On April 15, 2003, the Council held a noticed public hearing on Planned Development No. 2000-5, with Development Review No. 2000-19, a Development Agreement, (together, the �Project�) and an Environmental Impact Report for the Project.  The proposed Project is a mixed-use project consisting of five buildings with approximately 411,000 square feet (sf) of media office space, 181 apartment units, a 32,000 sf health club, 21,800 sf of retail and restaurant space, a church with a child care facility for 144 children and over 2,000 parking spaces located in a subterranean garage up to seven levels below ground.  The Applicant is PW, LLC (aka �Platt�).

The site of the proposed Project is approximately 3.8 acres located in the Media District bounded on the north by Alameda Avenue, the east by Lima Street, the south by Olive Avenue and the west by the proposed 134 freeway off-ramp.

At the public hearing on April 15, the Council opened the hearing, took testimony and evidence from staff and consultants, the Applicant�s representatives, and members of the public, and conducted deliberations on the proposed Project.  The Council continued the hearing to its regular meeting of April 22, 2003 and directed this Office to prepare resolutions for Council consideration to certify the EIR and deny the Project.  The Council raised questions about certifying the EIR and the effect of the Project�s denial on future applications by the applicant with respect to the Site, including the process of a new application and payment of application fees.

Certification of the EIR

If it agrees that the EIR adequately addresses the environmental impacts of the proposed Project, the Council should certify the EIR.  If the EIR is certified, any future revised project submitted by the Applicant would be reviewed in light of the EIR.  In that instance, the City would be able to prepare a supplement to the EIR, an addendum to the EIR, or a subsequent EIR.  A supplemental EIR would be prepared if the changes to the project in comparison to the Project analyzed in the EIR are minor and the revised project would cause new significant impacts, increase the severity of impacts identified in the EIR, or eliminate or reduce the efficacy of mitigation measures in the EIR.  If the revised project would not cause new significant impacts, increased severity, or reduced mitigation, the changes, if minor and technical, would be subject to an addendum.  If the changes are not minor, a subsequent EIR would be prepared in accordance with CEQA. 

Staff and this Office recommend certification of the EIR and agree with the conclusion that it complies with the requirements of CEQA. 

Denial of Project

The Council also directed this Office to bring back options for denying the Project.  Because the proposed Project is a Planned Development and a Development Agreement, the Project can be denied by resolution or by a motion of the Council.  Concerns were also raised about the effect of the Project�s denial on the Applicant�s ability to submit a revised project in the future, in particular with respect to the payment of application fees and the processing of the revised future project through Planned Development process.  One suggestion is to deny the Project �without prejudice.�

This Office and staff recommend that the Project be denied without signifying it is being made �without prejudice� or with any other indication that it is less than final.  First, since this is a Planned Development, there is no requirement that the Project be denied �without prejudice� for the Applicant to be able to bring back a revised project in the future without having to wait the one year time period required of other land use permits such as CUPs.  Also, in the event the Council certifies the EIR, the Council is required to approve or deny the Project within one (1) year of such certification, or the Project could be deemed approved under the Permit Streamlining Act.  As a result, a clear record that this Project is being denied is appropriate and would avoid any confusion a �without prejudice� or similar type of denial could bring.

Addressing concerns about the scope and/or length of the process for a new planned development application, from a practical standpoint, the length and scope of the process will be controlled more by the application and size and scope of a future project, than whether a future project is a new Planned Development or revision of an existing or previous Planned Development proposal.  We believe we heard clear direction from the Council that any future revised Project should be submitted to the Planning Board for its review and recommendation before it returns to the Council for consideration.  As such, the process would be very similar for practical purposes whether it is a revision to the existing application or a new PD application � (1) the Applicant would submit the revised or future project for consideration, (2) staff would submit the revised Project for environmental analysis in light of the EIR, (3) the matter would be prepared for review and recommendation of the Planning Board, and then (4) it would be submitted to Council for consideration.  Additional community meetings would probably be likely; however, the number of such meetings would be dependent not on the PD process, but rather on the size, scope, and nature of the Project. 

With respect to the application fees, we reiterate what Community Development Director Susan Georgino stated at the April 15, 2003 public hearing.  The application fee is approximately $2500 and may be revised upwards to $4000 if adopted along with the upcoming budget.  This is certainly dwarfed by the costs of staff time necessary to review a future project.  Moreover, any fees associated with environmental review are going to be affected by the size, scope and nature of the Project and not the process followed.  If, however, the Council desires to grant relief from application fees for a future application, then the Council may adopt the attached resolution (Exhibit C) denying the Project, which provides that application fees will be waived for a future Planned Development application in the event it is submitted within one (1) year of the date of denial of the Project.

Options

Attached hereto are three separate draft resolutions. 

1.         The first resolution (Exhibit A) is a resolution certifying the EIR. 

2.         The second resolution (Exhibit B) is a resolution denying the Project.  It does not contain any application fee relief. 

3.         The third resolution (Exhibit C) is a reiteration of the second resolution (Project Denial) with relief from planned

            development application fees as described above.  

4.         The Council could also deny the Project by motion, but this Office recommends approval of a resolution to provide

             formality and a written record of the denial.

Recommendation

It is recommended that the Council adopt the resolution certifying the Environmental Impact Report (Exhibit A).  It is further recommended that the Council adopt the resolution denying the Project (Exhibit B).

go to the top