R-9788
RESOLUTION NO.9788 (CCS)
(City Council Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA MAKING FINDINGS
NECESSARY TO APPROVE THE 834-838 SIXTEENTH STREET
CONDOMINIUM PROJECT, ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN
WHEREAS, an Environmental Impact Report has been prepared which
analyzes the environmental effects of the 834-838 Sixteenth Street Condominium
Project; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, as Lead City Agency, reviewed the Final
Environmental Impact Report in full compliance with State law and City CEQA
Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, on July 9, 2002 the City Council certified that the Final
Environmental Impact Report was prepared in full compliance with State law and
City CEQA Guidelines,
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA
MONICA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Consistent with Article VI, Section 12 of the City of Santa
Monica CEQA Guidelines and Sections 15128 of the State of California CEQA
~H' \..;93
Guidelines, the Initial Study/Notice of Preparation determined that the following
environmental impacts were not considered potentially significant and were not
addressed further in the Final EIR: geology and soils, biological resources,
population and housing, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water
quality, land use and planning, mineral resources, agricultural resources, public
services, air quality, economic and social impacts, recreation, noise, and utilities
and service systems.
SECTION 2. Consistent with Article VI, Section 12 of the City of Santa
Monica CEQA Guidelines and Sections 15091 and 15092 of the State of California
CEQA Guidelines, and as detailed in the Final EIR at Sections 3.2 and 3.3 the City
Council finds that there are no significant impacts for Aesthetics/Shade and
Shadow other than Light and Glare, Historic Resources, and Neighborhood Effects
other than Traffic.
SECTION 3. Consistent with Article VI, Section 12 of the City of Santa
Monica CEQA Guidelines and Sections 15091 and 15092 of the State of California
CEQA Guidelines, the City Council finds that most impacts resulting from the
project can be reduced to a level that is less than significant. More specifically
significant environmental effects as identified in this section can feasibly be
eliminated or substantially reduced to below a level of significance.
(a) The Final EIR determined that without mitigation the project would result in
fU" r. li 9 4
significant impacts on Aesthetics/Shade and Shadow (Artificial Light and Glare).
Consistent with Article VI, Section 12 of the City of Santa Monica CEQA Guidelines
and Sections 15091 and 15092 of the State of California CEQA Guidelines, and as
detailed in the Final EIR at Section 3.2, the City Council finds that the following
mitigation measures have been required of the project, which will mitigate or reduce
the impact of the project on Aesthetics/Shade and Shadow (Artificial Light and
Glare) to below a level of significance:
(1) The project applicant shall design exterior building lighting that sheds
light pools only on the project site, incorporating "cut-off" shields as
appropriate to prevent an increase in lighting at adjacent and nearby
residential uses,
(2) Landscaping illumination and exterior sign lighting shall be
accomplished with low-level, unobtrusive fixtures. Such lighting shall be
shielded to direct light pools away from off-site viewers.
(b) The Final EIR determined that without mitigation the project could have a
potentially significant effect on Construction Effects (Traffic and Circulation),
Consistent with Article VI, Section 12 of the City of Santa Monica CEQA Guidelines
and Sections 15091 and 15092 of the State of California CEQA Guidelines, and as
detailed in the Final EIR at Section 3.4, the City Council finds that the following
mitigation measures have been required of the project, which will mitigate or reduce
~.. 0\..95
the impact of the project on Construction Effects (Traffic and Circulation) to below a
level of significance:
(1) The applicant shall prepare and implement a Construction Impact
Mitigation Plan to include the plan for traffic management during
construction. This plan shall be subject to review and approval by the
City and, at a minimum, shall include the following:
public information program to advise motorists of impending
construction activities (e.g. media coverage, portable message signs,
and information signs at the construction site)
. Approval from the Department of Environmental and Public Works
Management and Transportation Management Division and all other
affected agencies for any construction detours "r construction work
requiring encroachment into public rights-of-way, or any other street use
activity (e.g. haul routes)
. Timely notification of construction schedules to all affected agencies
(e.g. Police Department, Fire Department, Department of Environmental
Public Works Management, Department of Planning and
Community Development, and Transportation Management Division)
Cl96
. Coordination of construction work with affected agencies five to ten
days prior to start of work
. A traffic control plan for the streets surrounding the work area, which
includes specific information regarding the project's construction and
activities that will disrupt normal traffic flow
. Prohibition of dirt and demolition material hauling and construction
material delivery during the morning and afternoon peak traffic periods
and cleaning of streets and equipment as necessary
. Scheduling and expediting of work to cause the least amount of
disruption and interference to the adjacent vehicular and pedestrian
traffic flow. It is recommended that all weekday daytime work on City
streets be performed between the hours of 9:00 AM and 3:00 PM
. Limiting of queuing of trucks to on-site and prohibition of truck
queuing on area roadways
. Scheduling of pre-construction meetings with affected agencies to
properly plan methods of controlling traffic through work areas
. Storage of construction material and equipment within the designated
~*' OL97
work area and limitation of equipment and material visibility to the public
. Provision for providing off-street parking to construction employees,
including use of a remote location with shuttle transport to the site, if
determined necessary by the City of Santa Monica
(c) The Final EIR determined that without mitigation the project could have a
potentially significant effect on Construction Effects (Air Quality). Consistent with
Article VI, Section 12 of the City of Santa Monica CEQA Guidelines and Sections
15091 and 15092 of the State of California CEQA Guidelines, and as detailed in the
Final EIR at Section 3.4, the City Council finds that the following mitigation
measures have been required of the project, which will mitigate or reduce the
impact of the project on Construction Effects (Air Quality) to below a level of
significance:
(1) During clearing, grading, earth moving, excavation, or transportation
of cut or fill materials, water trucks or sprinkler systems are to be
used to prevent dust from leaving the site and to create a crust after
each day's activities.
(2) Provisions shall be made prior to and during watering of the site to
prevent water runoff from leaving the site.
1~!lII OL98
~~ ~~ ~~ 9llIQ,tfn.~l!II~
tti ~ if ~ rA~ ~~~it prllW4nt~
hr'rt~Iti~ II ~k'oom 1fffi~~~1ffrIm.
WM iIMa in ~ iit-M tMrnCno iM .. W0fk: JS ~ f<< N
4Rv- ~ wind 1P_~,'5i>m1e4 IS; fmj
~~n ~!eIIIm~ wfttrin Em _ dfM
_ oeril1'WttM' {dE [fi ~ ~ dW ~ ~
~~I1I~H~rt~byWi~
mil ~ 1M muaJ~lWd ~ if6I fii ~~m~
R~ iifi. fiJifid.nH(f.~IISI'~
d) TMIlfiiift tIf~_~~-~fEti~r
~ .~ Iftiie ~ ~ ~ N0fiIIa. ifiI ~
~ PAfWnQ ~li_ ArtttM VI, ~'1i~ 8f~ ~8fDi. ~
"MMIfR~1"n ritD~_IR_'
R~___IH 1h9~-II~a14. _ ~ ~ I1iB
_h~~~~~ ~~t5f_~ whtd'riill
~.~_~if_pm)MiM~'''.~~
~_}JO~ ~f!Jl~
!ID iitUIf ~ _.~ wWh ~ ~ doonJ ifI8
~
\ ~':::':~"""~";''''~'llIi~~Ii'~~~~ ~ ~ ,.~~~~a, 1. ~ t ,t { , '-' ~'-" ..... ~""w
shall be equipped with factory-recommended mufflers.
Whenever feasible, electrical power shall be used to run air
compressors and similar power tools,
For all noise-generating construction activity on the project site,
additional noise attenuation techniques shall be employed, as
needed and feasible, to reduce noise levels to City of Santa Monica
noise standards. Such techniques may include, but are not limited to,
the use of sound blankets on noise generating equipment and the
construction of temporary sound barriers, including walls or other
sound attenuating features, between construction sites and nearby
sensitive receptors, All construction activities, which generate noise
levels above those allowed by the City Noise Ordinance, shall be
limited to between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m.
The applicant shall provide a telephone number for local residents to
call to submit complaints associated with construction noise. The
number shall be posted facing 16th Street and 15th Court alley and
shall be easily viewed from adjacent public areas.
The project applicant shall submit a Construction Management Plan,
which will include a measure to provide for an area for the
H'" t CO
construction staging and parking. If the off-site location is more than
1 ,000 feet from the project site, a shuttle service for construction
workers shall be provided.
SECTION 4. Consistent with Article VI, Section 12 of the City of Santa
Monica CEOA Guidelines and Sections 15091, 15092 and 15093 of the State of
California CEOA Guidelines, the City Council finds that significant adverse
environmental effects in the area of project related neighborhood traffic/circulation
cannot feasibly be avoided or mitigated to below a level of significance.
Nevertheless, these impacts are found to be acceptable due to overriding
considerations as discussed in Section 7 below.
a) The Final EIR, as identified in Section 4A, determined that without
mitigation the project could result in a significant traffic impact on segments of
Idaho Avenue between 15th and 1 ih Streets. Based upon the classifications and
corresponding thresholds of significance for neighborhood traffic impacts
established in the City's Land Use and Circulation Element, the addition of any
new daily trips to a local, feeder or collector street is considered significant if the
existing daily traffic volumes on the street are greater than 90 percent of
capacity. Idaho Avenue currently exceeds 90% of capacity for a local street.
Using this threshold, the Final EIR concludes that the project will generate a
potentially significant and unavoidable traffic impact on this collector street. The
EIR concluded that an increase in ADT volume of 2 vehicles would occur on
fOt
Idaho Avenue between 15th Court and 15th Street, 8 vehicles on Idaho Avenue
between 15th Court and 16th Street, and an increase of 1 vehicle on Idaho
Avenue between 16th and 1 ih Street, thereby constituting a significant traffic
impact. However, there are no feasible mitigation measures. More specifically,
the EIR studied providing direct access from 16th Street to the project site and
making 15th Court Alley one-way north to divert traffic away from Idaho Avenue.
However, these are not feasible mitigation measures for the following reasons:
(i) Providing access to the site from 16th Street conflicts with Santa Monica
Municipal Code Section 9.04.10.08.080, Specifically, this section prohibits new
curb cuts to provide street access to on-site parking spaces in multi-family
residential districts. The Santa Monica Municipal Code standards provide for the
use of alleys as they are intended for vehicular access and the minimization of
curb cuts both increases the maximum amount of on-street parking as well as
limiting the potential safety conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles. There
are four exceptions in which a project may provide access from the street: when
the site has no adjacent side or rear alley; when the site has topographic or
configuration constraints that preclude reasonable access to on-site parking from
the alley to the extent that the use of the property is restricted beyond otherwise
applicable Property Development Standards; the average slope of the parcel is at
least five percent; and/or the Zoning Administrator and the Transportation
Planning Manager determine that a curb cut is appropriate due to traffic,
circulation or safety concerns. Parking access is determined to be required from
~.
A../
Q..;.;-
alleys as alleys are intended for vehicular access and are designed to service all
adjoining properties up to the maximum density allowed for such properties.
Curb cuts are only determined to be appropriate in exceptional circumstances
that may include, but may not be limited to the physical inability of vehicles to
turn in or out of an alley and the use of alleys to provide pedestrian crossing
between properties with associated uses. However, the project site does not
qualify for any of these four exceptions and must provide access to on-site
parking spaces from the alley.
(ii) The proposal to make 15th Court one-way north would result in more
traffic onto Idaho Avenue and would encourage unsafe left turns on Montana
Avenue from 15th Court Alley. Customers visiting the adjacent businesses to the
north would be precluded from southbound use of the alley and would be
required to circle the block to enter onto Idaho Avenue thereby routing more
traffic onto Idaho Avenue. Further, a north-bound alley would increase the
likelihood of vehicles traveling west from 15th Court to take unsafe left turns onto
Montana Avenue and/or would increase the course of travel which would also
create a significant impact Idaho Avenue. Therefore, this possible mitigation
measures would itself result in significant negative impacts in the area
SECTION 5. The CEQA-mandated environmentally superior alternative was
found to be the No Project Alternative. As analyzed in the Final EIR, the No Project
Alternative would result in impacts that would be less than the proposed project as
~ .. (, 10 3
well as for the other alternatives considered. However, the No Project Alternative is
not feasible since it does not satisfy the project objectives as it would not allow the
three existing units to be replaced with a new multi-family housing project in this
multi-family residential district. Additionally, when the No Project Alternative is
identified as the environmentally superior alternative, CEQA requires that another
alternative that substantially reduces or eliminates potential impacts be identified.
Since the Final EIR determined that one additional vehicle trip on Idaho Avenue
adjacent to the project would result in significant unavoidable impacts, any
alternative that increases the present use of the site would generate at least some
additional trips on Idaho Avenue and thereby be considered a significant
unavoidable impact. Accordingly, there are no other alternatives that would
substantially reduce or eliminate potential impacts. Furthermore, the No Project
Alternative is not feasible since it does not allow development of additional housing
stock that is consistent with the intent of the R2 District and Goals, Objectives and
Policies of the General Plan.
SECTION 6. The remaining project alternatives analyzed in the Final EIR,
the 20 Percent Reduced Project and the 40 Percent Reduced Project, would have
similar impacts on the environment when compared to the proposed project in that
they both would have a significant and unavoidable adverse impact on
neighborhood traffic.
SECTION 7, As fully described in Section 4 above, the Final EIR found that
~. ;C-J-..
. ..".~
the proposed project would result in significant and unavoidable adverse impacts in
the area of traffic/circulation (project related). This unmitigatible impact was
identified in the neighborhood effects section of the Final EIR. Consistent with
Article VI, Section 13 of the City CEOA Guidelines and Section 15093 of the State
of California CEOA Guidelines, the City Council hereby makes a Statement of
Overriding Considerations and finds that the benefits of the project outweigh its
unavoidable environmental impacts based on the following reasons:
(a) The City's Land Use Element establishes one overriding objective,
Objective 1.10, for the residential districts, Objective 1.10 provides, "Expand the
opportunity for residential land use while protecting the scale and character of
existing neighborhoods." Furthermore, the Land Use Element also establishes
one key policy for the residential districts, Policy 1.10.1 This policy provides,
"Encourage the development of new housing in all existing residential district,
while still protecting the character and scale of the neighborhoods." This project
should be encouraged because it constitutes a new multi-family development in a
multi-family housing district consistent with all of the applicable development
standards, including height, density, setbacks, parking and landscaping.
project will provide a net increase of seven new dwelling units. This new housing
project should be encouraged based on Land Use Element Objective 1.10 and
Policy 1.10.1, which are the City's key policies for the residential districts.
(b) The first goal stated in the City's Housing Element Update is Goal
~... 0 05
1.0, which provides, "Promote the construction of new housing within the City's
regulatory framework." This project satisfies the development standards for new
housing in the R2 District, including height, density, setbacks, parking and
landscaping. Goal 1.0 of the Housing Element Update encourages the approval
of such housing projects,
(c) This project constitutes an in-fill housing project that complies with all
of the applicable development guidelines for the R2 Zoning District. In fact, this
project consists of ten units, which will provide additional setbacks, upper level
step backs, landscaping and private open space greater than is required of the
development.
(d) The environmental effects of this project are not substantially different
than they would be for a site developed with two single-lot condominium projects,
located side-by-side and each containing five units, except that two five unit
projects would each be categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to Class 3(b).
By developing a single, integrated 10-unit project on two lots, the applicant is
able to include a courtyard area within the project and provide more than 20%
greater side yard setbacks/building separation and increased landscaping in
comparison to two single-lot condominium projects. This design will benefit the
occupants and adjacent neighbors.
(e) The EIR concluded that a net increase in ADT volume of 2 vehicles
Iil" '(l,'fJ;
would occur on Idaho Avenue between 15th Court and 15th Street, a net increase
of 8 vehicles on Idaho Avenue between 15th Court and 16th Street, and an
increase of 1 vehicle on Idaho Avenue between 16th and 1 ih Street, thereby
constituting a significant traffic impact. The criteria established by the City of
Santa Monica to assess the incremental increase of traffic is such that the
addition of one trip per day would exceed the threshold and therefore result in a
significant impact.
(f) The City's Housing Element Update establishes a housing production
objective for affordable units for the years 2000 through 2005 equal to a total net
increase of 1,281 units. This total consists of 442 moderate-income units
(affordable to persons earning between 80% and 120% of the Los Angeles
County median income), 331 low-income units (affordable to persons earning
between 51 % and 80% of the County median income) and 508 very low-income
units (affordable to persons earning less than 50% of the County median
income). Further, this project will provide the City with approximately
$154,084.95 for use to subsidize the development of new deed-restricted
affordable housing within the City of Santa Monica.
SECTION 8. Consistent with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 the
City Council adopts the Mitigation Monitoring Plan, which is included as Attachment
A, to mitigate or avoid the significant effects of the Project on the environment and
to ensure compliance during project implementation
t~ Illl (I t 0 7
SECTION 9,
Consistent with Section 21081.6(d) of the California
Environmental Quality Act, the documents which constitute the record of
proceedings for approving this project are located in the Planning and Community
Development Department, 1685 Main Street, Room 212, Santa Monica, California.
The custodian of these documents is Kimberly Christensen, AICP, Senior Planner
in the City Planning Division of the Planning and Community Development
Department.
SECTION 10. 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:
Attachment A: Mitigation Monitoring Table
EFF45
Last revised: June 27, 2002
F:/PPD/Share/EIRTEMPS/83416th/EIR SOC Reso.doc
')
nOli \, t 08
Adopted and approved this 23rd day of July, 2002,
~
/
/'
I, Maria M. Stewart, City Clerk of the City of Santa Monica, do hereby
certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 9788 (CCS) was duly adopted at a
meeting of the Santa Monica City Council held on the 23rd of July, 2002, by the
following vote:
Ayes: Council members:
Holbrook, O'Connor, Bloom, Genser, Katz,
Mayor Feinstein
Noes: Council members:
None
Abstain. Council members:
None
Absent: Council members:
Mayor Pro T em McKeown