requirements. RESPONSE: See responses to Comments 646 and 665 for a discussion of the revised service truck access. COMMENT 693: A traffic count made on Monday evening, March 30 between 5 and 6 p.m. on the intersection of Appian Way and Pico Blvd, is irrelevent, as it was most likely a cool, dark day. Taken during the afternoon of a warm California day, the count would be much different. The traffic on Appian Way is heavy throughout the year on any warm to hot weekend and even more during any sunny day of the summer months. On those days there is always a traffic jam on Appian Way going to the intersection of Pico Blvd. RESPONSE: See response to Comment 657. COMMENT 694: The garage entrance of the Hotel on the East side of Appian Way will disrupt the flow of the traffic even more. RESPONSE: See responses to Comments 661. COMMENT 695: Vacating the end of Pico... by giving it to the Hotel use and raising up the level at the foot of Pico will not only take away a magni- ficent view of the Ocean (coming down Pico) ... RESPONSE: See response to Comment 667. COMMENT 696: ... but will also limit the access to the beach by the public, especially the handicapped and old people. RESPONSE: See response to Comment 652. VIII -52 VIII. Comments and Responses COMMENT #97: A bridge of 50 foot width over a street of 40 foot width will be very offensive and create a tunnel effect in an area in which everyone should be able to enjoy the openness of the beach area. RESPONSE: See response to Comment #2. COMMENT #98: Required setback variances are requested for every lot line. except the Promenade. This will mean overbuilding in an area that the City has tried to prevent crowding for many years. Even with standard setbacks, having the delivery entrance on Vicente Terrace would create a walled in feeling and would degrade Vicente Terrace to a back alley. { RESPONSE: The project has been redesigned to increase project setbacks (see Comment i7 and figure on p. VIII -16). The Planning Commission will decide if setback variances should be allowed for the proposed project. See the responses to Comments #46 and #65 for discussion about impacts on Vicente Terrace. COMMENT #99: As a recent home- owner, _I started to remodel my home at 17 Vicente Terrace which adds esthetical]y_..to the appearance of the neighbor - hood. Also the house next to mine has beenr@rodeled and other neighbors put their pride and effort into mak flea visual contribution to the quality of the neighborhood. Having a de very entrance-on this residential street will not only be offensive and unbearable to this neighborhood, but to the beach loving community in general. Enclosed are two recent photographs taken of the center of Vicente Terrace which show that this neighborhood is being upgraded and renewed. These photographs should serve to dispell any questions regarding the present and potential character of this residential neighborhood. RESPONSE: Comment noted. Photographs have been included. VIII -53 VIII. Comments and Responses Residents of Vicente Terrace and Seaview Terrace: Ric Alonso Laura Huestt. Angela Alvarez David Kessler Dolly Anderson John E. Krause Elaine Anderson Peggy Lebo Bart Baker Julio Leigh Errp Isabel Ballantyne David R. Lahn Robert Ballantyne Sari Pringle Ron Belczyk J. Rasal Dolores A. Davidson Laurence J. Seested Henry L. Duval Estelle H. Senger Ludwiun Faldstein Lovella Singer Ilana L. Fiorenze Alex Wallace Barbara Gemmel] Joanne Wallace Gary Green N. Weldstes Rosa Gutierrez ................. ......................September 7, 1987 COMMENT #100: ...it will change a bad parking situation into an intolerable one. There are at least 45 -50 people living on Vicente Terrace with street parking for only 14 cars. Any variances which would lead to diminished parking on this street would be a great burden to the residents. RESPONSE: See the responses to Comments #46 and #65. COMMENT #101: I feel this is the last vacant piece of property with public access going down to the beach. Any private efforts to develop the land commercially would be an environmental blight not only to the residents of this neighborhood but to the greater community in general. RESPONSE: See the response to Comment #52 `for beach access discussion. I The City of Santa Monica cannot preserve undeveloped areas unless there are monies available for acquisition for public open space. COMMENT #102: Progressive efforts by the City to upgrade this area and turn it into a public recreational park would enhance the environment, true to the spirit of the citizens and the administration of Santa Monica. RESPONSE: Comment noted. VIII -54 CITY OF SA: 71 MOn c p -. CITY PL.Atil;.: '87 AUG 39 P4 :15 R.E. INTERNATIONAL HOTELS GROUP 9460 Wilshire Boulevard Beverly Hills, California 90212 September 4, 1987 Ms. Karen Rosenberg Santa Monica Planning Division 1685 Main Street Santa Monica, California 90401 Re: Comments on Draft EIR, One Pico Hotel EIA No. 814; State - Clearinghouse No. 86072303 Dear Ms. Rosenberg: The enclosed corrections and comments to the above - referenced Draft EIR are submitted on behalf of the project sponsor, R.E. International Hotels Group. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation. Sincerely, Clare gronowski ___, Project Sponsor -,, tepresentative Draft EIR, One Pico Hotel EIA No. 814; State Clearinghouse No. 86072303 Comments on the Draft EIR: 1. Design and Floor Plan Update: Various modifications and refinements have been made in the hotel design which will serve to mitigate some of the impacts identified in the Draft EIR. These include: a) Appian Way Bridge and Underpass: The design has been modified to minimize the building area over and under Appian Way. In response to concerns regarding visual impacts, the width of the pedestrian bridge has been reduced. The clearance under the bridge has been increased ' to - _fourteen feet. The space to be occupied under the street has been substantially reduced and will now consist of one or two service tunnels for use by hotel employees. These modifications will serve to reduce the visual impact of the bridge on views and on the public's perception of Appian Way as a public thoroughfare. The modifications will also reduce the need for excavation under the street and, thus, reduce the temporary impacts on traffic -of the construction activity. b) Ground Level Promenade Frontage: The current design contains public, pedestrian- oriented uses including restaurants and retail along the entire ground level frontage-91-The ,Promenade. This modification better achieves the Land Use Eleme „1olicies encouraging0 pedestrian - oriented uses in this a and =the Coastal Commission's policy to increase public uses on the beachfront. There are no longer any guestrooms planned on the promenade level frontage .- c) Parking: All parking is now proposed to be located under the parcel east of Appian Way and there are no parking spaces or ramps under Appian Way. There is also additional parking planned, for a total of 430 parking spaces. These modifications will improve circulation into and in the parking area and will provide over 200 spaces more than necessary to meet code and replacement parking requirements. d) East Building Design: The building on the parcel east of Appian Way will no longer have an atrium design or the progressive setback of balconies. The building will remain the same height above grade but will include an additional level of guestrooms. The number of guestrooms per floor has been reduced from 32 to 28. This design significantly reduces the overall massing of the east building by providing an open "horseshoe" facade facing the beach, rather than a large, single block with an interior atrium. The effect will be visually lighter and more compatible with the beachfront area. This design modification also provides all guestrooms with exterior windows for light and ventilation and almost all guestrooms with direct or partial ocean views. e) Setbacks: The building footprint has been relocated and setbacks increased on Pico Boulevard and The Promenade. These proposed setbacks are now 5' on Pico Boulevard and 2' on The Promenade which will achieve the mitigation of visual impacts on the beachfront and beach approach discussed in the Draft EIR. (DEIR, p. III -22.) ( 2. Financial Projections: The revenue projections for the hotel in the Draft EIR are extremely conservative and are based upon a lower than anticipated average room rate and a bed tax rate of 8 %, rather than the current 10% rate. (DEIR, p. III - 99.) The City will realize a much larger financial benefit from the proposed hotel than is stated in the Draft EIR. The project sponsor has provided the Planning Division with an analysis of the projected benefits to the City prepared by Kenneth Leventhal & Company. This analysis is available to the public in the Planning Division office. Benefits generated by the City's transient occupancy tax are projected to be $1,058,000 in 1990, increasing to $2,222,000 in 1999. Benefits to the City from sales tax revenues are projected to be $81,000 in 1990, increasing to $143,000 in 1999. Benefits to the City from property taxes are estimated at $94,000 in 1990, escalating at two percent annually. The net present value, in 1987, of the projected net benefits to the City of Santa Monica, including all tax and fee revenue and deducting all public service costs created by the hotel, is approximately $15,053,000. 3. Relocation of Pico Boulevard Metered Parking: The metered parking currently existing on Pico Boulevard will be relocated by the project sponsor to the hotel parking area at the project sponsor's expense. The metered spaces will be in close proximity to their present location, will be easily accessible at the street level close to the parking entrance, and will be readily identifiable as public spaces. This measure will have two effects which should be noted: (1) no revenue will be lost to the City from these meters as is currently stated on page III -92 of the Draft; and (2) the removal of the meters will significantly enhance the sense of open space along that section of Pico Boulevard. This open space effect will contribute to the improved beach views and beach access provided by the project on Pico Boulevard and will relieve the need for increased setbacks on this frontage of the hotel. 4. Realignment of Appian Way: The Draft EIR discusses the realignment of Appian Way and Ocean Front Walk to mitigate traffic impacts at Pico Boulevard and Appian Way. (DEIR, p. III - 91.) The project sponsor has agreed to provide a 25 foot radius curb return and stop signs at all intersection approaches. The City Traffic Engineer has agreed that this measure will solve any potential circulation problem created by this project at the intersection. 5. Project History: There is no mention in the Draft EIR of the history of this proposed project. The project sponsor originally approached the City with a proposal for a three lot land assemblage project and a 400 -plus room hotel. The project has been considerably scaled -down and redesigned to accommodate many suggestions and concerns of the Santa Monica Planning Division and the Coastal Commission staff. The current design addresses concerns expressed about development intensity and appropriate beachfront development. The project sponsor now believes that the hotel project represents a design which will be aesthetically, environmentally and financially beneficial to the City of Santa Monica. 6. Alternatives: The following comments are offered to provide additional information about the comparative environmental effects of the alternatives discussed in the Draft EIR: a) Alternative D: It should be noted that this alternative would provide substantially less revenue to the City due to reduced size and income generation. There would be a similar reduction in the number of temporary and permanent jobs provided. This alternative is economically infeasible considering the investment required for this project. The project sponsor has submitted an analysis prepared by Kenneth Leventhal & Company demonstrating that a hotel under 150 rooms will not generate sufficient cash flow to service the required debt. This analysis is available to the public in the Planning Division office. b) Alternative E: This alternative would also result in a reduction in tax revenue and jobs. Because the project complies with all height regulations, and because the view impact on the buildings to the north and east has been found to be insignificant, the alternative design suggested seems to have no benefit over the proposed design. This alternative is also economically infeasible due to the reduced room count. c) Alternative F: This alternative requiring larger setbacks would result in a smaller hotel generating less tax revenue and providing fewer jobs. Such a reduction in the size of the hotel and the room count will render the project economically infeasible for the project sponsor. Increased setbacks will not significantly change the visual effect of the hotel. The hotel's attractive design will enhance the appearance of the area regardless of setback size. The hotel is designed to provide an inviting approach to the beach area, through the use of the Pico Boulevard landscaping and stairway design, through the elimination of on- street and off - street surface parking in the area, and through the attractive architectural features of the building. d). Alternative G: This alternative is infeasible due to the current design of the hotel which eliminates the subterranean access between the hotel buildings, except for a service tunnel for use by hotel employees only. Elimination of the pedestrian bridge would increase traffic impacts due to heavy pedestrian traffic across Appian Way of hotel patrons. The elimination of the pedestrian bridge would have no environmental significance because the bridge does not contribute to any adverse environmental impacts. e) Alternative Sites: The EIR should state that, due to existing development and proposed land use in the area, there are no comparable, feasible alternative sites for a beachfront hotel in this area. 7. Jobs: The Draft EIR is conservative in its estimate of the number of full -time, permanent jobs to be created by the hotel project. The hotel will be operated as a full- service, first quality hotel with a high employee to room ratio. The project sponsor and the proposed operator predict that the hotel will employ 300 to 400 full -time employees, rather than the 185 employees stated in the Draft EIR. (DEIR, p. I -4.) 8. Grading Impacts: The following information has been obtained regarding the grading proposed for the project. The project will require approximately 13,314 cubic yards of excavation which will require exportation. Grading will also include approximately 1,500 cubic yards of backfill. This grading will not result in any permanent geologic changes. The soil removal will require approximately 12 days of hauling at a rate of 12 trucks per day. The trucks used to haul this soil will cause a temporary traffic impact similar to the impact of construction vehicles in general discussed in the Draft EIR at pages III -81 to III -82. 9. Cumulative Impacts: The Draft EIR (Table 20, p. III -83) identifies other proposed development projects in the project vicinity considered in the cumulative traffic analysis. These projects should also be considered in relation to the cumulative impacts of proposed development on the utilities and public services discussed in the Draft EIR. Draft EIR, One Pico Hotel EIA No. 814; State Clearinghouse No. 86072303 Corrections to the Draft EIR: 1. Pritikin Parking: The Draft EIR incorrectly states that the 150 Pritikin parking spaces will be "replacement" spaces on page III -86. In fact, these spaces will be new spaces for Pritikin; in addition, the sponsor will be replacing 36 parking spaces lost to Pritikin on the project site. Therefore, the word "replacement" on line 4, p. III -86 should be deleted. 2. Parking on Appian Way: The Draft EIR incorrectly states that on- street parking is permitted on Appian Way on page III -69. This should be deleted as parking is currently prohibited on this section of Appian Way. 3. Vehicular Access to the Promenade: The Draft EIR incorrectly states that there is vehicular access to the beach and The Promenade from Pico Boulevard on pages I -8 and III -81. In fact, there is no such vehicular access at present. 4. Updated Plans and Floor Area Data: The project design has been slightly modified since the preparation of the Draft EIR. The Final EIR should include the revised plans attached hereto correcting and updating the information in Figures 2 through 10 in the Draft EIR. The Final EIR should also include the tables attached hereto correcting the floor area data contained in Tables 1, 9, and 10 in the Draft EIR. (See Comment No. 1 for a description of the design modifications.) 4 Ar ■r ff c 0 ❑1�5'a Y % SANTA MONICA BEACH HOTEL SANTA MONICA, CAllK)RNIA - t ! I I • I I �� issss :r�! dill. 1 K n u r n A � m n � �3 4 { I SANTA MONICA BEACH HOTEL SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA I ! I! FIV) G 0 0 0 0 U) V • . . . . . . . ... . LU --------------- -------- ------------------ ---------- -------------------------- ----------------------------------- C ' 1 SANTA MONICA BEACH HOTEL mi SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA I _ ZVI Tm --.� �' _ -ice! .'� ri:`.. �•�_ 30VN3NOUd 3N1 x U WQ 0 cp (p J W J SANTA MONICA BEACH HOTEL _' l '• ` SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA ' ' SANTA MONICA BEACH HOTEL SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA G 0 0 co uq I SANTA MONICA BEACH HOTEL SANTA MONICA, CAL. --RN1A td:l � tp � (V W LU t j I _ • I � r i � • 7 a _ E:g • es - r i i Table 1. Distribution of Building Floor Area by Use and Location USE Guestroom Area Public Spaces Meeting Rooms Health Club Restaurant & Kitchen Lobby & Admin. /Service Open Corridors Exterior Balcony & Patios TOTAL SQUARE FEET 80,201 5,404 + (3,139) (6,698) AREA WEST OF APPIAN WAY (Sq.Ft. 1,860 2,536 + (9,810) 4,145 + (15,610) [14,808) 0 94,146 + (35,257} Above Ground 32,061 Below Ground (30,489) Total above and below ground 62,550 Parking 0 LOCATION BY LEVEL 2 -8 B1 -2 B1 1 1 -2 B3 -2 3 -8 B3 -8 AREA EAST OF APPIAN WAY (SC[- -Ft- Above Ground 62,085 Below Ground (.4,768) Total above and 129,433 below ground 66,853 Parking 117,506 COMBINED AREA WEST AND EAST OF APPIAN WAY (Sq.Ft. Above Ground 94,146 Below Ground (35,257) Total above and below ground 129,433 Total Parking 117,506 --------------------------- -------------------------------------- ( ) Indicates square footage below ground. [ ) Indicates floor area not included in FAR calculations. I----------------------------------------------------------------- I r Z O 1-- J U J Q U O 6 C W fY O O 01 ad ro f- Y U O J m H h Q W Y U O J CID H N uj 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 ^ Q O� 1 M 1 I i M LA e{ In to N i \ N m 1 1 00 O 1 Z co LO 1 N 1 N N 1 M M • n 1 I b 1 N N 1 1 1 j 1 1 I 1 1 1 N 1 1 1 N 1 1 1 1 I 1 L I t 1 1 i 1 tT 1 1 1 T 1 1 1 lL I I U 1 C H i 1 O N 1 +- d tT N 00 b 1 O 1 Ln t0 tp co t C W 00 ti � n l ' i I 1 .y O • O 1 3 O � O M tb 1 1 LNp I L N •-d M 1 1 to J ; 1 1 Q 1 1 1 N 1 t 1 1 1 1 N 1 1 1 C 1 T 1 1 Y O ; 1 1 a U 1 1 I L r 6 G � U'1� t O I O 1 1 O In .•a i CI W t10 O n tG i �--1 I 1 O 01 • 1 +- 1 4- p "� O I C V Lc ch th i 1 LNp 1 0 N I I 1 I U J 1 Q 1 1 W _ 1 1 1 N / 1 1 T 1 1 1 N 1 � V 1 I Y d / 1 C O O O 1 1 O I 4 O co � 0' I O 1 N 10 to .r r-• Ln 1 LO • O 1 tY W '• aT trl 1 p N n1 ; M I L L Z 1 1 1 i1 1 w tY 1 1 1 Qj K ^ / 1 N N d 1 1 1 r tl V-• L 1 t 1 IL 1 V-. Y • Q 1 I 1 0 C t7 1 1 C C ro I C +1 I I N 1 0 C 49 •'- 1 1 Y Q 1 N L N 1 1 W Q ro y 1 ro r CL L C ro l I 1 PLL Ntz Cr O Q W I C 1 G W D N 1 1 v Z O U 1 1 H w J ro 3 O 1 F- I I In QO Z� W E 1 N T U Z O CJ L I L i 4111 'a • C 1 Q tL 1 1 K O Q d C ro ro tL ��. t Cl� C Q ^ n I 1 N L L ro I L I tL m W m t1 1 W I CL W O Q U. y 1 U :.. C -W Q 1' F- 1 O � 3 7 1 •'- r.• I L' . Q 1 J O O O •• 1 M. • tll U N I ..y 1 LLU O C^ I to n LAJ 1-- _O to _ tl N 1 i g 1 H p^ Q O X Q I L L W 1 W Z m lL W o7 W LL 1 C7 7 N 1 d 1 Z Q I M N Table 10. Project Area Reductions Required to Meet FAR Targets EAST OF APPIAN WAY, FAR TARGET 2.5 Entire below grade excluded: 68,983 Entire below grade included: 68,983 (excluding parking) Source: Bendix Environmental Research, Inc. 62,085 0 66,853 0 Allowed Planned Reduction Re uired sq.ft. sq.� to Peet R sq.Tt WEST OF APPIAN WAY, FAR TARGET 1.0 Entire below grade excluded: Pico not included 28,594 32,061 3,467 including half Pico 33,680 32,061 0 including all Pico 38,766 32,061 0 Entire below grade included: (excluding parking) Pico not included 28,594 62,550 33,956 Including half Pico 33,680 62,550 28,870 including all Pico 38,766 62,550 23,784 EAST OF APPIAN WAY, FAR TARGET 2.5 Entire below grade excluded: 68,983 Entire below grade included: 68,983 (excluding parking) Source: Bendix Environmental Research, Inc. 62,085 0 66,853 0 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code containing the City's procedures for the implementation of CEQA. In accordance with these procedures, the Department prepared an Initial Study (EIA # 814) for the proposed project in March 1986, consisting of a preliminary environmental assessment of the proposal's potential impact. On the basis of this Initial Study, it was determined that the proposed project might have a significant adverse impact upon the local environment and that an EIR should be prepared to determine whether such effects would occur, and if so, how they might be mitigated. The Initial Study is found in Appendix 1 of this document. CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY T� assist City staff, the Planning Commission, City Council, and the public - at -large in their consideration of the environmental implications to be INTRODUCTION 1 -1 This environmental impact report (EIR) addresses the environmental effects associated with the development of the 1 Pico Blvd. Hotel in Santa Monica, California. kk L Planning Commission approval of this project is a discretionary action of the City of Santa Monica, so the project is subject to the California Envi- ronmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA), for which the City is the designated Lead Agency. The City Department of Community and Economic Development documents administers the process by which environmental are required, prepared, and reviewed by Santa Monica pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Santa Monica Municipal Code containing the City's procedures for the implementation of CEQA. In accordance with these procedures, the Department prepared an Initial Study (EIA # 814) for the proposed project in March 1986, consisting of a preliminary environmental assessment of the proposal's potential impact. On the basis of this Initial Study, it was determined that the proposed project might have a significant adverse impact upon the local environment and that an EIR should be prepared to determine whether such effects would occur, and if so, how they might be mitigated. The Initial Study is found in Appendix 1 of this document. The purpose of this EIR is to provide objective planning information to assist City staff, the Planning Commission, City Council, and the public - at -large in their consideration of the environmental implications to be 1 -1 I. Introduction and Summary expected from the proposed project. The EIR has been prepared in conformance with the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (California Administrative Code Sections 15000 et. seq.). This Draft EIR is subject to comment. Comments should be sent to Karen Rosenberg, Santa Monica Planning Division, 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401. A summary of comments relevant to adequacy and accuracy of the impact analysis and responses to these comments will be incorporated in the Final EIR (FEIR). The FEIR must be certified as adequate and accurate before approval decisions can be made for the project. SUMMARY Project Location and Characteristics The beachfront project as proposed will consist of a 196 -room hotel on both sides and under Appian Way, between Pico Blvd. and Vicente Terrace on an approximately 66,000 square foot site (See Fig. 2, p. II -5). The project will comply with existing and proposed height limits. The structure east of Appian Way will have a maximum height of 56 feet, and the structure west of Appian Way will have a maximum height of 30 feet. (Building height is the vertical distance measured from the average level of the highest and lowest point of that portion of the lot covered by the building to the highest point of the roof.) A 50 ft, wide bridge across Appian Way will connect the two structures (See Fig. 4, p. II -7). The westernmost part of Pico Blvd. at the Promenade will be closed to vehicular traffic. The new design of the end of Pico Blvd. will provide access to the hotel entrance, landscaping, and public stairs and a wheelchair ramp to the Promenade and the beach. There are no structures on the site. The eastern part of the site is used for parking. is � "��<° C.•; 1 •/ .,,�� -% �., I. Introduction and Summary Significant Impacts The project will not have any significant effects on the environment. All potentially significant impacts can be reduced to less than significant lev- els through implementation of appropriate mitigation measures. .sy /✓ ✓� The project will comply with applicable policies of the Land Use Element @, of the Santa Monica General Plan (p. III -39), and will be a permitted use under present R4 and R4A Multiple Use zoning. Compliance with existing and n proposed floor area ratios (FAR) is dependent upon code interpretation (p. { III -46). (FAR compares the floor area of a project to the size of its site.) The project will add visual interest and landscaping at the end of Pico Blvd. Some beach views from the Appian Way Apartments, the Pacific Shore Hotel on Ocean Avenue, Cheerios Restaurant at Pico Blvd. and Ocean Avenue, and residences on Pico Blvd. and Vicente Terrace will be blocked by the project. It will provide new views of the beach from project balconies. Balconies, progressive setbacks of floors on the taller, eastern building, and other exterior design treatment will provide visual interest, and provide some design relationship to the smaller buildings near the project. In December, morning shadows, will, shade the south windows of the Appian Apartments, and all or portions of five other residential buildings. In the afternoon, the project will shade all of the Drake Hotel and the �- west side of the Cheerio's restaurant (p. III -29 and III -30). i, The project will cause up to a doubling of traffic movements at the inter- section of Pico Blvd. and Appian Way, but cumulative traffic will not warrant the installation of a traffic signal. Other intersections in the I -3 3 s, -,r III. Setting, Impacts, Mitigation Measures Freeway Express running north -south on Ocean Ave. and Main Street. Local buses cost $0.50 for a one -way ticket. There is no monthly bus pass. Riders can purchase fifty bus tokens at one time for $22.50 for a savings of $0.05 per ride. Transfer connections are available to routes operated by SCRTD. Routes servicing the project vicinity include: #20, #22, #320, #322, #434, and #436. Parking. Vacant and asphalt paved lots make up the privately -held part of the site. The western portion of the site, other than the western end of Pico Blvd., is unused. The portion of the site east of Appian Way is used for parking. There are 68 marked parking spaces, and 36 spaces on the south side of this portion are used for parking by the Pritikin Center, which is directly across Pico Blvd. from the western portion of the project site. See Figure 17, p. III -33, for a photograph of the lot. The western end of Pico Blvd . butts on the Promenade and has metered parking on both sides. There is metered parking on both sides of Ocean Front Walk south of Pico Blvd. The parking meters at the end of Pico Blvd. are heavily used. There is City - operated beach parking both immediately north of the project site and south of the Pritikin Bldg. Locations of parking lots are shown in Fig. 19, p. III -35. 16, co Currently, the City of Santa Monic parking los near the.beach area require a $4.00 fee for all day parking, and area residents can purchase a monthly lot parking sticker for $;?0r0©\ometimes the lots are often full, the monthly parking stickers are popular a difficult to obtain. An indivi- dual or a company cannot conth the City to provide parking for their employees in the City lo f W a� �n.bi� fFv cc 14WI1 111-73 III. Setting, Impacts, Mitigation Measures 615. The landscaping for the end of Pico Place should be required to be ,l A %c,, ,sufficiently different in design style and species of plants used in order to visually differentiate between the public area and beach access from the adjacent hotel landscaping. This will prevent people from thinking that the area is private hotel beach access. The design requirement should not l preclude a sufficient degree of design relationship between the two adjacent landscaped areas to provide visual harmony. Signing should be included to��, indicate public beach access. v .� 16. The City may wish to consider the realignment of Appian Way and Ocean Front Walk, creating a more direct north -south throughfare, so as to miti- gate circulation impacts at the intersection of Appian Way and Pico Blvd.' Parking PFt71.L�VJ �� U.tLV1„vv_;i {�,j1'rt_53,.'t�' ✓-✓n :_y ^, �'_�. .�✓i Lai�j t/J 1n,�4 �}„ =!�yt tl � ; 1. Project applicant should designate some spaces in the self -park portion of the parking garage for employees who carpool. These spaces should be —Y free 1 - �R,' - t_�_uM -C ; ^.;�_..,;,- .^-.zf l:F. T-c..; -f ..u:,..�.. �e4-' �?'rn,;3,1_ti+. ;- 61 t ✓.� -4i. 2. he should be a sign indicating that there is self - parking available to the public in the project garage. The sign should be visible at the end of Pico Blvd. 3. The California Coastal Commission requires the incorporation of bicycle racks into the parking plan to encourage employees who live nearby to use bicycles to get to work. They recommend racks to accomodate approximately 50 bicycles.11 The bicycle racks should be provided in a secure area of the parking garage. 4. The Planning Commission should require the applicant to provide 36 replacement parking spaces for the Pritikin Center for their employees' and III -91 E 1 s , '? III. Setting, Impacts, Mitigation Measures i 2. The Planning Commission should consider requiring that construction be phased, so that the eastern portion of the site can be used as a staging area for construction vehicles and materials for construction of the beach portion of the project. This would also provide off - street parking for { construction workers during this phase of construction. 3. Use of the beach as a construction staging area should be prohibited. "� (,�,,",k_ ri'L�(�.G�L�ti �i✓�l��J.J: <.Y'( ��9P � �,,,rr, n� ,��..�/>.,t.l �+�+z� , �I,�v�/ ��.�, 4. The Planning Commission should consider requiring provision of incen- tives to encourage carpooling by construction workers in order to minimize neighborhood parking impacts during construction. The applicant should be required to provide the City with written information about the incentive program and its 'implemention within 30 days of the commencement of construc- tion. NOTES: 1. 234 Pico Blvd. Environmental Impact Report. 2. Telephone conversation with Ray Davis, P.E., 3 April 1987. 3. Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, Third Edition, 1982. 4. Ibid., "Approximately 49 percent of the employees work during the daytime hours." x 5. Ray Davis, P.E., City of Santa Monica Traffic Engineer, indicated at a meeting of 2 April 1987 with EIR Traffic. Engineer Martin Wallen, P.E., x of Wallen Associates, that only the PM peak hour traffic should be ana- lyzed. 6. Trip assignments by Martin Wallen, P.E. 7. See Appendix 4, p. A -23, for definitions of traffic Levels of Service. 8. Projects appropriate for cumulative analysis selected by Ray Davis, P.E., and Martin Wallen, P.E. 9. Telephone conversation with Bruce Parton, Vice President of Development 1 for the Pritikin Longevity Center, 17 March 1987. III -93 Intray > r60 Start of Item 60, Message. I I Dated: 07/29/87 at 1520 Subject: Pico Hotel Sender: Donn UMBER / POLICE /01 Contents: 2. Part 1. TO: Karen ROSENBERG / CED /01 Part 2. The residents who live adjacent to this project indicate that they experience a significant level of night time criminal activity including disturbances of the peace, vehicle burglaries, and narcotics activity. Police records show this to be true upon occasion. For this reason, a close look should be given at proposed security measures and design considerations when the time becomes appropriate.. End of Item 60. Q Intray > Intray > °q Intray > r36 Start of Item 36. Message-. Gated: 08/03/81" at 1004 Subject: 1 Pico Hotel Sender: Steve LOCATI / FIRE2 /01 Contents: 2. Part 1. TO: Karen ROSENBERG / CED/01 Part 2. PROJECT: 1 Pico Hotel I have reviewed the draft EIR for the 1 Pico Hotel and find no significant problems. I don't agree with the calculated fire flow included for the project. That issue can be resolved at sometime in the future. I see no major problems providing service to this proposed project. i End of Item 36. L CITY OF SANTA MONICA INTER - DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM DATE: September 11, 1987 TO: Suzanne Frick, Principal Planner FROM: Stanley E. Scholl, Director of General Services ¢; Desi Alvarez, City Engineer SUBJECT: Comments on 1 Pico Hotel Draft EIR The following are our comments on the draft EIR: 1. The clearance above Appian Way for the "bridge" should be a minimum of 16 feet from right -of -way line to right -of --way line. 2. The proposal to have the parking garage extend under Appian Way for 2 levels will require extensive relocation of several utilities. The cost of this relocation would, of course, be borne by the developer. An engineering study is necessary before the City can make a decision regarding the feasibility of this part of the project, thus, the arrangement and amount of total parking is unclear at this time. 3. The proposal to vacate the end of Pico Boulevard has several problems. it may interfere with proposed improvements that the City would be making to the Pico Kenter Storm Drain outlet system. These improvements would not be fully developed for approximately 5 months. The parking spaces to be displaced are proposed to be relocated within the hotel. The replacement is not at all equivalent from the viewpoint of ease of public use. We recommend that payment be made for each space to be relocated of $10,000 per space to the Parking Authority so that additional public surface parking can be developed nearby. This payment will be in addition to the provision of "public spaces" within the building on the first level below the street. If the street end is vacated, the owner across the street - Pritikin - will have control over the south half of the street. It is unknown if they agreed to the proposed landscaping plan. 4. This development should incorporate wastewater reclamation in the plumbing system in order to mitigate the increased sewage loading that will result. It would be necessary to recycle all wastewater in the hotel and to reduce the flow by approximately 80% over that which would otherwise be generated by an equivalent -sized hotel (46,000 gallons per day x .8 = reduction necessary). 5. No interruption of the bikeway will be permitted during construction or any other time. 6. Provide paved detour road onsits for Appian Way 24 feet in width throughout the construction. cc: Peggy Curran Kenyon Webster Jack Hoagland smpicol CITY OF SANTA MONICA INTER- DEPARTMENT MEMO Date: August 17, 1987 To: Karen Rosenberg, Assisstant Planner From: John E. Hoagland, Administrative Water Engineer if Subject: 1 Pico EIR I have reviewed the subject EIR. The storm drainage section, I.4. does not mention plans to reconstruct the Pico /Kenter outfall by raising the elevation four to ten feet above the existing grade. This construction, envisioned within the next two to four years, would have a significant impact on the developers plans for Pico Blvd west of Appian Way. All other portions of the EIR, pertaining to the Water /Wastewater Division appear to be substantially correct. CITY OF SANTA MONICA INTER-DEPARTMENT Nf&W Pi.SPITTA�'oNM," DATE: August 25, 1.987 "87 AUG 26 All :23 TO: Karen Rosenberg, Associate Planner FROM: Ray Davis, City Parking & Traffic Engineer SUBJECT: One Pico EIR I have returned my copy of the EIR with recommended language modifications on Page III -69. The following are my comments which I believe need further clarification: Page III -78 The new Highway Capacity Manual provides a methodology to analysis non - signalized intersections. This methodology should be used for the intersection of Appian and Pico. Page III -80 The discussion of probable error of traffic counts is confusing and should be eliminated.from the body of the report. Page III_81,82 The construction plan does not address how the removal of soil from the job site will be facilitated. Where will the vehicles stage, etc.? In addition, there is no discussion as to how traffic should be detoured. Page III -88 How will the displaced parking during construction be facilitated? Page III -89 is mitigation measure 1 suggesting a public easement to facilitate access to the Drake Hotel? Page III -91 No mitigation measures have been recommended for any of the impacted intersections. Parking mitigation measure 2 should emphasize that the designation of the public parking spaces be clearly marked and signed so they are in fact used by the public. Page III -92 There is no real cost associated with mitigation measure 5 cc: Kenyon Webster Principal Planner III. Setting, Impacts, Mitigation Measures Pico Blvd. for the purpose of constructing a bridge across Appian Way and building underground hotel space below Appian Way. After construction of the below grade portion of the project, the street will be restored. It is expected that arrangements will be made for the City to continue to maintain the street. Vicente Terrace, which is the northern boundary of the site, is a 15 ft. wide, westbound one way, one -lane local street north of the inland portion of the site and has been vacated between Appian Way and the Promenade. Pico Place runs east -west through the block bounded by Pico Blvd., Appian Way, Vicente Terrace and Ocean Ave. The eastern portion of Pico Place has been vacated. The western portion of Pico Place is a 10 ft. wide alley used by garbage trucks as access to the Drake Hotel. This portion of Pico Place(witii be vacated for construction of the project. On- street parki.ng is permitted on Pico Blvd., Appian Way and Vicente Terrace. The terminal block of Pico Blvd. has 21 parking meters. The 20 -foot wide Promenade on the beach side of the project -site is-exten- sively used by bicyclists, rollerskaters and pedestrians. The west end of Pico Blvd. provides access to the Promenade and the bead - ) ;��� —/ Existin Traffic Volumes �" �� Traffic in the project neighborhood is relatively light. The beach is the main trip generator. Intersection counts were made by Newport Traffic Studies, Newport Beach, CA, on Monday, 30 March 1987, at the intersections of Appian Way and Pico Blvd., Neilson Way and Ocean Park Blvd., Ocean Ave. and Colorado Ave., and Ocean Ave. and the Pacific Coast Highway ramp. Counts for the intersec- III -69 I a 47 III. Setting, Impacts, Mitigation Measures U) �J Circulation: Project Impacts The greatest traffic impact of the project would be at the intersection of ✓� Pico Blvd. and Appian Way. Existing and predicted PM peak hour traffic through this intersection are shown in Table 19 p. III -76 and on Fig: 26, p. III -78. Through traffic and number of turning vehicles are presented in Appendix 4, p. A -36. The number of vehicles turning right from Pico Blvd. (j 1'�"onto Appian Way will approximately double, from one per minute to two per l <� inute. Present traffic levels at this intersection do not meet criteria v for signalization nor would the cumulative traffic with the project in 1992. A Level of Service7 (LOS) cannot be calculated by the Webster Method \ for this intersection because the intersection does not meet the criteria L for application of the method (see p. III -72). At the intersection of Pico Blvd and Ocean Ave. (and Neilson), the largest Project effect will be on eastbound Pico Blvd., where 18 left turns, 44 through trips, and 7 right turns will be added, for a total of about 21% of the present eastbound traffic. Forty -two through westbound trips on ( Pico Blvd. will be added, which will be about 3.5% of the present west- bound traffic. The•L.OS at the intersection is F and will remain F without mitigation measures (present conditions were analyzed on the basis of a Friday, 20 June 1986 traffic count which represents a worst case condition when many people were leaving for the weekend). Neither the proposed prof- . (, ect nor the other nearby specified developments will add northbound through trips or southbound left turns, which are mainly responsible for congestion at this intersection. At Ocean Ave. and the Pacific Coast Highway Ramp, the project will contri- bute 11 trips each northbound and southbound, which will be 0.8% of both III -78 III. Setting, Impacts, Mitigation Measures 1 , the northbound and southbound trips through the 'intersection. The probable error of individual traffic counts is about 10 %. Therefore, the estimated future traffic level, which is based on counts of existing traffic, has a rprobable error of at least 10 %, and project - related traffic increases of about 1% will be undetectable in the presence of a 10% error in predicted total traffic. The LOS at Ocean and the Pacific Coast Highway is now E and will degrade to F in 1992. The project will contribute approximately 30% of the increase in northbound left turns which are the main contribution to congestion at this intersection. The greatest effects of the project on the intersection of Ocean Park Blvd. and Neilson Way will be the four trips each making southbound right turns and westbound right turns, contributing 0.3 and 0.9 %, respectively to the total southbound and westbound traffic. This intersection will remain at the present LOS B level. At the intersection of Pico Blvd. and Main Street, the project will result in about 36 through trips each eastbound and westbound, or about 4.3 and 2.8 %, respectively, of east- and westbound traffic. This intersection will change from LOS C to LOS D in 1992, which will still be considered a satisfactory LOS. The project will contribute about 30% of the increased trips through this intersection. At Pico Blvd. and Fourth St., the project will create about 22 southbound right turns and 22 eastbound left turns, or 1.0 and 2.3% of the south- and eastbound traffic, respectively. These effects will not be noticeable against a background of day to day traffic variations. This intersection will degrade from LOS B to LOS F in 1992 (see Table 21, p. III -85), mainly `� III -80 �1 TA I a i �l III. Setting, Impacts, Mitigation Measures as a result of the increase in eastbound left turns. This intersection will have the greatest effect on circulation around Santa Monica Civic Center of the intersections studied, but most of the increase will not be due to the proposed project. - The project garage entrance /exit on Appian Way and the service entrance from Vicente Terrace will keep turning movements of vehicles coming or going from the garage or the loading docks at the 1 Pico and Drake Hotels from interfering with traffic on Pico Blvd. which is an arterial. The bridge over Appian Way will provide a safe means for pedestrians to cross the street without interacting with vehicular traffic. This will ninimize the opportunities for pedestrian /vehicular accidents and will minimize pedestrian delays to traffic on Appian Way. Inclusion of a ramp in the design of the new beach access from Pico Blvd. will preserve wheelchair and bicycle access to the beach. Emergency ser- vice vehicles will not be able to drive to the Promenade. Going down the stairs or ramp on foot will delay emergency personnel about a minute, which will be of concern only in a serious emergency. (See Emergency Services- -Fire Protection, p. III -96, for discussion of emergency access.) Yehicles dropping joggers, beach users, etc., off at the head of the stairs could interfere with vehicles driving into the hotel entrance: Circulation: Construction Construction vehicles will not cause as many trips as the operation of the hotel, but the larger construction vehicles could have a similar effect on traffic for the greater number of smaller vehicles. Construction vehicles will have the greatest impact during the summer when use of the beach and III -81- III. Setting, Impacts, Mitigation Measures visitors to the Santa Monica Pier peak. The greatest construction impact will occur during excavation of Appian Way for the facilities to be placed under the street. This will require closure of the street to through traf- fic. Circulation: Cum1ati've Analysis Traffic conditions were predicted for five years from the present, i.e. to 1992, taking into consideration existing traffic, project - related traffic, traffic generated by other approved projects in the area of the proposed hotel, and ambient traffic growth. The cumulative traffic impact analysis has been based on the impacts of the following projects: [dgemar Farms museum /retail /office, Pacific Plaza- office /retail /restaurant, Hyatt Regency Hotel, 234 Pico Blvd.- Retail /Office /Mixed Commercial /Theaters, 4th Street Hotel, 1636 -5th St. and the 1438 -2nd St. Youth Hostel.8 The list of nearby projects (within a 3/4 mile radius) considered in the cumulative traffic analysis. is-shown in Table 20, p. III -83 and in Figure 27, p. III -84. The effects of project traffic and cumulative traffic on the LOS at nearby intersections are shown in Table 21, p. III -85. If future development brings significant convention facility development to Santa Monica Civic Center, the 1 Pico Hotel could become a major conven- tion satellite facility. This could increase the hotel occupancy factor; and the relative proportions of pure tourists and conventioneers using the hotel. The latter could, in turn, influence the origin and destination distribution of trips to and from the hotel. The analysis of the impacts of any such potential future changes in trip distribution is beyond the scope of this document. ,III -82 III. Setting, Impacts, Mitigation Measures of the narrow width of the street and the residential character of the north side of the street. The project design includes a drop -off area for passenger loading and unloading at the main entrance to the hotel at the end of Pico Blvd., just west of Appian Way. Currently, the project applicant intends to provide valet parking for all guest vehicles and self - parking spaces for the general public. There is a common entrance to the self -park and valet - parking areas. The possibility of separation of these two groups of vehicles by means of independent access /egress areas was considered. This would be inadvisable because any potential conflicts of the two streams of vehicles would be moved from inside the building onto Appian Way where they would interfere with the flow of traffic on Appian. Final parking arrangements will be determined by the parking garage operator, subject to City approval. Twenty one parking spaces along the section of Pico Blvd. that is proposed to be vacated will be removed. People who have been parking there will be displaced to other street parking and nearby beach lots. They will be able to use the self -park section of the hotel garage after construction is com- pleted. The project may increase the demand for Cheerio's parking because of parking displaced from the project site. The project will provide 3 loading spaces for truck deliveries per City i requirements. III -88 �f III. Setting, Impacts, Mitigation Measures MITIGATION MEASURES Circulation 1. Delivery truck access to the Drake Hotel should be provided from Vicente Terrace along the east side of the project to replace the present access from Pico Place, which would be eliminated by the project. 2. The garage entry area should be designed with interior queuing space for three vehicles in order to prevent backing up of cars onto Appian Way and blocking of vehicular and pedestrian traffic. 3. The City should require a Transportation Systems Management (TSM) plan to encourage car - pooling and use of public transit and other alternatives to the single occupant private vehicle by employees. 4. Santa Monica has a policy of encouraging employers to provide some form of mass transit subsidy for their employees. The project applicant should contribute 50 -100% towards the public transportation costs of hotel employ - :s - ees. This would discourage.._the use of private vehicles in the project vicinity, and decrease the accompanying air quality, noise and traffic impacts that they would add to the project area. III -89 5. Bus schedules should be provided in the hotel lobby in order to encour- age use of public transit instead of rental cars or taxis. 6. Bus schedules should be provided in the employees lounge area to encour- age employees to use public transit. 7. Employee carpooling should be encouraged by provision of a bulletin board or other carpooling information center. III -89 I III. Setting, Impacts, Mitigation Measures 15. The landscaping for the end of Pico Place should be required to be sufficiently different in design style and species of plants used in order to visually differentiate between the public area and beach access from the adjacent hotel landscaping. This will prevent people from thinking that the area is private hotel beach access. The design requirement should not preclude a sufficient degree of design relationship between the two adjacent landscaped_ areas to provide visual harmony. Signing should be included to indicate public beach access. 16. The City may wish to consider the realignment of Appian Way and Ocean Front Walk, creating a more direct north -south throughfare, so as to miti- gate circulation impacts at the intersection of Appian Way and Pico Blvd. Parking 1. Project applicant should designate some spaces in the self -park portion of the parking garage for employees who carpool. These spaces should be free. 2. There should be a sign indicating that there is self - parking available to the public in the project garage. The sign should be visible at the end of Pico Blvd. -� j3. The California Coastal Commission requires the incorporation of bicycle racks into the parking plan to encourage employees who live nearby to use bicycles to get to work. They recommend racks to accomodate approximately 50 bicycles.11 The bicycle racks should be provided in a secure area of the parking garage. 4. The Planning Commission should require the applicant to provide 36 replacement parking spaces for theePPritikin Center for their employees' and III. Setting, Impacts, Mitigation Measures clients' use, for as long as there is demonstrated need for this parking. If the Planning Commission desires to require additional project parking to be reserved for the Pritikin Center then this shoo d be dependent on the performance of a parking study to determine Pritikin Center parking demand. 5. The project applicant should be requi- r_ e- d__to_pay_f_o-r—the_r-emova -l—of —the --. 21 meters at the foot of Pico Blvd.\ 6. The City should consider whether it is appropriate to require the applicant to reimburse the City for lost revenue from the meters that will be removed. It has been estimated that the City obtains approximately $400 per year in revenue and $800 per year in fines for each meter located on Pico Blvd. between Appian Way and the Promenade. 7. The design inside the entrance to the parking area should be required to be laid out so that cars queuing to get into the self - parking area cannot block access or egress for valet - parked vehicles. This would mini- mize potential delays or accident hazards due to avoidable interactions of self -park and valet -park vehicles. 8. The hotel operator should instruct persons doing valet parking not to queue on Appian Way so that they minimize interference with Appian Way traf- fic. Construction 1. The Planning Commission should consider requiring that construction under Appian Way take place at a time of year when tourist traffic is not at a peak in order to minimize impacts on circulation and interference with vehicles travelling north on Appian Way to the Santa Monica Pier. III -92 • STATE OF CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD - LOS ANGELES REGION 107 SOUTH BROADWAY, SUITE 4027 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90012 -4596 1 AUG A 3 1986 s (213) 620 -4460 A August 4,1986 Karen Rosenberg City of Santa Monica 1685 Main Street, Suite 212 Santa Monica, CA 90405 NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF A DRAFT EIR FOR THE SANTA MONICA BEACH HOTEL PROJECT (SCH #86072303) We have reviewed the subject document concerning the development of a six -$tory hotel with supporting restaurants, meeting rooms and health club. In general we are advising that the sanitary sewer system within i the Hyperion service area is currently experiencing capacity problems. A written commitment stating that there will be available capacity at the time of connection must be obtained from the City of Los Angeles, Bureau of Sanitation. The Draft EIR should include the following: 1) Description of the proposed project. 2) Description of the present environmental setting of the project site. 3) Discussion of the measures proposed to minimize water quality impacts resulting from soil erosion, especially during construction of the proposed project. 4) Quantities of wastewaters to be contributed to the sanitary sewer system and the treatment plant to serve the proposed development should be identified. The DEIR should demonstrate that the sanitary sewer system will have adequate capacity to collect, transport, treat and dispose of the additional flow in a satisfactory manner. 1 The cumulative impacts of this and other projects on the sanitary sewer system should be considered. 5) Description of the quantity, quality, and location of discharges other than to the sanitary sewer system. The impacts of these discharges should be discussed. Thank you for this opportunity to comment. If you have any questions please call Debbie Dasker or Taira Yoshimura at (213) 620 °5625. NELSON WONG Senior Water Resource Control Engineer cc: Glenn Stober, SCH 2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Govemar CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD- CITY OF SA:' "rA MONIC ; 90 LOS ANGELES REGION CITY PLA II ;; F' OFFiC . 107 SOUTH BROADWAY, SUITE 4027 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90012 -4596 12131 620 - 4460 '87 AUG -5 P2 :00 July 31, 1987 Ms. Karen Rosenberg City of Santa Monica 1685 Main Street Santa Monica, CA 90401 DEIR REGARDING 1 PICO HOTEL We have reviewed the document concerning the 6- story, 196 room hotel with restaurants, meeting rooms and a health club. In general we are advising that the sanitary sewer system within the Hyperion service area is currently experiencing capacity problems. A written confirmation stating that there will be available capacity at the time of connection must be obtained from the City of Los Angeles, Bureau of Sanitation with a copy sent to this Regional Board. Thank you for this opportunity to comment. If you have any questions please contact Dr. Rainer Hoenicke at (213) 620 -6080. lz %��e/ Michael L. Sowby n " Environmental Specialist IV cc: Glenn Stober, SCH r I P. VA NLI 5QA -ter. -I _ - i I I CITY OF SA';!,i A MONICA 110 Esparta way CITY PLAr.r' Santa Monica, CA 909402 September 3, 1987 087 Cl A 9 :54 Ms. Karen Rosenberg Associate Planner City Planning Division Santa Monica City Hall 1685 Main Street Santa Monica, CA 90401 Dear Ms. Rosenberg, As a private citizen who has lived in the city of Santa Monica for over 50 years, I am writing to express my opinion of the EIR submitted by the R.E. International to the city of Santa Monica for the Project entitled OnP p;co lintel to be developed by the Embarcadero Center Ltd. Although I have many negative opinions to the hotel plans as proposed, I do not object to a hotel being built on this property. However, I do believe the development should not adversely effect the area and the general public to such a degree as proposed. I trust that these following statements will help to eleviate the adverse effect and produce a building that belongs in this area of Santa Monica and of which the City can be proud. I. A traffic count made on a Monday Evening, March 30 between 5 and 6 P.M. would be irrelevant to the main traffic on this street and would produce an inaccurate count for the intersection of Appian Way and Pico which is the location of the project. I use the streets in this area regularly and have common knowledge of the regular traffic flow. I object to the traffic count that is being used for this EIR. The day and time the count was made would be dusk or dark on a more than likely cold, possibly rainy, day. If it were taken during the afternoon of a warm California day, the count would be much different. The street of Appian Way services the beach traffic which is very heavy throughout the year on any warm to hot week -end and even more so during any sunny day of the summer months. On week -ends, it is most often backed up in both directions from Pico to the Pacific Coast Highway ingress approximately 10 blocks to the North. All traffic entering at this point must continue to Pico on Appian as there is no left hand turn allowed until this intersection except for one alley. 2. contrary to the report that the streets are in grid formation, there is only one street other than Pico on which there is two way traffic between the beach and Ocean Ave. This creates a traffic jam which is unique to the area. The other street is Seaside Terrace. This street is a vital road leading to and from Ocean Avenue directly to the Lifeguard Headquarters and also to the few Beach parking lots in the area. At the intersection of Seaside Terrace and Ocean Avenue there is no left hand turn North for the traffic going East, up the hill, on Seaside so all of this traffic must proceed South on Ocean to the intersection of Ocean Avenue and Pico or make unsafe U -turns on Ocean Avenue. 3. There is no traffic survey for the intersection of Seaside Terrace and Ocean Avenue or for Seaside and Appian which will be greatly affected on beach days. 4. Entrance and exit to the large parking lot North of the Santa Monica pier and six smaller beach parking lots south of the pier to Vicente Terrace must use Appian Way for entrance and exit. All of these lots fill easily and remain so during the day in summer and on week -ends through out the year. S.The proposed garage entrance on the East side of Appian Way will disrupt the flow of traffic on this street. The proposed planned hotel entrance on the West side of Appian at the vacated Pico boulevard will also disrupt the present traffic flow more than stated in the report. With valet parking it will mean that the cars will be driven out of the proposed motor court facing East on Pico to make a left hand turn into Appian Way in a northerly- .. direction. On the return trip the car will be driven out of the garage on the East side of Appian Way, make a left hand turn to the South and proceed to the motor court. The angle of this proposed garage entrance seems to invite left hand turns from southbound traffic on Appian Way. Both of these factors will increase the traffic flow and danger on this small street causing more congestion and the possibility of accidents. The garage on the opposite side of the street will increase pedestrian crossing. Entrance for the proposed hotel and garage on the same side of the street would disrupt the flow of traffic less than this proposed plan. 1. Although the number of parking spaces to be provided by the project is stated as 350 places, I do not believe this is a sufficient number for a project of this size or for the planned activities. This is an area where there is "a shortage of parking for the people who live or work there. Many thousands more come regularly to enjoy the beach, pier and open area. The ! majority of the housing in this area was built when parking was not required and there was plenty of public transportation. 2. According to how the footage is counted by the developers, it is stated that they only need 135 spaces to meet the City requirement. This is for 196 rooms, 187 employees, plus a restaurant, meeting rooms and a health club, all of which will draw people with cars. 3. The statement of 158 excess parking places being built over code and replacement requirement is misleading. Although there is mention of the replacement of the 21 street parking places on Pico to be lost and the 36 Pritikin Group parking spaces on the lots to be vacated there is no mention of the 68 other parking spaces on the lots that will be lost and are used regularly. It also mentions that Pritikin Group will contract monthly for the use of 114 more parking spaces. The total of these two groups of parking places not accounted for in the report is 182. 215 parking spaces minus 182 is 33 parkinasspaces that may be left for h. public, but more than likely will be needed by the hotel guest and staff. 4. Not mentioned in the report is that parking on Vicente Terrace will probably have to be eliminated. This residential street is 15 feet wide and will not accommodate some of the delivery trucks that will be forced to use it. This will add to the parking problems. There is an apartment building with 18 units plus several duplexes and 3 houses all with rental units and no parking on site on Vicente Terrace. 5. Hotel garages cannot take vans and trucks, therefore owners of these vehicles will have less choice to park in the beach area. 6. At a proposea occupancy rate or bb% tnere would be approximately 108 cars plus those cars of staff and any people using the restaurant, a meeting room, the health club, visiting guest, etc. and, in my opinion, would mean that 135 required parking places are insufficient. 1. of all the factors of why Pico Boulevard West of Appian Way should not be vacated in the favor of this project is the magnificent view open to all comming West down the hill on Pico. It is the only street where the ocean and breakers can be seen unobstructed. 2. According to the drawings in the EIR, it appears the plans are to build underneath Pico; (I could find no mention in the text) One proposed level for parking under the street level as it is now and raise . the level of the proposed patio at the foot of Pico one level all the way from Appian Way to the steps that will then lead down to the Promenade. This will effect the Environment in several ways: *It will block the unique view. *It will limit the access to the beach by the public, the handicapped, the very young and the very old. *It will increase traffic congestion. 3. I suggest the city not vacate the end of Pico and the developers of the hotel use part of their own property to have their motor court and car turn around. 4. The proposal of connecting the two buildings with a bridge over Appian Way will change the view and feel of the street. A bridge of 50 foot width (over a street of 40 foot width) will create a tunnel effect. A walkway of 15 to 20 feet would be sufficient. The ample promenade along the beach is only 20 feet. S. It will lend itself to graffiti. 1. The placing of a kitchen underground in this area does not seem practical. a. Water table level is very high and will probably have to be pumped constantly. b. Proximity to the water disposal channel that frequeuently has had a higher pollution ratio than is considered safe is poor planning. c. Inquiries should be made into the problems encountered in Venice with the new building built on the promenade known as the Venice plunge or Bathhouse while it was being developed. It took several years to finish due to the water problem during the original excavation for construction. d. There will be a definite hazard of polluted water seepage after a run off from a storm. 2. If planned excavation under Appian Way is proposed for the dry season, it means a major beach thoroughfare will be closed during the height of the beach season. 3. Lack of tinted glass on the west side of building is not considerate of their guest. 4. Required set back - variances are requeuested for every lot line except the Promenade. This seems unwise to over build on a site in an area that the City has tried to prevent crowding for 30 years and therefore, began the Ocean Park Development Project. The standard set backs are for a purpose and should be followed in this case to prevent the walled in, tunnel feeling in an area in which everyone should enjoy the openness of the beach area. 5. Vicente Terrace is vacated for vehicular traffWIstiofalsian Wato park but is a much needed and used walkway for the public. 'motorcycles and bicycles and should not be built upon. p6. The use of the hotel for large gatherings will adversely effect the area traffic and noise level. No matter what the city may request, a hotel can not restrict the use of automobiles by their customers. 7. Bicyclist, pedestrians and beachgoers will be adversely effected in their access to the beach from the removal of a street that has been used by the public for 100 years. S. Where will the taxis queue? 9. closing of Pico will restrict easy access to the beach front for emergency vehicles, fire trucks, police and lifeguards. - 10. The use of Vicente Terrace as a delivery street is unfair to the residents of that street. I welcome an opportunity to discuss my opinions with any planning department person, planning commissioner or city employees who may have imput on this project. Please keep me informed of the progress of this proposed project. Sincerely yours, Paula Boelsems ph. 213- 393 -4957 f — DI-TT l-LT CITY 1LnL3 mi 212 ATTI: s i All 'I Rosl !I vuRG CITY OF SAS: -A MOy C' CITY PL 6. ! OFFi�i '97 AUG 39 P 3 :55 s IrY_1J rL 6, 1987 ., 1 , iC_, 1 TO ALL COIICLn"I9 I :..: TT-' U!,11,3. of TI,r.'' S -`i1LL It DITME "OT 21,11 IT, 11:1 T.TS UILDI ;G i.TGULD ENGULF' :1 AIR S ACL9 CIRUULITIC. I, SUI?- LIGIIT h_liD ,-OST 11.1 ORTA1 T9 Iit II91ELIi:00D. `n I?; A1:u'zcGIrcE oI? TIM PROJECT Cl taG,�s MT— 11S`I"CR �L�1Ir ".1` T:.x. In ;YERta _11GHTS TO 3,t1CIi ACCESS ll VAOAidrING PICO DCVO. PROP'Gsm .a laa :D b 1T10 10 PI�SVAT TO CLOSE, ($ PUBLIC STR���TS SO TI?1T TTTI � DBVLLO -R IF:G', ME THE SIZE OF HIS D'JI1LDi7.Gy ..IIIVCH IS =L MDY ,Io;=D jb i'r AI ..: PLiI'I WAY IS NOT U1,TI OIU'1 G 21TH :io Cu,4URS11TLY Oil T.'3, B G1/I_. 1TT T nT, T\ -�S, APPL .. ;dff iUNM VICE TF TEIM AIICE IO']LD ;s II�..CC�a.,IME FOR SE01MAL 1110IdTHS`i ?OT TO b 31YTIO1'I TI -11 `MI�-J IG OF iiil POLICE$ b'I;wy GUEST aL[ RGEI.CY ACCESS Ull VIC117TG PIACZj TI: A3 Cli -,I C) C3 p A I' 11 m .� �� �, _�� D, /, /,, j`o � /�� 3 Dr. N.J. Goldstein 17 Vicente Terrace Santa Monica, CA 90401 Ms. Karen Rosenberg Associate Planner City Planning Division Santa Monica City Hall 1685 Main Street Santa Monica, CA 90401 Dear Ms. Rosenberg, September 7, 1987 I am a citizen living at 17 Vicente Terrace in Santa Moni.ca for 10 years and I would like to express my concerns about the Project entitled "One Pico Hotel" submitted by the R.E. Inter- national, as it will.interfere with the development of a nice residential area on this street. Parking Vicente Terrace is a short narrow street with tremendous shortage of parking for the people who live here: 1) Most of the houses were built when parking was not required 2) There is an apartment building with 18 units plus several duplexes and 3 houses all with rental units and no parking on site on Vicente Terrace. 3) Guests from the Bar and Restaurant "Mucky Duck" take over many parking spaces on Vicente Terrace (and surrounding streets) every night. 4) There are thousands of beachgoers all year long, especially on sunny weekends driving down this street looking for parking. Studying the plans carefully, I feel that parking on Vicente Terrace will probably have to be elimiftated. Our street is only 15 feet wide and will not accomodate some of the delivery trucks that will have to use this street to get to the delivery entrance. Considering all this, the closing down of parking lots and parking on Pico Blvd., there is not sufficient parking spaces provided by the developers, even if they meet more than the City requirements. Traffic A traffic count made on Monday evening, March 30 between 5 and 6 p.m. on the intersection of Appian Way and Pico Blvd. is irrelevant, as it was most likely a cool, dark day. Taken during the afternoon of a warm California day, the count would be much different. The traffic on Appian Way is heavy throughout the year on any warm to hot weekend and even more during any sunny day of the summer months. On those days there is always a traffic jam on Appian Way going to the intersection of Pico Blvd. - 2 - - 2 - The garage entrance of the Hotel on the East side of Appian .'!ay will disrupt the flow of the traffic even more. Visual Vacating the end of Pico to the public by giving ittro the Hotel use and raising up the level at the foot of Pico will not only take away a magnificent view of the Ocean (coming down Pico) but will also limit the access to the beach by the public, especially the handicapped and old people. A bridge of 50 foot width over a street of 40 foot width will be very offensive and create a tunnel effect in an area in which everyone should be able to enjoy the openness of the beach area. i Miscellaneous Required set back variances are requested for every lot line except the Promenade. This will mean overbuilding in an area that the City has tried to-prevent crowding for many years. Even with standaret set backs, having the delivery entrance on Vicente Terrace would create a walled in feeling and would degrade Vicente Terrace to a back alley. As a recent home owner, I started to remodel my home at 17 Vicente Terrace which adds esthetically to the appearance of the neighborhood. Also the house next to mine has been remodeled and other neighbors put their pride and effort into making a visual contribution to the quality of the neighborhood. Having a delivery entrance on this residential street will be not only offensive and unbearable to this neighborhood, but to the beach loving community in general. Enclosed are two recent photographs taken of the center of Vicente Terrace,- which show that this neighborhood is being.upgraded and renewed. These photographs should serve to dispell any questions regarding the present and potential character of this residential neighborhood. Yours sincerely, Dr. N.J. Goldstein and Gudrun Goldstein A Ms. Karen Rosenberg Associate Planner City Planning Division Santa Monica City Hall 1685 Main Street Santa Monica, CA 90401 September 7, 1987 Dear Ms. Rosenberg, I am a resident living oa- Vicente Terrace in Santa Monica and would like to protest aiinst the plans concerning the Project "One Pico Hotel" submitted by R.E.. International. I feel that it will be am infringement upon the residents of Vicente Terrace and Seavuaw Terrace in that it will change a bad parking situation ints an intolerable one. There are at least 45 - 50 people living an Vicente Terrace with street parking for only 14 cars. Aiyw variances which would lead to diminished parking on this street would be a great burden to the residents. Although, this last vacant piece to the beach. Any commercially woul residents `of this general. is not my-arrly- concern, I feel this is the of properly with public access going down private eif°orts to develop the land i be an en-fflronmental blight not only to the neighborhmad'but to the greater community, in Progressive efforts by th% 0ity to upgrade this area and turn it into a public recreationEt park would -enhance the environment, true to the spirit of the citizens and the administration of Santa Monica. Sincerl�ely, c ev �� Se - h' JO qO1 f \AAWALLEN ASSOCIATES /Transportation Consultants 5820 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 304 Los Angeles, CA 90036, (213) 937 -2768 DATE: September 22, 1987 it TO: Gil Bendix j1 FROM: Martin Wallen SUBJECT: One Pico - Traffic Mitigation Measures ?j P? 7rEIVFD 24 SEP 1967 Per your suggestion I field checked Pico Boulevard at Ocean, Main and 4th Street and Ocean Avenue at the PCH Ramp. The existing traffic engineering measures, specifically traffic signal phasing and intersection geometry are excellent. It is not possible to suggest traffic engineering improvements to any of these intersections. The traffic associated with the One Pico Project does not suggest street improvements of the magnitude that would suggest right of way acquisition to facilitate greater intersection capacity. The City of Santa Monica has under way a citywide traffic circulation study for the base year of 1990. The results of this study should describe future traffic demands, the facilities needed to accommodate future traffic and means for the financing and implementation of needed street improvements. The City also has under consideration a model TS14 ordinance directed at maintaining mobility with lesser vehicular traffic generation. It would be appropriate to condition the One Pico development to participate in any future charges related to the circulation study or TSM ordinance. PSW:kn CITY OF SANTA MONICA CITY PLANNING DIVISION City Hall, 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, California 90401 -3295 CERTIFICATION OF FINAL EIR DATE October 9 1987 PROJECT TITLE 1 Pio'n HotPI APPLICATION NUMBER DR 325 FIL 814, Cite 417 9A 5169 -Y EIR NUMBER EIA 814 State Clearinghouse No. 86072303 This hereby certifies that this Final Environmental Impact Report was completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the State EIR Guidelines, and the City of Santa Monica CEQA Guidelines. EF11 8/18/86 APPENDICES TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 1. Initial Study A -2 2. Earth - Regional Faults Map A -19 3. Utilities -- Runoff Coefficient Curves A -20 Calculation of Water Runoff A -21 4. Transportation /Circulation A -22 Level of Service Definitions A -23 Intersection Traffic Counts A -24 Newport Traffic Studies Project and Cumulative Traffic Projects A -36 Wallen Associates Na1 Appendix 1. CITY OF SANTA MONICA INITIAL STUDY EIA NO. 814 DATE FILED 3/31/86 I. BACKGROUND 1. Name of Proponent R. E. International 2. Address and Phone Number. of Proponent 9460 Wilshire Boulevard Beverly Hills, California 90212 3. Project Address One Pico Boulevard Santa Monica, California 90405 Name of Proposal, if applicable 4. Initial Study Prepared by City of Santa Monica II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.) Yes Maybe No I. Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? x b. Extensive disruptions, displace- ments, compaction or overcovering of soil? x _ C. Extensive change in topography of ground surface relief features? x d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geological or physical features? v x e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? x A -2 I 2 3 f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the bed of the ocean or any bay or inlet? g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud- slides, ground failure, or similar hazards? Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Considerable air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? b. The creation of objectionable odors? C. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? d. Expose the project residents to severe air pollution conditions? Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course of direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? b. Extensive changes in absorp- tion rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? C. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? A-3 Yes Maybe No x x x x x x x x M x x x 4. 5. g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? h. Considerable reduction in the amount of water otherwise avail- able for public water supplies? i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? C. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or result in a barrier to the normal replen- isment of existing species? Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of animals (birds, land animals inclding reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms or insects)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? C. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? d. Deterioration of existing fish or wildlife habitats? A-4 X x x x F2 x ,y 9i x x 11 7. 0 N 10 11 Yes Maybe No Energy. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of considerable amount of fuels or energy? x b. Considerable increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources or energy? x Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? x b. Considerable depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? x Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Considerable increases in existing noise levels? x b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? x Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce considerable new light or glare from street lights or other sources? x Shadows. Will the proposal produce extensive shadows affecting adjacent uses or property? x Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve: a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? x b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? x A -5 Yes Maybe No 12. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? _ x b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? s x 13. Population. Will the proposal result in: a. Considerable change in the distri- bution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? x b. The relocation of any persons because of the effects upon housing, commercial or industrial facilities? x C. The relocation or dislocation of employment or businesses? x 14. Land Use. Will the proposal result in: a. A considerable alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? x b. Demolition, relocation, or remodeling of residential, com- mercial or industrial buildings or other facilities? x 15. Housing. Will the Proposal: a. Create a considerable demand for additional housing? x b. Have a considerable impact on the available rental housing in the community? x 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or major alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? _x b. Communications systems? x C. Water? x __ d. Sewer or septic tanks? e. Storm water drainage? £. Solid Waste and disposal? 17. Right of Way. Will the proposal result in: a. Reduced front /side lot area? b. Reduced access? C. Reduced off - street parking? d. Creation of abrupt grade dif- ferential between public and private property? 18. Transportation /Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of considerable additional vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? C. Considerable impact upon existing transit systems? d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and /or goods? e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 19. Public Services. Will the proposal have a considerable effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? C. Schools? d. Parks or other recreational facilities? A-7 Yes Maybe No x x X K, X X x K, x X X x x x X x _ x K, X X x K, x X X x x 20. 21 22 23. e. Maintenance of public facil- ities, including roads? x _ f. Other governmental services? x Fiscal. Will the proposal have a considerable fiscal effect on the city? x Recreation. Will the proposal result in a considerable impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? x Cultural Resources. a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruc- tion of a prehistoric or his- toric archeological site? x b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? X C. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? x d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? x Aesthetics. Will the proposed project result in: a. The obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public? x b. The creation of an aestheti- cally offensive site open to public view? x C. The destruction of a stand of trees, a rock outcropping or other locally recognized desir- able aesthetic natural feature? x d. Any negative aesthetic effect? x A-8 Yes Maybe No 24. Neighborhood Effects. Will the proposal have considerable effects on the project neighborhood? x 25. Mandatory Findings of Significance. a. Does the project have the poten- tial to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal commun- ity, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or pre- history? x b. Does the project have the poten- tial to achieve short -term, to the disadvantage of long -term, environmental goals? x C. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? x d. Does the project have environ- mental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? x III. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (See attachment) IV. DETERMINATION (See attachment) A-9 III. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation INTRODUCTION This attachment supplements the City of Santa Monica Initial Study Form for the proposed R. E. International Development Review application (DR 325, CUP 417). According to the City of Santa Monica CEQA Guidelines, the purposes of an Initial study are to: (1) Identify potential environmental impacts; (2) Enable an applicant or Lead Agency to modify a project, mitigating adverse impacts before an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is written; (3) Focus an EIR, if one is required, on potentially significant environmental effects; (4) Facilitate environmental assessment early in the design of a project; (5) Provide documentation of the factual basis for the finding in a Negative Declaration that a project will not have a significant effect on the environment; (6) Eliminate unnecessary EIRs. The conclusion of this Initial adverse environmental effects project, and therefore an Envirc be required. Any comments determination to prepare an EIR, EIR, should be sent to: Study is that some significant may result from the proposed nmental Impact Report (EIR) will on this Initial Study, the or the appropriate scope of the 1 Karen Rosenberg City Planning Division City Hall P.O. Box 2200 Santa Monica, California 90406 -2200 Once the draft EIR is prepared, there will be a public review period during which time comments on the environmental impact analysis on the proposed project may be made. A legal notice will be published in the Evening Outlook newspaper advertising the completion and availability of the draft EIR. Project Location See attached maps. Proposed Project The proposed project consists of a six story 166 room hotel with supporting restaurants, meeting rooms and health club totaling approximately 101,925 square feet. Potential Environmental Impacts As required by the City of Santa Monica Initial Study form, this section provides an explanation of all "yes" and "maybe" answers. The purpose of this analysis is to identify potential environmental effects, to assess the significance of potential effects and to focus any subsequent analysis. A -11 I . Earth a. Will the proposal result in unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? Response: This item is checked maybe. The development's proximity to the beach may result in unstable earth conditions. Further analysis is needed. b. Will the proposal result in extensive disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of soil? Response: This item is checked maybe. The proposed development requires excavation of Appian Way, a public right -of -way which may create extensive disruptions of the soil. Additional analysis is needed. 2. Air a. Will the proposal result in considerable air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? Response: This item is checked maybe. The proposed development includes a bridge over Appian Way which will create a tunnel below. The ambient air quality in �= and around this tunnel may be significantly impacted. Additional analysis is needed. 3. Water i. Will the proposal result in exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? Response: This item is checked maybe. In the past severe winter storms have damaged the oceanfront in Santa Monica. Given the proximity of the proposed development to the ocean, additional analysis is needed to review what mitigation measures will be used, if any, to prevent adverse water related incidents. 8. Noise a. Will the proposal result in considerable increases in existing noise levels? Response: This item is checked "maybe ". During the period of construction occasionally high levels of noise will occur, although perhaps only for a limited time period. Additionally, land use changes at the site as well as traffic generated by the project may create adverse noise impacts. Further analysis is needed. A-12 9. Light and Glare Will the proposal produce considerable new light or glare from street lights or other sources? Response: This item is checked "maybe ". New building lighting and street lighting associated with the project may produce new light and glare problems for motorists and surrounding properties. These effects, in addition to any that may result from proposed exterior building materials should be discussed and analyzed. 10. Shadows Will the proposal adjacent uses or x ce extensive shadows Response: This item is checked "maybe ". The development pattern at the site may create adverse shadow impacts. A shadow study site plan should be drawn illustrating the project's shadow pattern on adjacent properties at 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. on December 21st and June 21st. A written analysis should also be provided. 14. Land Use Will the proposal result in a consideration alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? Response: This item is checked "yes ". The proposal would alter the existing pattern of land uses, through new development at the site and the bridge over Appian Way and relocation of Pico Place North. A description of the proposed changes and the implications of these changes need further review, including an analysis of compliance with the General Plan, current and proposed zoning regulations and existing land use patterns. 15. Housing Will the proposal a. Create a considerable demand for additional housing? b. Have a considerable impact on the available rental housing in the community? Response: These items are checked "maybe ". Housing demand created by the project could have a significant impact on housing availability in the City. An analysis should identify what impact this project will have on housing in the community and applicable mitigation measures should be discussed. A13 16. 17. IVIN Utilities Will the proposal result in a need for new systems or major alterationa to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? c. Water? d. Sewer or septic tanks? e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste and disposal? Response: These items are checked "maybe ". Evaluation of the project's impact on existing utility systems is necessary. Right of Way Will the proposal result in: a. Reduced front /side lot area? b. Reduced access? c. Reduced off - street parking? Response: These items are checked "maybe" and "yes ". The proposed development will alter the setbacks and access from that which currently is provided and the proposed bridge over Appian Way may reduce access to the site. Additionally, during the construction phase, off - street parking will be reduced. Additional analysis and applicable mitigation measures should be discussed. Transportation /Circulation Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of considerable additional vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing par lnq facilities, or demand tor new parklnq? d. Alterations to present patterns or circulation or movement of people and /or goodse t. increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? Response: These items are checked "maybe" and "yes ". The proposed project may produce significant effects on parking and circulation in the area. An analysis of potential parking and traffic impacts and cumulative impacts from projects approved or under construction in the area is needed. The analysis should include an assessment of the effect the project will have on traffic volumes on adjacent streets in the vicinity of the project. Levels of service on key intersections should include. - Appian Way and Pico Boulevard - Ocean Avenue and Pico Boulevard - Main Street and Pico Boulevard - 4th Street and Pico Boulevard Ocean Park Boulevard and Neilson Way - Colorado Avenue and Ocean Avenue - Ocean Avenue and ramp to Pacific Coast Highway AM and PM hours average vehicular delay and level of service should be calculated with and without the project using the "Webster Method" analysis system. Trip directional distribution assignments should be analyzed and illustrated. Any applicable mitigation A -:14 measures should be noted and discussed. Future parking demand generated by the project should also be analyzed in terms of available on -site parking and available on- street parking. During the period of construction the existing parking lot will be closed. Additional detailed analysis of proposed interim parking plan for the cars currently parking on site is necessary. 19. Public Services Will the proposal have a considerable effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? d. Parks or other recreational facilities? e. Maintenance of public faci pities, i.ncludina roads? Response: These items are checked "maybe ". The need for services may be altered by the proposed development. Additional analysis is needed. The analysis of the impact of the project on the parks and recreational facilities may be included under item 21. Analysis should include discussion of the impact that the proposed bridge over Appian Way will have on road maintenance. 20. Fiscal Will the proposal have a considerable fiscal effect on Response: These items are checked "maybe ". Evaluation of the proposal's fiscal impact on the City is needed. Analysis should include estimates of annual sales tax, property tax, utility tax, bed tax and business license tax in constant 1986 dollars and analysis of Municipal expenses should be provided. 21. Recreation Will the proposal result in a considerable impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational Response: This item is checked "maybe ". The proposed hotel development may have a significant impact on existing recreational opportunities given its proximity to the beach and other recreation areas. Additional analysis is needed regarding how the recreational facilities will be affected and proposed mitigation measures, if any. A -15 23. Aesthetics Will the proposed project result in: a. The obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public? d. Any neqative aesthetic effect? Response: These items are checked "maybe ". The proposal would alter views which are currently open to the public and could have a significant aesthetic effect on the area. Additional analysis is needed and particular attention should be focused on the potential negative aesthetic impacts which the proposed bridge over Appian Way could have. 24. Neighborhood Effects Will the propc project neighbo have considerable effects on the Response: This item is checked "maybe ". The proposal could have a significant impact on the surrounding neighborhood. Additional analysis is needed. 25. Mandatory Findings of Significance KR:nh IS1 07/09/86 a. Does the project have the 7 quality of the environment, s habitat of a fish or wildlife wildlife population to drop ential to deqrade the r Les, cause a tlsn or ow self sustaininq levels, threaten to ets.minate a plant or anlmai community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or pre- history? b. Does the project have the t potential to achieve short -erm, to the disadvantage of long -term environmental goals? c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable? d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Response: These items are checked "maybe" based on the prior analysis. Additional review of the potential environmental effects is needed and particular attention should focus upon potential long term effects of the proposed bridge and Appian Way. A -16 6 � CITY OF SANTA MONICA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC EIA NO. 911L Project Title: One Pico Hotel On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment, and a Negative Declaration will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A Negative Declaration will be prepared. I find the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment, and an Environmental Impact Report is required. X �i�� ---- Date Director,, Community and Economic Development Department det A-17 Imm „KC all El ID l XI Z It I I�! Ij III l io efl II I,I IIIIII II li, `IrT I'V' III Ii �ijllf -I IYII II I.II o Ij II Ij nI :s "i::.......V2e sSSo.. e5saas s : r b tS § .,..o o .: :x :. ..._....�a asasaa :.a...odo...SB.T:. n:: e"sasi•au•of08 tt 1 6r*Y V Y ... 4 n A -18 a ?1= 1 lollµ V ON i I 1� I� r I U Lancaster A�ejD3L \� O Palmdale pea s �s 3vaone A °dr e® e Sj,� "rondo San Gabriel Mountains .� OOxnard / a a IB aP� cdcamon9 Santa Monica Mountains.-- PasadenaO _ -� on Malibu Coaat H ®tiyw On 6/ San Bernardino 0Los Angeles Pomona D D Alacapa 9 yO n Santa Monlc e ar -� i ORiverside Cab ® lJ N �® OA Banning - X -, \ c Pacific Ocean d °n do f 0 ' Beach pJ o \ N . m ° o OSanta Ana 46J HemetO °d s EXPLANATION 0 Newpo t. ach '® 'o 9 ^o Fault with historical surface rupture oo \ O4 'F Fault with Holocene (past 10,000 years) ® BJ surface rupture ^y �S e Fault with late Ouaternary (past 750,000 1P O San Clemente years) surface rupture is G 0 10 20 30 MILES i 0 10 20 30 40 KILOMETERS lig' Ila, 1I7' Figure 28. Regional Faults Map Source Geo /Resource Consultants, ino. - - and Bendix Environmental Research, Inc. CALCULATION OF WATER RUNOFF FROM PROPOSED HOTEL STRUCTURE Q =CIA Where C* = coefficient of runoff I = intensity of rain fall in inches per hour based on a duration of 5 minutes in a "K- rainfall" designation zone for a 10 -year storm event (10-year storm for the area is approximately 3.72 inches of rainfall in a one - hour period.) ** A = area of site Q = (.955) (3.72 in. /hour) (49,255 sq.ft.) (1 ft. /12 in.) (1 hr. /3600 sec.) = 4.1 cfs * Values furnished by the Los Angeles County of Public Works. ** Personal communication between Peter Peterson of the Dept. of Public Works, and Geo /Resource Consultants, Inc., 1987. Source: Geo /Resource Consultants, Inc. A -21 4. TRANSPORTATION APPENDIX TABLE OF CONTENTS Level of Service Definitions ............. ...........................A -23 Intersection Traffic Counts Newport Traffic Studies Appian Way /Pico Blvd .................. ...........................A -24 Ocean Ave. /Colorado Ave ............... ...........................A -27 Ocean Ave. /PCH ramp ................... ...........................A -30 Neilson Way /Ocean Park Blvd ........... ...........................A -33 Project and Cumulative Traffic Projects Wallen Associates ..................... ...........................A -36 A -22 LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Level of Average Individual Service Delay (seconds) Definition A 0 - 5.0 EXCELLENT. No vehicle waits longer than one red light and no approach phase is fully used. B 5.1 - 15.0 VERY GOOD. An occasional approach phase is fully used; many drivers begin to feel somewhat restrict- ed within groups of vehicles. C 15.1 - 25.0 GOOD. Occasionally drivers may have to wait through more than one red light; backups may develop behind turning vehicles. D 25.1 - 40.0 FAIR. Delays may be sub- stantial during portions of rush hours, but enough lower volume periods occur to permit clearing of developing lines, prevent- ing excessive backups. E 40.1 - 60.0 POOR. Represents the most vehicles that the intersection approach can accomodate; may be long lines of waiting vehicles through several signal cycles. F 60 or more FAILURE. Backups from nearby locations or on cross streets may restrict or prevent movement of vehicles out of inter- section approaches. Tremendous delays with continuously increasing queue lengths. A -23 INTERSECTION TURNING COUNT NEWPORT TRAFFIC STUDIES- NEWPORT BEACH, Ch. NORTH -SOUTH STREET: APPIAN WAY EAST -WEST STREET: PICO BLVD TIME: 4:00 -5:00 P DATE: 03 -30 -87 6 , 91 , 175 , Total 4 1 13 , 53 , 1st 1 --- -1--- - -1 ---- 1 , 36 1 51 , 2nd ' - -- --- -1 - - -- 1 , 18 , 32 , 3rd 0 , 24 1 39 , 4th Rt. S Lt. V1 --------------------------- Rt., 251 92t 51 181, 90; < - - - ! 91 41 11 e!. 22� Total 1st 2nd 3rd 4th Lt.! 181 181 141 101 60' 211 11 01 01 11 Lt. 1st 2nd 3rd 4th - Totai 231 9! 21 31 9! - - -> 91 41 11 01 4! Rt. -------------------------- i LtRt i 1st - --- -- -- , - 0 , 2 , 14 2nd l---- ° ' ----- ' ----- ' , 1 , 2 , 8 , !' 3rd , 0 t 2 , 8 l-- - - -1- -- 1-- ---1 4th 1 1 1 4 ! 9 1 I, Total , , 2 I 10 1 39 ! A -24. I INTERSECTION TURNING COUNT NEWPORT TRAFFIC STUDIES- NEWPORT BEACH, CA. NORTH -SOUTH STREET: APPIAN WAY EAST -WEST STREET: PICO BLVD TIME: 5:00 -6:00 P DATE: 03 -30 -87 1 46 1 134 1 Total 0 , 16 i 38 1 ist 0 i 8 i 24 1 2nd 0 i 13 i 37 1 3rd 1 i 9 j 30 i 4th Ri. i Lt. V Total 1st 2nd 3rd 4th -------------------------- 11i 01 0i it 0; Lt. 3:1 it 0: 11 11 Rt. Rt.1 9i 181 161 1911 621 C - - -- - i 21 41 1i 4ii ill Lt.. 71 31 iii 13i: 341 ist 2nd 3rd 4th Total Lt. Rt. ist 1 0 i 3 i 3 2nd 0 i 3 i 0 3rd 1 0 3 i 12 4 t'r: 0 i 4 Total 1 -- -0 i 13 i 24 A -25 INTERSECTION TURNING COUNT i- NEWPORT TRAFFIC STUDIES- NEWPORT BEACH, CA. NORTH -SOUTH STREET: APPIAN WAY EAST -WEST STREET: PICO BLVD TIME: 6:00 -7:00 P DATE: 03 -30 -87 1 20 , 126 , Total 0 , 6 i 25 , 1st I i 7 , 44 , 2nd 1-----1-----1-- - 0 i 4 , 31 , 3rd 0 , 3 , 26 1 4th Rt. i Lt V Total 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 0 i i 01 01 01 0. Lt. 131 41 41 31 21 - - -> 61 11 31 21 01 Rt. Rt., 201 231 191 131, 751 < - - -1 61 41 31 21, 151 Lt.! 141 61 51 4t, 29; Lt. Rt Ist 2nd 3rd 4th Total 1 s t 0 3 B 2nd , 0 , 3 , 7 3rd 0 , 4 3 4th , 0 , 0 , 2 Total 0 1 10 1 20 A -26 I1,1TERSECTION TURNING COUNT NEWPORT TRAFFIC STUDIES - NEWPORT BEACH, CA. tS i)RTt[ -SOU LFi STREET: OCEAN EAST-WELT STREET: COLORADO AVE TINE: 4:00 -5:00 P DATE: 03 -31 -87 22 1 °568 1 112 I Total 3 , 120 1 18 1 1st 4 144 20 , 2nd v 7 143 i 33 , 3rd 8 1 161 , 41 1 4th Rt. i Lt. V v Rt., 211 28 42f 531, 1441 , 21 4f 31 61, 151 Total 1st 2nd 3rd 4th Lt.! 46i 501 601 6511 2211 {_- - - ---- - __ °-- -- -- --_- - - i -------------------------- 0i ii 4 61 Lt 1st 2nd 3rd 4th Total _ -311 _ 8; 10i 71 61 - - - -> 37 61 81 111 121 Rt. A -27 Lt. Rt ist 10 '122 , 60 , 2n3 12 131 i 61 , 3rd 9 149 i 36 , 4th i2 161 . 53 Total - - -43 i 563 i 210 A -27 INTERSECTION TURNING COUNT NEWPORT TRAFFIC STUDIES- NEWPORT BEACH, CA. NORTH -SOUTH STREET: OCEAN EAST -WEST STREET: COLORADO AVE TIME: 5:00 -6:00 P DATE: 03 -31 -87 21 1 776 1 104 1 Total -6 1 171 1 18 1 1st 4 1 162 i 20 1 2nd i 6 1 203 1 31 1 3rd --- i -- - - -1 5 1 240 : 35 1 4th Rt. i Lt V Total 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 61! 41 21 01 01 Lt. 4311 81 10! 111 14i - - -i 2011 51 41 6i 51 Rt. Rt.1 311 381 391 4211 150: ? - - -i 31 29 31 4 :1 129 Lt.! 499 561 61; 679, 2331 -------------------------- Ist 2nd 3rd 4th Total Lt. i Rt. 1st 1 3 1 171 1 46 2nd 4 1 160 1 40 3rd 1 6 170 1 41 4th t 8 1 148 1 46 Total 21 1 649 1 173 1 Uso INTERSECTION TURNING COUNT NEWPORT TRAPPIC STUDIES- NEWPORT LEACH, CA. NORTH -SOUTH S'T'REET: OCEAN EAST -WEST 'STREET: COLORADO AVE TINE: 6:00 -7:00 P DATE: 03- 31 - -87 26 1 837 1 166 1 Total 6 °1 215 1 41 1 1st _._- - --'-- i ----- 1 7 235 , 51 1 2nd 6 1 201 1 43 1 3rd 7 , 186 , 31 1 4th Rt. i Lt V Rt.i 531 411 391 4211 1751 C - - -1 61 41 31 311 161 Total Ist 2nd 3rd 4th Lt.! 591 481 391 3611 1821 - i011 21 31 21 31 Lt. 1st 2nd 3rd 4th Total 45i! 121 I31 121 81 - - -> 251. 51 61 61 81 Rt. Lt. R 1st 1 6 193 , 53 2nd , 5 1 207 1 49 3rd 4 i 186 i 46 4th 1 6 135 39 Total 1 21 721 187 A -29 INTERSECTION TURNING COUNT NEWPORT TRAPPiC STUDIES- NEWPORT BEACH, CA. NORTH -SOUTH STREET: OCEAN EAST -WEST STREET: PCH RAMP TIME: 4:00 -5:00 P DATE: 03 -31 -87 109 1 895 1 4 1 Total 1 16 1 203 1 0 1 1st 14 1 226 1 0 1 2nd i - -` ---- 1 ----- i i qO 1 236 : 2 1 3rd 39 i 230 i 2 1 4th Rt i Lt V Total 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 1-------------------------- ! i 71ll 211 241 12; 141 Lt. ---i - -i---- 51i 01 01 21 31 - - -5 31511 761 881 721 791 Rt. 1-------------------------- : Rt.: 41 31 41 611 17: < - - -1 61 41 181 21li 491 Lt.! 31 31 41 611 161 1st 2nd 3rd 4th Total Lt. i Rt. Ist 1 96 1 131 1 2nd 1 108 1 150 3rd 1 101 1 161 4th 1 90 1 176 1 Total 1 395 1 618 1 0 1----- --- -- - - - - -- /, INTERSECTION TURNING COUNT NEWPORT TRAFFIC STUDIES- NEWPORT BEACH, CA. HORT'H -SOUTH STREET: OCEAN EAST -WEST STREET: PCH RAMP TIME: 5:00 -6:00 P DATE: 03 -31 -87 ----------------- i i 82 11134 1 6 1 Total 28 °, 362 , 0 1st 21 289 , 1 , 2.nd ----1 - --- 13 1 ^246 1 2 1 3rd -- -- -1---- 20 1 237 1 3 1 4th 1----------------- i Rt i Lt V TLta-. 1st 2nd 3rd 401 9711 i6l 231 271 311 Lt. �i2 ?:, 118; 1031 991 1041 Rt, Rt., 10; 31 41 31, 20! < - - -1 41 6; 51 51 1 201 Lt., 01 11 21 31 61 1st 2nd 3rd 4th Total A L t i H 1st 142 1 172 1 q , 211d 103 " 183 , 5 , 3rd , 85 , 164 6 4th 111 , 173 1 8 Total , 441 . 692 23 A -31 iNTERSECTION TURNING COUNT NEWPORT TRAFFIC STUDIES- NEWPORT BEACH, CA. NORTH -SOUTH STREET: OCEAN EAST -WEST STREET: PCH RAMP TINE: 6:00 -7:00 P DATE: 03 -31 -87 92 1 924 1 14 1 Total 1 27 , 265 , 4 1 1st i-- --- '- ----i- - -- -1 i 21 I 251 1 3 1 2nd - 23 1 222 1 4 3rd 21 1 186 1 3 1 4th Rt. i Lt. 4 Rt.i 41 31 41 31i 141 < - - ,--- -1 41 -�- 1; --- --- --- - 41 311 - --- -� 121 Total 1st 2nd 3rd 4th Lt.! 61 41 51 611 21! 12411 391 281 311 261 Lt. 1st 2nd 3rd 4th Total 31, 01 i1 21 01 - - -} i 36711 1121 861 931 761 Rt. 1-------- ----------- --- ---1 L t i Rt 1st t 143 1 191 1 6 2nd 1 113 1 121 1 3 3rd 1 121 1 137 1 4 4th 1 103 1 131 1 3 Total 1 480 1 580 1 16 1 A -32 INTERSECTION TURNING COUNT NEWPORT TRAFFIC STUDIES- NEWPORT BEACH, CA. NORTH -SOUTH STREET: NEILSON WAY EAST -WEST STREET: OCEAN PARR BLVD TIME: 4:00 -5:00 P DATE: 03 -30 -87 15 1 902 1 78 1 Total 1 5 1 191 1 16 1 1st 2 1 266 1 26 2nd 5 1 -230 °1 14 1 3rd , 3 , 215 22 , 4th Rt. i Lt. U Total Ist 2nd 3rd 4th 81, 21 Z1 it 31 Lt. 191 251 21; 221 - - -> �ti 3i o, 21 11 Rt, Rt., 281 201 121 181, 781 C - - -1 261 201 -25! 251, 961 Lt,., 441 551 491 471! 1951 ist 2nd 3rd 4th Total A -33 Lt. i Rt. 1st 7 209 26 i 2nd 5 1 251 1 37 , 3rd t 5 1 227 1 33 , 9th 10 , 260 , 50 Total 27 , 947 , 146 , A -33 INTERSECTION TURNING COUNT NEWPORT TRArFIC STUDIES- NEWPORT BEACH, CA. NORTH -SOUTH STREET: NEILSON WAY EAST -WEST 'STREET: OCEAN PARK BLVD TALE 5:00 -6:00 P DATE: 03 -30 -87 13 11062 1 89 1 Total 5 i 239 i 24 1 Ist 1 5 1 312 , 24 , 2nd '- -- - -1 - -- 2 257 1 21 1 3rd 1 254 , 20 1 4th Rt i Lt V Total Ist 2nd 3rd 4th ---- -- - - -- 101 11 31 21 41 Lt. 761, 231 201 131 201 - - -) 111, 21 41 11 41 Rt. 1-- ------------- -- ---- --- - -1 Rt., 191 201 171 231, 791 <- —1 301 281 191 411, 1181 Lt., 581 571 341 4611 195: Ist 2nd 3rd 4th Total Lt i Rt Ist 1 6 237 , 34 2nd , 3 1 277 , 38 3rd , 2 , 215 1 24 4th 1 2 1 231 1 38 1 Total 1 13 , 960 1 134 1----------------- A -34 INTERSECTION TUR14ING COUNT NEWPORT TRAFFIC STUDIES- NEWPORT SEACH, CA. NORTH -SOUTH STREET: 14EILSON WAY EAST -WEST STREET: OCEAN PARK BLVD 'f'1 NE: 6:00 -7:00 P DATE: 03 -30 -87 9 : 883 i 65 1 Total ;2 1 255 1 20 1 1st 3 1 270 1 17 1 2nd 0 1 £71 i 15 1 3rd 4 1 187 1 13 1 4th , ------------------ R R t i Lt V Tot -,! 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 11t! 2! 31 31 31 Lt. 31 161 411 81 161 - - -i 10 31 31 'l! 21 Rt. Rt.i 301 231 11! at! 72; 1 ---- ; ---- i 1 ---- it < - - -! 331 241 141 1611 871 Lt.: 601 531 481 461 2071 Ist 2nd 3rd 4th Total Lt. i Rt. 1st 4 . 196 1 25 i 2nd 1 3 1 229 1 44 , 3rd 1 4 1 169 40 4th 1 1 , 157 1 28 Total 1 12 i 751 i 137 A -35 Existing Ambient +2.5% per year 5 years = 12.5% 1987 -1992 Subtotal Other (Cumulative) Development Subtotal Project Traffic PICO HOTEL PROJECTED P.M. PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC APPIAN WAY @ PICO BOULEVARD Northbound Southbound Eastbound i Westbound L T - R L T R L T R L T R 4 - 13 24 134 46 1 1 11 3 34 11 62 - 5 15 5 - - - - 5 - 10 15 30. 150 50 - - 10 5 40 . 10 70 - 15 30 150 ,50 r - 10 5 40 10 70 - 4 - 65 4 - - 4 - - 4 63 Grand Total - 20 30 215 55 - - 15 5 40 15 135 Note, All existing and project traffic rounded off to nearest 5. '.. 1Source: Newport Traffic Studies, March 1987. WALLEN ASSOCIATES A -36 PICO HOTEL PROJECTED P.M. PEAK HOUR TRAPPIC COLORADO AVENUE @ OCEAN AVENUE Cj Northbound L T R Southbound L T R Eastbound Westbound L T R L T R Existingl 21 649 173 104 776 21 6 43 20 233 12 150 Ambient 5 80 20 15 95 5 - 5 5 30 - 20 +2.5e per year 5 years = 12.5 %. 1987 -1992 Subtotal 25 730 195 120 870. 25 5 50 25 265 10 170 other - 125 5 35 115 - - - - 35 - 45 (Cumulative) Development subtotal 25 855 200 155 ' 985 25 5 50 25 300 10 215 Project Traffic - 7 4 - 7 4 Grand Total 25 860 205 155 990 25 5 50 25 305 10 215 I...4 Note. All existing and project traffic rounded off to nearest 5. 1Source: Newport Traffic Studies, 1987. A -37 Existingl - Ambient -H2.5% per year 5 years = 12.5% 1987 -1992 Subtotal Other (Cumulative) Development PICO HOTEL PROJECTED P.M. PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC OCEAN AVENUE @ PCH RAMP Northbound L T R Southbound L T R 441 692 23 6 1,134 82 55 85 5 - 140 10 i Eastbound Westhound L T R L T R -i 97 4 429 6 20 20 -! 10 - 55 - 5 5 20 495 775 25 5 1,275 90 105 5 485 5 25 25 20 35 - - 65 20 - 15 - - - Subtotal 515 810 25 5• 1,340 90 125 5 500 5 25 25 I Project Traffic 7 11 - - 11 - - _ 7 Grand Total 520 820 25 5 1,350 90 125 5 505 5 25 5 Note. All existing and project traffic rounded off to nearest 5. III 1Source: Newport Traffic Studies, March 1987. WALLEN ASSOCIATES A -38 PICO HOTEL PROJECTED P.M. PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC PICO @ OCEAN- NEILSON Northbound L T R Southbound L T R Eastbound L T R Westbound L T R xistingl l 25 1,065 150 295 1,420 20 65 120 40 395 180 310 'abient 5 160 25 45 215 5 10 20 5 60 25 45 2.5% per year b years = 15% 1986 -1992 (' ubtotal 30 1,225 175. 340 1,635 25 75 140 45 455. 205 355 ther - 40 20 145 40 - - - - 45 - 95 (Cumulative) ' Development . ubtotal 30 1,265 195 485 1,675 25 .75 140 45 500 205 450 ro }ect Traffic 7 - - - - 18 18 44 7 - 42 - Grad Total 35 1,265 195 485 1,675 45 95 185 50 500 245 450 1Source: Linscott, Law & Greenspan, 1986. 2Project traffic rounded off to 5 in Grand Total. , WALLEN ASSOCIATES A -39 Existingl Ambient +2.5% per year 6 years = 150 1986 -1992 Subtotal Other (Cumulative) Development PICO HOTEL PROJECTED P.M. PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC PICO @ MAIN Northbound.. - - .. Southbound Eastbound Westbound L T R L T R L T R L T R 155 545 280 190 455 85 50 485 70 280 660 65 25 80 40 5 70 15 10 75 10 40 100 10 180 625 320 195 525 100 60 560 80 320 760 1 75 - 20 25 5 5 - - 85 - 20 85 10 Subtotal 180 645 345 200 .530 100 60 645 80 340 845 85 Project Traffic 3 - - - 3 4 36 4 - 36 - Grand Total 185 645 345 200 530 105 65 680 85 340 880 85 1 Source: Linscott, Law & Greenspan, 1986. 2Project traffic rounded off to 5 in Grand Total. WALL'EN ASSOCIATES A -40 PICO HOTEL PROJECTED P.M. PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC PICO @ FOURTH ibtotal 50 535 75 345 970 905 535 990 60 125 585 215 :oject Traffic - - - - - 22 22 14 - - 14 - Grand Total 50 535 75 345 970 925 555 1,005 60 125 600 215 1Source: Linscott, Law & Greenspan, 1986. 2Project traffic rounded off to nearest 5 in Grand Total. WALLEN ASSOCIATES A -41 _ Northbound L T R Southbound L T R L Eastbound T R Westbound L T R cistingl 40 455 65 205: 810 620 215 720 50 110 415 95 mbient 5 70 10 30 120 10 30 110 10 15 60 15 ?.5% per year years = 15% 1986 -1992 ibtotal 45 525 75 235 930 630 245 820 60 125 475 110 :her 5 - - 110 40 275 290 170 - - 110 105 ,Jumulative) Development ibtotal 50 535 75 345 970 905 535 990 60 125 585 215 :oject Traffic - - - - - 22 22 14 - - 14 - Grand Total 50 535 75 345 970 925 555 1,005 60 125 600 215 1Source: Linscott, Law & Greenspan, 1986. 2Project traffic rounded off to nearest 5 in Grand Total. WALLEN ASSOCIATES A -41 PICO HOTEL PROJECTED P.M. PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC OCEAN PARK BOULEVARD @ NEILSON WAY I. Subtotal _._ Northbound L T R Southbound L T R Eastbound L T R Westbound L T R I!. Existingl 13 960. 134 89 1,062 13 10 76 11 195 118 79 lI 10 85 10 220 145 100 Ambient - 120 15 10 135 - - 10 - 25 15 10 -? +2.5% per year 5 years = 12.5% 1987 -1992 Subtotal 15 1,080 150 100 1,195 15 10 85 10 220 135 90 Other - 10 - 5 15 5 - - - - 10 51 (Cumulative) Development i Subtotal 15 1,090 150 105 1,210 20 10 85 10 220 145 95 Project Traffic - 3 - - 3 4 - - - - - 4 Grand Total 15 1,055 150 105 1,215 25 10 85 10 220 145 100 Note. All existing and project traffic rounded off to nearest 5. 1Source: Newport Traffic Studies, March 1987. WALLEN ASSOCIATES A -42