City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: July 13, 2021
Agenda Item: 3.B
1 of 26
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Rick Valte, Acting Public Works Director, Public Works, Engineering and Street Services
Rick Valte, Acting Public Works Director, Public Works Department Subject: Award Bid #2610 and RFP #2610 for the Demolition of Parking Structure #3 Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Adopt the environmental findings in the July 13, 2021 City staff report.
2. Award Bid #2610 to AMPCO Contracting, Inc., to provide demolition construction services for the Demolition of Parking Structure #3 (PS3) Project for the Public Works Department;
3. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a contract with AMPCO Contracting Inc., in an amount not to exceed $2,552,566 (including a 15% contingency);
4. Authorize the Director of Public Works to issue any necessary change orders to complete additional work within the contract authority;
5. Award RFP #2610 to Arcadis for construction observation services for the Demolition of Parking Structure #3 Project for the Public Works Department; and Summary
Parking Structure No. 3 (“PS 3”) consists of a five-story public parking structure with 337 parking spaces. PS 3 sits on a 30,000-square foot parcel located in the Coastal Zone at 1320 4th Street, near the geographical center of the Downtown District, and is zoned as Bayside Conservation District (“BC 2nd and 4th Streets”). The PS 3 site is also located within one-half mile of the Downtown Santa Monica Metro E Line station, a major transit stop included in the Connect SoCal 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy and is within a Transit Priority Area.
PS 3 has been identified as one of the buildings within the City requiring seismic improvements.
PS 3 was built as a non-ductile concrete building before earthquake building standards were established, and the City is subject to an existing retrofit order. The retrofit requirements provide specific deadlines for compliance with milestones such as: plan submittal by April 2022 and retrofit compliance by October 2027. Total repair costs were estimated at $4.5 million in 2019, 2 of 26
and have significantly increased since that time. This alone is an independent basis supporting demolition.
The City has existing policies regarding capital investments in parking facilities within the Downtown Community Plan (DCP), which states, “caution should guide new public capital investments given the uncertain impact of car services and increasing vehicle automation.” The DCP also provides direction to “pursue the reduction of 600 public parking spaces in the Bayside Conservation District by 2027.” Staff does not recommend spending millions of dollars to extend the life of a parking structure, which is inconsistent with the City’s previous planning decisions and inconsistent with the City’s goal of promoting alternative modes of transportation in the City’s pedestrian-oriented core.
As outlined in greater detail below, the demolition and redevelopment of the PS 3 parcel has been subject to several planning decisions and environmental reviews (CEQA documents) over the last two decades. The demolition and reconstruction of PS 3 was considered as part of an overall Park Once-Pedestrian First Strategy, commencing when the City Council established the Downtown Parking Task Force in the early 2000s. In 2009, after considering the findings and recommendations of a third-party parking consultant, the City Council made the decision to remove PS 3 without replacement and rebuild Parking Structure 6 with more than 400 additional parking spaces to account for the 337 parking spaces to be removed upon the demolition of PS
3. Council then authorized the redevelopment of the PS 3 site for commercial purposes. During the period from approximately 2009 to 2015, the City pursued negotiations with two different cinema operators for redevelopment of the PS 3 site as a cinema with ground floor retail and subterranean parking. These negotiations were ultimately unsuccessful.
In 2017, the City approved the Downtown Community Plan (DCP) and associated Environmental Impact Report. The DCP zoning for this site allows approximately 120,000 square feet of affordable housing. As noted above, the DCP also approved the reduction of 600 public parking spaces in the Bayside Conservation District by 2027.
After consideration of several City-owned sites by the Housing Commission in 2018 and 2019, the Housing Commission recommended repurposing the PS 3 site to add much needed affordable housing. In 2019, after receiving input from the City’s Housing Commission, the City Council authorized the City’s Housing Division to undertake a competitive selection process for 3 of 26
development of a 100% affordable housing project on the PS 3 site, to include a significant component of supportive housing. Staff anticipates presenting a recommendation to the City Council for selection of the developer by the end of this year. At its March 23, 2021 meeting, Council designated this site as “exempt surplus land,” thus reserving this site for the future development of a 100% affordable housing project, in accordance with recent amendments to the Surplus Land Act (California Government Code sections 54200 et seq.).
To facilitate preparation of the site for future affordable housing and enhance the competitiveness of the proposed housing development for optimal leveraging of State financing which prioritizes project readiness, the City must demolish PS 3 and clear the site. The demolition of PS 3 consists of removal of the parking structure, paving the site, capping all existing utilities at the property line, and installing fencing around the property. After demolition, the paved surface lot could temporarily be available for activities and programming in coordination with Downtown Santa Monica Inc. until construction of the future affordable housing development commences.
The Coastal Commission approved a Coastal Development Permit for the demolition of PS 3 and interim uses on May 13, 2021. Any future development for affordable housing would require a Coastal Development Permit.
In order to facilitate the development of affordable housing throughout the City, the City Council authorized recent amendments to the Downtown Community Plan and Interim Zoning Ordinance to reduce the process threshold requirements for ministerial approval of 100% affordable housing projects. Therefore, it is anticipated that the selected developer would finalize design and proceed with ministerial entitlements from the City in accordance with the City’s recently adopted permit streamlining thresholds. A Coastal Development Permit is required before the City’s Building Official would issue a building permit.
The City is experiencing significant construction cost escalation on all of its capital improvement projects due to material and labor shortages throughout the country; therefore, the cost for the demolition of PS 3 is anticipated to increase significantly if the City delays entering into a construction contract for the demolition. Furthermore, the City would have to rebid the demolition because contractors are unwilling to hold their prices for extensive periods after bidding. Staff recommends awarding AMPCO Contracting, Inc. a contract to provide 4 of 26
construction services for the demolition of PS 3 (the “Project”) in an amount not to exceed $2,552,566 (including a 15% contingency). Staff also recommends Arcadis, Inc. to provide construction observation services in an amount not to exceed $172,800. The Project is funded by City Housing Trust Funds and is listed in the addendum to the Capital Improvement Program Fiscal Year 2018-2020 Biennial Budget (Attachment A).
DISCUSSION
The Downtown Public Parking Program
On December 19, 2000, City Council established the Downtown Parking Task Force. The Task Force was created in response to a Planning Commission suggestion for a public process to assess community sentiment concerning a recommendation in the “Downtown Parking Management Program” report by Kaku Associates, dated April 2000, for the need to add public parking in the downtown. The Planning Commission also requested that cost and traffic congestion impacts be assessed as part of the process. The six-member Downtown Parking Task Force consisted of three City Council members, one Planning Commissioner, and two Bayside District board members.
On April 9, 2002, the City Council conceptually approved the Downtown Parking Task Force’s recommended strategic plan to retrofit, rebuild, and add parking resources in the Downtown area over a ten-year period. Council authorized staff to prepare a programmatic EIR, to analyze the potential for new revenue sources to fund the program, and to proceed with next steps towards property acquisition or joint development options for new perimeter structures, predicated on the identification of funding.
The Task Force developed a strategic and flexible approach to address the needs of the City’s aging Downtown parking structures. A considerable amount of effort was dedicated to determining whether and how much additional parking was needed. The strategy was framed within the context of a “Park Once-Pedestrian First” orientation to encourage visitors to drive as little as possible. The strategy was based on the premise that the existing structures were in ideal locations and the City should maximize the potential of these structures, while additional resources should be located within easy access to the core of the Downtown to expand the vitality of the core area.
The proposed strategy included the following components:
5 of 26
Retrofit the tall structures: The three tall structures (Parking Structures 2, 4, and 5) provide approximately 650 spaces each and would provide very little gain in spaces, if any, by demolishing and rebuilding them. Therefore, even though the structures had deficiencies due to their age, it was recommended that they be maintained and upgraded.
Demolish and rebuild the short structures and add spaces: The Task Force determined that the effective long-term strategy was to demolish the short structures (Parking Structures 1, 3, and 6), which average approximately 325 spaces per structure, and rebuild them with additional parking levels and ground floor retail, adding approximately 712 spaces. Rebuilding, rather than retrofitting, would address the underlying functional problems, including improved traffic/pedestrian circulation, handicap accessibility, ground-floor retail, and high ongoing repair requirements. • Additional parking on the Downtown perimeter: The Task Force concluded that since current parking resources are near capacity and incremental growth would continue in the Downtown area, additional parking resources are needed. It was determined that new parking resources should be located within walking distance of the core of the Downtown to expand the vitality of the core area. The Task Force identified the 5th Street vicinity as the ideal walkable distance. The Task Force recommendation called for the construction of 1,000 spaces in two structures over a ten-year time span, one near the beginning of the ten-year period and one at the end of the ten years.
A Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) for the Downtown Public Parking Program was prepared in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. The PEIR analyzed the environmental impacts of implementing the Downtown Public Parking Program, including the demolition and reconstruction of PS 3. More specifically, the PEIR assumed that PS 3 would be demolished and rebuilt up to three levels below ground and up to nine levels above ground (approximately 84 feet above grade).
On February 28, 2006, the City Council considered the EIR and Downtown Parking Program at a public hearing (Attachment B). At its public hearing on May 9, 2006, Council certified the Downtown Parking Program Environmental Impact Report (Final PEIR State Clearinghouse No. 2002121122) and approved the Downtown Parking Program (Attachment C). The Notice of Determination for the PEIR was filed on May 12, 2006 (Attachment D). 6 of 26
The 2009 Walker Parking Study
In 2007, the City Council approved the retention of Walker Parking Consultants to conduct a parking study as a first step in implementing the Downtown Parking Program.
The Walker Study was approved by Council on September 8, 2009 (Attachment E) with direction to return with actions necessary to implement the study (Attachment F). The Walker Parking Study evaluated parking operations and market conditions in Downtown Santa Monica and analyzed revenue opportunities from parking rates, in-lieu fees, property-based assessments, and other revenue sources. Walker’s overall recommendation was that other than the additional 576 parking spaces planned in the reconstruction of Parking Structures 1 and 6, Downtown Santa Monica did not need additional public parking. Rather, in coordination with the citywide Transportation Management Strategy identified for implementation in the Circulation Element of the Land Use Circulation Element (“LUCE”), Walker recommended implementation of several actions to support access to the Downtown. This recommendation was based upon the following considerations:
• the large number of underutilized parking spaces that existed in Downtown Santa Monica, particularly in the private supply;
• the opportunities that existed to efficiently use many of the existing spaces to generate revenue for the City at a cost far less than building new parking facilities;
• the high cost of building parking in the area;
• the opportunity costs of building parking in the area; • the oft-bemoaned traffic congestion within and around the area; • the increase in transportation alternatives to driving to the area; and • the City’s broader goals of encouraging such alternatives and their environmental benefits.
After consultation with numerous stakeholders, including the Bayside District Corporation and the Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce, staff returned with recommendations to implement the Walker Study, recommending that no additional parking structures be reconstructed 7 of 26
(including PS 3) other than the spaces planned for reconstructed Parking Structures 1 and 6 (City Council Meetings: February 23, 2010, Attachment G; April 26, 2011, Attachment H).
Parking Structure 6
At the November 10, 2009 Study Session, the City Council discussed concept massing, urban design, circulation, and cost implications of rebuilding Parking Structures 1 and 6, and directed staff to rebuild only Parking Structure 6 based on the parking needs identified in the Walker Parking Study. The design approved for 750 parking spaces total (above and below grade) provided a net increase of approximately 400 parking spaces to the City’s downtown parking pool of public spaces, which exceeds the number of spaces that would be lost from demolition of PS 3.
Although the demolition and reconstruction of Parking Structures 1, 3, and 6 had been analyzed in the Downtown Public Parking Program EIR, a revised design for Parking Structure 6 necessitated an addendum to the EIR, dated April 14, 2011. This Addendum discussed the impacts of the revised Parking Structure 6 design and acknowledged the impacts of the removal of PS 3 from the parking supply. The Addendum states that, “[n]otwithstanding the removal of [PS 3] from the Downtown Parking Program, public parking needs in the Downtown area would continue to be met through a “pooled” parking supply that would include the project elements identified in the Final EIR, inclusive of the reconstruction of Parking Structure 6….” (City Council Meetings: May 11, 2010, Attachment I; January 11, 2011, Attachment J; March 8, 2011 with Addendum, Attachment K; April 26, 2011, Attachment L; July 26, 2011, Attachment M)
PS 3 Site Considered for Redevelopment as a Cinema Site In the late 1980s, the City recognized that a key ingredient to the revitalization of the Third Street Promenade was to create an entertainment district to serve as an attraction for moviegoers and to encourage co-location of restaurants and retail stores. The Zoning Ordinance was amended to encourage cinemas to locate in the Downtown area by restricting new cinema development outside the Downtown. The strategy was successful in attracting new cinemas to Downtown Santa Monica, and cinemas played a key role in the revitalization of the Third Street Promenade, and supported Downtown’s evolution as a retail, dining, and entertainment destination. At the time, three cinema companies – AMC, Mann, and Laemmle – operated four cinema complexes in the Bayside District, with a total of 21 screens and over 5,500 seats. 8 of 26
At the time, it was determined that the continued success of cinemas in the Bayside District was threatened by both internal and external factors. The existing Bayside cinema complexes offered between four and seven screens each, which put them at a disadvantage in competition for first-run movies, as movie distributors preferred to offer their product to theaters that could show movies on multiple screens at multiple times. Furthermore, existing movie theaters in Santa Monica at that time did not offer stadium seating, state-of-the-art technology, enhanced food service and other amenities that newer cinemas offered.
All of the Promenade cinemas were in buildings whose sites and configurations are not large enough to accommodate current stadium-style movie complexes. Recognizing the challenge of creating new cinemas on the Third Street Promenade, as well as an opportunity to expand the energy of the Downtown District, the Promenade Uses Task Force foresaw the opportunity to combine the cinema strategy with the Downtown Parking Strategic Plan, suggesting that options to enhance the cinema experience “may include combining cinema development with the Downtown parking structure reconstruction and expansion program.” Development of a cinema project on the site of PS 3 was seen as a way to fulfill the Promenade Uses Task Force’s objective to ensure the continued operational viability of Santa Monica’s cinemas to serve residents and to support a diversity of activities in the district.
In 2007, Council authorized staff to solicit proposals for redevelopment of PS 3 into a mixed-use project that would include a state-of-the-art cinema, ground-floor retail or restaurant space, and subterranean parking. The RFP gave preference to proposals that adhered to Council-adopted criteria, including ground-level retail uses; contemporary cinemas and public parking; preservation or a modest increase to the total number of cinema seats in Santa Monica; and maximization of the availability of public parking. (Council Meeting: November 13, 2007, Attachment N)
On September 8, 2009, the City Council authorized the City’s exclusive negotiations with AMC and its development partner for a 12 to 13 screen theater with 2,000 to 2,167 seats, and ground floor retail. The proposed project could be built with or without subterranean public parking.
Including subterranean public parking beneath the mixed-use cinema site would have allowed for a portion of the parking identified in the Downtown Parking Strategic Plan to be accommodated on the site. However, there were several development challenges related to 9 of 26
subterranean parking on the site. In light of these considerations, staff recommended that the project not include public parking. (Council Meetings: September 8, 2009, Attachment O; December 11, 2012, Attachment P)
The negotiations with AMC did not result in a development agreement. Consequently, on December 11, 2012, Council directed staff to negotiate in the open market with prospective cinema exhibitors and developers regarding creation of a contemporary cinema in the Downtown. After consideration of proposals, the City Council authorized City staff to negotiate exclusively with ArcLight/Macerich development team for a new cinema development on the PS 3 site. The development team’s initial concept for a 4th Street cinema included 12 to 16 screens and between 2,400 and 2,700 seats. The building could not exceed the 84-foot height limit. A pedestrian-oriented retail use would be included on the ground level to activate the street frontage. An initial study was completed, and a Draft Environmental Impact Report (Attachment Q) was circulated for public comment. The Draft EIR included the following alternative:
Alternative 5: Mixed Use Residential/Commercial Alternative - This alternative would involve demolition of Parking Structure 3 and development of a mixed use project with residential and commercial uses on the site. This alternative is designed to be consistent with the draft Tier 3 standards for housing projects in the proposed Bayside Conservation District of the DCP. At the time of this writing, the draft DCP currently proposes that Tier 3 projects with housing have a maximum of 84 feet and 4.0 FAR. Based on this and the project site size of 30,000 sf, this alternative could result in 120,000 sf of floor area, which would include 24,000 sf of retail/restaurant uses on the ground floor (assuming 20% ground floor open space requirement) and approximately 96 residential units. For the purposes of this EIR, this alternative is assumed to include approximately 10,430 sf of ground-floor restaurant uses, 13,570 sf of retail uses, and 96,000 sf of residential uses on upper floors. The residential component of this alternative would include 96 units, including (20%) 19 studios, (50%) 48 one-bedroom units, (20%) 19 two-bedroom units, and (10%) 10 three-bedroom units. The building would be a maximum of 84 feet in height, or 6-7 stories. The ground level would be developed with commercial uses and the upper stories would be developed with residences. Parking for all of the on-site uses would be provided in an onsite underground parking garage. 10 of 26
Similar to the AMC proposal (and for the same reasons), the ArcLight/Macerich did not propose public parking. However, after approximately three years of negotiations, the ArcLight/AMC proposal also failed to result in a viable development proposal for the PS 3 site. (Council Meeting: April 22, 2014, Attachment R)
Downtown Community Plan
In 2017, after years of public meetings and consultations with the City’s community groups, the final Downtown Community Plan presented a vision for Downtown Santa Monica that included a prioritization for 3,024 new housing units, as well as new public spaces, a further diversification of art and cultural offerings, a prominent role for historic preservation, and a multi-faceted approach to enhancing Downtown’s pedestrian environment through building setbacks and improved streetscapes, to name but a few. The DCP was adopted as a Specific Plan pursuant to Gov. Code Sections 65450 et seq.
The DCP zones the PS 3 site as Bayside Conservation (“BC 2nd and 4th Streets”) in the City’s downtown area. This zoning allows affordable housing up to a Floor Area Ratio of 4.0, which is roughly equivalent to 120,000 square feet (DCP Table 4.2.) This “Zoning District is intended to preserve the ambiance of this well‐loved, human-scaled environment along 2nd and 4th Streets in the Downtown. This District supports a lively mix of active storefronts, restaurants, pedestrian-oriented services with the opportunity for housing and office uses on upper building floors. This District promotes adaptive re-use of existing buildings and maintenance of the traditional storefront development pattern at the ground floor.” (DCP p. 175.) The DCP itself, includes Goal AM1, which states that “People come first in Downtown. Streets are designed and operated so that people want to walk because it feels enjoyable, social comfortable and safe.” Goal AM2 further provides that “Downtown is renowned for mobility options and low Single Occupancy Vehicle (SOV) travel, particularly during peak periods.
Downtown achieves 65% of commute trips and 50% of non‐commute trips by modes other than SOV.”
To support the City’s mobility goals it approved Action AM3.6G which calls for “Publicly provided parking shall be built entirely outside of the Bayside Conservation District….” (DCP, p. 161.) 11 of 26
Similarly, Action AM3.6H provides for the City to “[p]ursue the reduction of 600 public parking spaces in the Bayside Conservation District by 2027.”
Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(d), the build-out analysis in the Environmental Impact Report for the Downtown Community Plan (“DCP EIR”)1 analyzed buildout of new housing units, including the PS 3 site. This included environmental analysis of up to 4.73 million sf of net new residential and commercial floor area, including up to 3,024 residential units (DCP EIR Section 2.6.) The EIR’s buildout assumptions were based in part upon the downtown “BuildOut Analysis”2 which identified the parking structure as “PFAR” which was assumed as a lot which would redevelop under buildout conditions in the EIR. The lots identified as PFAR were assumed to allow development of up to 1,834,694 square feet.
The DCP EIR further concluded that “SB 743 [Pub. Res. Code Section 21099(d)] also states that aesthetic and parking impacts shall not be considered significant impacts…The Downtown is classified as a transit priority area with infill residential, mixed-use, residential, and employment center development; therefore, aesthetic and shade, shadows, and solar access impacts would be considered less than significant and analyses of these impacts of projects within the Downtown are not required pursuant to CEQA.” The DCP EIR was certified by the City Council in 2017 as part of the Downtown Community Plan approval process. (City Council Meetings: February 28,2012, Attachment S; July 9, 2013, Attachment T; October 13, 2015, Attachment U; and July 10, 2017, Attachment V); Planning Commission Meetings: March 16, 2011, Attachment W; January 11, 2012, Attachment X; March 28, 2012, Attachment Y; July 11, 2012, Attachment Z; December 5, 2012, Attachment AA; January 23, 2013, Attachment AB; March 6, 2013, Attachment AC; July 17, 2013, Attachment AD; August 7, 2013, Attachment AE; November 3, 2015, Attachment AF; March 2, 2016, Attachment AG; November 16, 2016, Attachment AH; December 7, 2016, Attachment AI; April 25, 2017, Attachment AJ; May 10, 2017, Attachment AK; May 11, 2017, Attachment AL; May 17, 2017, Attachment AM; May 18, 2017, Attachment AN; May 31, 2017, Attachment AO) PS 3 as an Affordable Housing Site
1 DCP EIR: https://www.smgov.net/uploadedFiles/Departments/PCD/Plans/Downtown-SpecificPlan/DCP%20Final%20EIR-Webview%20version.pdf 2 DCP EIR Buildout Analysis: https://www.smgov.net/uploadedFiles/Departments/PCD/DowntownBuildout/Buildout%20and%20FAR%20Strategies%20Summary%20FINAL.pdf 12 of 26
Reflecting community sentiment, in 2015, Council identified Maintaining an Inclusive and Diverse Community as one of its strategic goals, and in 2019, Council identified Affordability as a Framework Priority. On April 9, 2019, the City Council authorized the issuance of a request for proposals (“RFP”) for development of a 100% affordable housing development with the expectation that the City’s land conveyance would significantly reduce any other necessary City subsidy. This decision was made after considerable public deliberation at the City’s Housing Commission and City Council. Creating more affordable housing is a key element to maintaining economic diversity and affordability in Santa Monica, and it is considered a mitigation measure to reduce vehicular traffic, by displacing existing longer trips.3 The PS 3 site was also considered as optimal for development of affordable housing due to its zoning designation (the Bayside Conservation District), which allows for affordable housing 70 feet in height with a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 4.0. (DCP Table 4.2.) This means that the site could accommodate approximately 100 – 150 residences, depending upon final design and target populations for housing.
As explained in supporting staff reports, Council acknowledged the great need for affordable housing accompanied by the reality that producing affordable housing can be very expensive. A major driver of the expense is the cost of land. Using City-owned land for the creation of affordable housing presents an opportunity to significantly stretch the City’s limited housing trust funds, thereby increasing overall affordable housing production and the number of households assisted.
According to the staff report for the April 9, 2019 public hearing, City staff and the Housing Commission had recommended soliciting proposals for the development of affordable housing on the PS 3 site because of the age and condition of PS 3 as well as the fact that the City had long anticipated demolition of PS 3 and specifically designed Parking Structure 6 to replace the parking capacity that would be lost. Additionally, given the long-term plans for demolition, PS 3 3 The State Office of Planning and Research (OPR) adopted a Technical Advisory for Implementing new provisions of CEQA under SB 743: https://opr.ca.gov/docs/20190122-743_Technical_Advisory.pdf. That Guidance document explains that “Adding affordable housing to infill locations generally improves jobshousing match, in turn shortening commutes and reducing VMT.24,25 Further, “… low-wage workers in particular would be more likely to choose a residential location close to their workplace, if one is available.” (OPR SB 743 Technical Advisory p. 14.) “Potential measures to reduce vehicle miles travel include, but are not limited to: incorporate affordable housing into the project.” (OPR Technical Advisory, p. 27.)
13 of 26
had not undergone the seismic retrofitting and suffered from chronic maintenance issues, particularly of its elevators.
The Housing Commission recommended that the City Council authorize issuance of a RFP for affordable housing at the PS 3 site with the following goals:
• Affordable housing at the site should include a major commitment to permanent supportive housing;
• The development should maximize affordable housing and the costeffectiveness of producing affordable housing; • The development team must possess strong qualifications in the development and operation of affordable housing, though non-profit or for-profit development team members may be considered; and
• The development must support the Housing Trust Fund Plan of moving people experiencing homelessness into permanent housing.
The budget cuts imposed on all City departments as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, including the City’s former Housing and Economic Development Department, as well as the COVID-19 stay at home orders, have delayed the selection of an affordable housing development team among the candidates who responded to the City’s RFP. However, due to the recent budget restoration of one Housing staff member, staff anticipates returning to Council by the end of the calendar year with a recommendation regarding the selection of a development team for the affordable housing project. Based upon the proposals submitted, the 100% affordable housing project is anticipated to create 100-150 affordable residences, including at least 50 supportive housing residences targeted to persons experiencing homelessness. (Council Meetings: April 9, 2019, Attachment AP; March 30, 2021, Attachment AQ; June 15, 2021, Attachment AR; Housing Commission Meetings: October 18, 2018, Attachment AS; November 15, 2018; Attachment AT; February 21, 2019, Attachment AU) The City is in the process of preparing the 6th Cycle Housing Element Update (2021-2029) to plan for the regional housing needs assessment (RHNA) allocation of 8,895 units, of which 6,168 must be affordable. The RHNA allocation was determined by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Regional Council on March 4, 2021. At the March 30, 2021 and June 15, 2021 Council meetings, the Council reaffirmed the City’s plans for utilizing 14 of 26
City-owned sites, which would include PS 3, for affordable housing because they are necessary to accommodate the City’s housing allocations for the 6th Cycle Housing Element update. 2020 Walker Parking Study
In preparation for its Coastal Development Permit application for the Project, the City engaged Walker Consultants to prepare a report analyzing the adequacy of the parking supply in Downtown Santa Monica and the Coastal Zone, including an analysis of potential impacts from the loss of the PS 3 parking spaces on parking and coastal access. The analyses concluded that the proposed demolition of PS 3 would not generate additional parking demand. Instead, it is expected to redistribute existing parking demand to available spaces in nearby facilities and potentially bolster other means of access to the coast, including the robust multimodal transportation system serving the Downtown area. The loss of parking supply at PS 3 would not impede the public parking system’s ability to accommodate existing parking demand on typical peak days, the analyses concluded. Walker projected that approximately 2,015 spaces would be empty and available in Downtown during the typical weekend period of peak parking demand for PS 3. (2020 Walker Report, Attachment AV)
California Coastal Commission Determination
The Coastal Commission considered the City’s demolition proposal for PS 3 as well as the 2020 Walker Parking Study, finding that the parking study provided a comprehensive analysis of the utilization of public parking facilities within three blocks of PS 3 in the Downtown area, as well as other parking facilities in the greater area closer to the coast.
The Coastal Commission found that the Walker analysis demonstrated there are sufficient parking resources available within a reasonable distance of the project site (i.e.
Downtown Municipal Parking Structures 1, 2, and 4) to adequately buffer against any public access issues that may be caused by the proposed loss of 337 public parking spaces. Further, no parking demand from PS 3 is projected to overflow into the greater area closer to the coast based on the proximity of available parking supply. In addition, the Commission found that the City is uniquely served by public transit opportunities in the form of the Expo Line, as well as countless bus routes.
Based upon the findings made by the Commission and required by the Coastal Act, the Commission approved the City’s Coastal Development Permit application for the Project at their May 13, 2021 meeting, with five standard conditions and four special conditions, 15 of 26
including: 1) demolition staging area plan; 2) parking monitoring program; 3) construction responsibilities and debris removal; and 4) drainage plan.
Condition of Parking Structure 3
PS 3 is a five-level concrete structure built in 1966. City Council adopted the seismic retrofit ordinance in March 2017 to strengthen existing older buildings in the City and enhance the security and safety of their occupants. PS 3 was one of nearly 2,000 buildings in the City identified as needing seismic improvements. In order to implement the City’s seismic retrofit ordinance, the City’s Building Official issued orders to all older buildings within the City that meet certain criteria, including buildings constructed with non-ductile concrete. Because PS 3 was built as a non-ductile concrete building before earthquake building standards were in place, the City is subject to an existing order to comply with the City’s retrofit ordinance. The ordinance includes specific deadlines for compliance with milestones such as: plan submittal by April 2022 and retrofit compliance by October 2027. (Order to Structurally Analyze Potential Seismically Vulnerable Building, Record # 17SVB-0485, Attachment AW) In light of the City’s retrofit ordinance requirements, the City’s Public Works Department estimated retrofit costs and demolition costs. On June 5, 2019, during the City Council’s Budget Study Session, Council reviewed the FY 2019-20 Proposed Capital Improvement Program (“CIP”) Budget which identified the seismic upgrade costs for PS 3 as $3 million in addition to elevator replacement costs of $1.5 million, for a total repair cost of $4.5 million. Demolition costs were estimated at $3.5 million. Given the extensive historical discourse regarding the future development of PS 3, on June 25, 2019, Council Adopted the FY 2019-20 CIP Budget which approved an approximately $3.5 million project budget for the demolition of PS 3. On July 23, 2019, Council authorized staff to retain Walter P. Moore Associates Inc. to prepare plans for the demolition of PS 3. (Council Meetings: May 24, 2016, Attachment AX; June 25, 2019, Attachment AY; July 23, 2019, Attachment AZ)
If the City were to change course to retain PS 3, it would need to budget additional funds for recommended maintenance repairs and earthquake retrofitting, and risk potential damage to life and property in the event of a significant earthquake until such retrofitting has been completed.
Additionally, due to construction cost escalation during the COVID-19 pandemic, the cost of retrofitting is likely to be significantly higher than estimated in 2019. 16 of 26
Environmental Status
On February 28, 2006, the City Council certified the Final Program Environmental Impact Report (Final PEIR State Clearinghouse No. 2002121122) for the City of Santa Monica Downtown Public Parking Program (Downtown Parking Program). The Final PEIR analyzed demolition and reconstruction of Parking Structure 1 located at 1234 4th Street, PS 3 located at 1320 4th Street, and Parking Structure 6 located at 1431 Second Street. The Notice of Determination was filed on May 12, 2006. (Notice of Determination, Attachment AW) On April 26, 2011, an addendum to the Final PEIR was approved by the Council to analyze removal of PS 3 and replacement of the PS 3 spaces within Parking Structure 6. (Addendum attached to Council Report March 8, 2011, Attachment K) The Final EIR for the Downtown Community Plan also analyzed a build-out scenario of 3,024 housing units, including PS 3 as an identified site for housing development. Demolition and development of affordable housing would also be exempt from environmental review pursuant to Gov. Code Section 65457. “Government Code section 65457 provides an exemption from environmental review for a residential development that is consistent with a broader specific plan for which an environmental impact report previously has been certified.” (Concerned Dublin Citizens v. City of Dublin (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1301.) The City further finds that no grounds for supplemental or subsequent environmental review have occurred since approval of the DCP. As noted above under discussion of the DCP, the Project site was also determined to be exempt from parking and aesthetics analysis pursuant to SB 743 (Pub. Res. Code Section 21099(d).
The demolition of PS 3 requires a ministerial demolition permit, issued by the City’s Building Official. Ministerial projects proposed to be carried out by public agencies are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”)(Public Resources Code sections 21000 et seq.).
Pub. Resources Code § 21080(b)(1); title 14 CCR § 15369; Friends of Juana Briones House v.
City of Palo Alto (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 286.)
On May 13, 2021, the Coastal Commission approved the demolition of PS 3 with standard conditions. Section 13096 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations requires Commission approval of Coastal Development Permit applications to be supported by findings showing the approval, as conditioned, to be consistent with any applicable requirements of CEQA. Section 21080.5(d)(2)(A) of CEQA prohibits a proposed development from being approved if there are 17 of 26
feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen any significant adverse effect which the activity may have on the environment.
The Commission’s regulatory program for reviewing and granting Coastal Development Permits has been certified by the Resources Secretary to be the functional equivalent of CEQA. (14 CCR § 15251(c).) The Commission noted that the City of Santa Monica is the lead agency and the Commission is a responsible agency for the purposes of CEQA. The Commission noted the City’s determination as the lead agency that the proposed demolition is exempt under CEQA Section 21080(b)(1) and made findings as the responsible agency that the relevant coastal resource impacts of the proposed project were disclosed in the Commission staff report that was considered at the May 13, 2021 public hearing before the Commission. In addition, the Commission determined that the proposed project was conditioned in order to minimize and mitigate impacts to coastal resources consistent with Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act. As conditioned, the Commission found that there are no feasible alternatives or additional feasible mitigation measures available that would substantially lessen any significant adverse effect that the activity may have on the environment, either individually or cumulatively with other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable probable future projects. Therefore, the Commission found that the proposed project, as conditioned to mitigate the identified impacts, is the least environmentally damaging feasible alternative and can be found consistent with the requirements of the Coastal Act to conform to CEQA.
In order to satisfy its obligations under the Housing Accountability Act (Government Code section 65589.5), the City adopted Resolution No. 11239 (CCS) on March 10, 2020, modifying the discretionary review thresholds for 100% affordable housing projects, such as the one contemplated for development on the PS 3 site, would be subject only to a ministerial approval process. 100% affordable housing projects are defined as “[h]ousing projects with a minimum of 25% of the units deed restricted or restricted by an agreement approved by the City for occupancy by 60% Income Households or less and the remainder of the housing units are deed restricted or restricted by an agreement approved by the City for occupancy by 80% Income Households or less. Such projects may include nonresidential uses not to exceed 33% of the project’s total floor area.” The effect of Resolution 11239 (CCS) is that Tier 2 housing projects that meet the qualifications of a “housing development project” under the Housing Accountability Act would be subject to ministerial approval and would not require environmental review. Cal.
Pub. Res. § 21080(b)(1); CEQA Guideline §15369 (ministerial approvals). 18 of 26
However, even without the effect of Resolution No. 11239 (CCS), in order to facilitate housing approvals, CEQA already contains express exemptions for infill housing, including the following:
(i) CEQA § 21155.4; CEQA Guideline §15182 (projects proximate to transit or residential projects pursuant to the Downtown Community Plan); (ii) CEQA Guideline §15183.3 (streamlining for infill projects); (iii) CEQA § 21083.3 (CEQA restrictions on residential zoning and community plans); and
(iv)CEQA § 21159.21 (exemption for qualified housing projects) (v) Cal. Gov’t Code § 65583.2 (by-right owner occupied or multifamily housing not a “project” under CEQA)
The scope of the future 100% affordable housing development cannot be described in this report with certainty because the development team has not yet been selected and a proposed development has not been presented to stakeholders and the broader community for input.
However, it is reasonably foreseeable that the City would select a housing developer and proceed with negotiating the terms and conditions of conveyance of the site for a 100% affordable housing project that would meet the definition of “housing development project” within the meaning of the Housing Accountability Act, as well as the CEQA exemptions referenced above. While CEQA does not allow for “piecemeal” environmental review of two projects where it is reasonably foreseeable that one project is a precursor to another project, the prohibition on “piecemealing” does not apply where the projects are ministerial, since neither project would be subject to CEQA review. Pub. Resources Code § 21080(b)(1); title 14 CCR § 15369; Cal. Gov’t Code § 65583.2(i); Friends of Juana Briones House v. City of Palo Alto (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 286. Therefore, environmental review of the 100% affordable housing project is not required before approval of the demolition of PS 3 since the 100% affordable housing project would be exempt under CEQA. Furthermore, demolition and redevelopment have already been programmatically analyzed in several prior CEQA documents.
Past City Council Actions
Meeting Date Description
06/25/19 (Attachment A) Adoption of the First Year and Approval of the Second Year of the FY 2019-21 Biennial Budget, Adoption of the Second Year of the FY 2018-20 Biennial Capital Improvement Program
Budget
19 of 26
02/28/06 (Attachment B) Council adopted resolution certifying the Final Program Environmental Impact Report and authorized staff to proceed with next steps to implement the Downtown Parking Program 05/09/06 (Attachment C) Council approved the Downtown Parking Program and adopted the resolution making the necessary CEQA findings.
09/08/09 (Attachment E) Council authorized staff to return with actions necessary to implement the recommendations of the Walker Parking Study 02/23/10 (Attachment G) Council reviewed and provided input on the Walker Parking Study Implementation Plan
04/26/11 (Attachment H) Council approved the proposed schematic design for Parking Structure 6
05/11/10 (Attachment I) Council authorized the City Manager to negotiate and execute a design-build contract for architectural and engineering design services for the demolition and rebuilding of Parking Structure 6 01/11/11 (Attachment J) Council reviewed and provided input on the proposed design concepts for Parking Structure 6
03/08/11 (Attachment K) Council introduced for first reading an ordinance amending provisions of SMMC Article IX (Zoning Ordinance) related to City-owned public parking structures in order to implement the Downtown Parking Program and facilitate construction of new municipal public parking structures
04/26/11 (Attachment L) Council introduced for first reading an ordinance amending provisions of SMMC Article IX (Zoning Ordinance) related to City-owned public parking structures in order to implement the Downtown Parking Program and facilitate construction of new municipal public parking structures
07/26/11 (Attachment M) Council reviewed progress of the proposed 50% design development plans for Parking Structure 6
11/13/07 (Attachment N) Council authorized a Request Proposals to Redevelop the Site of Parking Structure No. 3 for Subterranean Parking, Ground Floor Retail and Cinema Development
09/08/09 (Attachment O) Council authorized exclusive negotiations with AMC and its development partner for a theater at the PS 3 site
12/11/12 (Attachment P) Council authorized staff to negotiate in the open market for cinema development at the City-owned property at 1320 4th Street
04/22/14 (Attachment R) Council authorized the City Manager to negotiate and execute an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA) with the team
of ArcLight Cinemas and Macerich to develop and operate a multiplex cinema at 1320 4th Street
02/28/12 (Attachment S) Council reviewed and commented on the emerging themes and approach identified for the preparation of the Downtown Specific Plan
07/09/13 (Attachment T) Council reviewed and discussed development concepts and strategies for the Downtown Specific Plan
10/13/15 (Attachment U) City Council prioritized completion of the Downtown Specific Plan
07/10/17 (Attachment V) The Final Public Hearing Draft Downtown Community Plan and Associated Amendments to the Land use and Circulation
Element
20 of 26
04/09/19 (Attachment AP) Council authorized staff to issue an RFP for the development of affordable housing on the City-owned land
03/30/21 (Attachment AQ) Council authorized staff to retain Walter P. Moore Associates Inc. to prepare plans for PS 3 Demolition project
06/15/21 (Attachment AR) Council provided direction to staff on the draft concepts and strategies to include in the 6th Cycle Housing Element Update 05/24/16 (Attachment AX) City Council prioritized completion of the Downtown Specific Plan
06/25/19 (Attachment AY) Council authorized staff to issue an RFP for the development of affordable housing on the City-owned land
Past Planning Commission Actions
Meeting Date Description
03/16/11 (Attachment W) Commission explored opportunities to meet the goals and policies to achieve the community vision in the Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE)
01/11/12 (Attachment X) Introduction to the Downtown Specific Plan team including consultants Torti Gallas and Partners Inc.
03/28/12 (Attachment Y) Planning Commission reviewed and commented on the preliminary public realm design concepts for the Downtown Specific Plan
07/11/12 (Attachment Z) Workshop to report on the community visioning to date and continue to gather input for the next phases of the Downtown Specific Plan
12/05/12 (Attachment AA) The third community workshop for the Downtown Specific Plan to report on progress made to date
01/23/13 (Attachment AB) Update on the Emerging Downtown Specific Plan 03/06/13 (Attachment AC) Update on the Emerging Downtown Specific Plan Circulation Components
07/17/13 (Attachment AD) Downtown Specific Plan CEQA Parameters 08/07/13 (Attachment AE) Recommendation to the City Council on development concepts and strategies for the Downtown Specific Plan California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Analysis
11/03/15 (Attachment AF) Study session to review and receive Planning Commission comments on the elements contained within the Draft
Downtown Specific Plan
03/02/16 (Attachment AG) Study session to review and receive Planning Commission comments on the elements contained within the second draft of the Downtown Community Plan
11/16/16 (Attachment AH) A study session on the Downtown Community Plan to review the public outreach that has occurred since March 2016
12/07/16 (Attachment AI) Continuation of November 16, 2016 public hearing 04/26/17 (Attachment AJ) Resolutions of Intention of the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Monica declaring its intention to consider
recommending to the City Council that the Council make
amendments to the Land Use and Circulation Element, Civic Center Specific Plan, and Zoning Ordinance to implement and ensure consistency with the goals, policies, development standards, and procedures set forth in the Downtown
21 of 26
Community Plan. First Public Hearing to review the Final Public Hearing Draft of the Downtown Community Plan (DCP) and
Final Environmental Impact Report
05/10/17 (Attachment AK) Second Public Hearing to review the Final Public Hearing Draft of the Downtown Community Plan (DCP) and Final
Environmental Impact Report
05/11/17 (Attachment AL) Third Public Hearing to review the Final Public Hearing Draft of the Downtown Community Plan (DCP) and Final
Environmental Impact Report
05/17/17 (Attachment AM) Fourth Public Hearing to review the Final Public Hearing Draft of the Downtown Community Plan (DCP) and Final
Environmental Impact Report
05/18/17 (Attachment AN) Fifth Public Hearing to review the Final Public Hearing Draft of the Downtown Community Plan (DCP) and Final
Environmental Impact Report
05/31/17 (Attachment AO) Adopt a Resolution recommending that the City Council approve the Downtown Community Plan
Past Housing Commission Actions
Meeting Date Description
10/18/18 (Attachment AS) Presentation and discussion of potential for affordable housing development on City-owned properties, and possible action regarding a recommendation to City Council.
11/15/18 (Attachment AT) Presentation and discussion of potential for affordable housing development on City-owned properties.
02/21/19 (Attachment AU) Presentation and discussion of potential for affordable housing development on City-owned properties, and possible action regarding a recommendation to City Council.
Studies, Reports, and Other Documents
Date Description
2006 (Attachment D) Notice of Determinations for the PIER (Downtown Parking Program)
2009 (Attachment F) 2009 Walker Parking Study
2014 (Attachment Q) Arclight Cinemas Project DEIR
2020 (Attachment AV) 2020 Walker Parking Study
2007 (Attachment AW) Order to Structurally Analyze Potential Seismically Vulnerable Building
Vendor Selection - Construction
Bidder Recommendation
Best Bidder AMPCO Contracting, Inc.
Evaluation Criteria Price; the ability, capacity, and skill of the bidder to perform the services; the capacity of the bidder to perform the contract within the time specified; the sufficiency of the bidder’s financial resources; the reputation and experience of the bidder.
Municipal Code SMMC 2.24.180
22 of 26
Submittals Received
JMDL Inc. Non-Responsive Resource
Environmental, Inc..
$3,367,000.00
AMPCO Contracting,
Inc.
$2,219,622.22 NR Development, Inc. $3,389,499.00
Silverado Contractors,
Inc.
$2,425,197.00 Interior Demolition,
Inc.
$3,406,000.00
GGG Demolition, Inc. $2,582,800.00
Bid Data
Date Posted Posted on Advertised in (City
Charter & SMMC)
Vendors
Downloaded
Date Publicly
Opened
03/09/2021 City’s Online
Bidding Site
Santa Monica Daily
Press
71 04/16/2021
Best Bidder Justification
Staff recommends AMPCO Contracting Inc., as the best bidder based on the price and completion of past projects for the Cities of Torrance, San Leandro, Culver City, Huntington Beach, the County of Los Angeles and Santa Monica Malibu Unified School District. The recommended bidder has demonstrated the ability to perform quality work. Staff contacted the references provided by AMPCO Contracting Inc. for similar projects in the Cities of San Leandro, Culver City, Huntington Beach, and Pasadena. All references spoke very highly of AMPCO for the work AMPCO completed and reported that the projects were completed in a timely and cost- efficient manner while maintaining consistent quality. Staff also verified with the Contractor’s State License Board that AMPCO Contracting Inc. license is current and active.
Construction Management
The construction management firm would provide construction observation for the Project. The observer would oversee and inspect the construction work, potential remediation, ensure it adheres to project design plans and specifications, answer contractor questions in the field, verify quantities on contractor invoices, prepare daily reports, capture, and maintain progress photos, coordinate work with various City departments, distribute construction notifications, and address questions and concerns from the public. City staff does not have the capacity to inspect this project, which requires full-time field oversight. 23 of 26
Arcadis was selected for this project from an approved shortlist of construction management firms. The shortlist was created by way of a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) process, and Arcadis submitted a proposal as part of the RFP process and was subsequently selected.
Pre-Qualified Vendors
Arcadis Skanska PreScience
Corporation
Vanir Construction
Management, Inc.
Selection Criteria
Evaluation Criteria Technical competence, staffing capability, project approach, past performance, dispute resolution, quality control, cost control, management services, customer services, and ability to meet the required time frame. The City is not required to select the proposal with the lowest price.
Municipal Code SMMC 2.24.190
RFQ Data
Date
Posted
Posted On Advertised in (City
Charter & SMMC)
Vendors
Downloaded
Submittal
Received
Date
Publicly
Opened
9/25/2019 City’s Online
Bidding Site
Santa Monica Daily
Press
110 29 10/24/2019
Justification to Short-List
Responding vendors’ proposals were evaluated and scored on the above criteria and the top four were recommended as best qualified firms for the Heavy Structural Civil, Pier, Parking Structures, and Airport Work Category.
Bidder Recommendation
Best Qualified Person/Firm Arcadis
Evaluation Criteria Technical competence, staffing capability, project approach, past performance, dispute resolution, quality control, cost control, management services, customer services, and ability to meet the required time frame. The City is not required to select the proposal with the lowest price.
Municipal Code SMMC 2.24.190
Proposals Received
Arcadis Skanska
RFP Data
Posted On Posted On Number of Vendors
Downloaded
Number of Submittals
Received
Date Publicly
Opened
3/24/2021 Directly
Published to 4
4 2 4/8/2021
24 of 26
Pre-Qualified
Firms
Justification to Award
Two firms submitted a proposal for construction observation services. Based on the selection criteria set forth in SMMC 2.24.190, staff recommended Arcadis as the best qualified firm to provide construction observation services based on its qualifications, price, the competence, and skill of the staff assigned to this project, and its direct related experience providing similar services for municipal agencies.
Public Outreach
Public outreach during demolition of PS 3 would be provided by the City’s construction manager. Public outreach would include notifying adjacent properties and the surrounding community of the scope of the project, schedule, hours of work and potential impacts, with monthly updates on the “Know Before You Go” (KBUG) website and monthly in a Monday edition of the Santa Monica Daily Press and various social media channels. The demolition duration is estimated to be 180 calendar days and would begin in late 2021 or early 2022.
Financial Impact and Budget Actions
Staff seeks authority to approve funding from the Tenant Ownership Rights Charter Amendment (TORCA) Housing Trust Fund to award contracts with AMPCO Contracting Inc. and Arcadis for the demolition and construction observation services for the Project, respectively.
Contract Request - Construction
FY 2020-21 Budget
Request Amount
CIP Account Total Contract Amount
$2,552,566 C1407860.689000 $2,552,566
Total Construction $2,552,566
Contract Request - Construction Observation
FY 2020-21 Budget
Request Amount
CIP Account Total Contract Amount
$172,800 C1407860.689000 $172,800
Total Construction Management $172,800
25 of 26
Prepared By: Curtis Castle, Principal Civil Engineer
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. June 25, 2019 (weblink)
B. February 28, 2006 (weblink)
C. May 9, 2006 (weblink)
D. Notice of Determination for PIER (Dwtn Parking Program) E. September 8, 2009 (weblink)
F. Walker Study 2009 Report
G. February 23, 2010 (weblink)
H. April 26, 2011 (Weblink)
I. May 11, 2010 (weblink)
J. January 11, 2011 (weblink)
K. March 8, 2011 (weblink)
L. April 26, 2011 Ordince Revision
M. July 26, 2011 (weblink)
N. November 13, 2007 (weblink)
O. September 8, 2009 (weblink)(AMC Negotiations Authorization) P. December 11, 2012 (weblink)
Q. Arclight Cinemas Project EIR (weblink)
R. April 22, 2014 (weblink)
S. February 28, 2012 (weblink)
T. July 9, 2013 (weblink)
U. October 13, 2015 (weblink)
V. Final Public Hearing Downtown Community Plan, July 10, 2017 W. Planning Commission March 16, 2011 (weblink)
X. Planning Commission January 11, 2012 (weblink)
Y. Planning Commission March 28, 2012 (weblink)
Z. Planning Commission July 11, 2012 (weblink)
AA. Planning Commission December 5, 2012 (weblink)
BB. Planning Commission January 23, 2013 (weblink)
CC. Planning Commission March 6, 2013 (weblink)
DD. Planning Commission July 17, 2013 (weblink)
EE. Planning Commission August 7, 2013 (weblink)
26 of 26
FF.Planning Commission November 3, 2015 (weblink)
GG. Planning Commission March 2, 2016 (weblink)
HH. Planning Commission November 16, 2016 (weblink)
II. Planning Commission December 7, 2016 (weblink)
JJ. Planning Commission April 26, 2017 (weblink)
KK. Planning Commission May 10, 2017 (weblink)
LL.Planning Commission May 11, 2017 (weblink)
MM. Planning Commission May 17, 2017 (weblink)
NN. Planning Commission May 18, 2017 (weblink)
OO. Planning Commission May 31, 2017 (weblink)
PP. April 9, 2019 HOUSING DEV
QQ. March 30, 2021 (weblink)
RR. June 15, 2021 (weblink)
SS. Housing Commission October 18, 2018 (weblink)
TT.Housing Commission November 15, 2018 (weblink)
UU. Housing Commission February 21, 2019 (weblink)
VV. Walker Study 2020 PS3 Final Report
WW. Order Potential Seismically Vulnerable Building
XX. May 24, 2016 (weblink)
YY. June 25, 2019 (weblink)
ZZ.Buildout and FAR Strategies
AAA. Parking Structure Inspection Report-2009
BBB. Notice of Determination-Downtown Parking Improvement Program CCC. AMPCO_Oaks
DDD. Arcadis_Oaks
EEE. Written Comment
FFF. Written Comments
GGG. PowerPoint Presentation