R-9729
F:\PPD\SHARE\OPSP ACE\OPSP ACESOC.doc
City Council Meeting 12-11-01
Santa Monica, California
RESOLUTION NO. 9729 (CCS)
(City Council Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA MAKING THE CEQA FINDINGS
NECESSARY TO APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO THE OPEN SPACE ELEMENT
OF THE GENERAL PLAN, ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM.
WHEREAS, an Environmental Impact Report has been prepared which analyzes the
environmental effects of an amendment to the Open Space Element of the General Plan;
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on September 5,
2001 to consider a recommendation for certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report
and adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations and voted unanimously to
recommend certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report and adoption of a
Statement of Overriding Considerations; and
WHEREAS, the City Council as Lead Agency, reviewed the Final Environmental
Impact Report in full compliance with State law and City CEQA Guidelines, and
WHEREAS, on December 11, 2001, the City Council certified that the
1
k. \, i... ,-: -,
Environmental Impact Report for the amendment to the Open Space element of the
General Plan 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 15091 and 15092 of the State of California CEQA
Guidelines, and as detailed in Final EIR Sections IV.A, IV. E , IV. G, IV. H, IV. I, IV. J, IV.
K., the City Council finds that there are no significant impacts on aesthetics, land use,
earth, water, plant life, animal life, natural resources, cultural resources, shadows, energy,
risk of upset, human health, population, utilities, housing, right-of-way and public services
(fire protection).
SECTION 2. The Final EIR determined that without mitigation, the project could
result in significant impacts related to light and glare, and recreation. Consistent with
Article VI, Section 12 of the City of Santa Monica CEQA Guidelines and Section 15091 of
the State CEQA Guidelines, and as detailed in Final EIR Section I, Table 1-1, the City
Council finds that the following mitigation measures which have been required of the
project will reduce or mitigate the impacts which are created by the project to below a level
of significance:
2
r ~,' t9; ,"' !-~ .'i
. Light and Glare: In order to reduce offsite light and glare spillover, detailed lighting
plans shall be prepared for the proposed improvements to the non-aviation lands
and any new parks to be acquired and developed. Such lighting plans shall be
subject to the review and approval of the City of Santa Monica Planning and
Community Development Department.
. Recreation: The Community and Cultural Services Department shall consider its
staffing needs in relation to the projects that are completed and shall propose any
needed staffing or contract service increases as part of the annual budgetary
process.
SECTION 3. The Final EIR determined that without mitigation, the project could
result in significant impacts in the areas of traffic, access and parking, air quality, noise and
neighborhood effects. Consistent with Article VI, Section 12 of the City of Santa Monica
CEQA Guidelines and Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines, and as detailed in
Final EIR Section I, Table 1-1, the City Council finds that the significant environmental
effects as identified below can be reduced but 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 5.
a) TRAFFIC, ACCESS AND PARKING
Many of the components of the Open Space Element are not "destination" oriented
sites and will not therefore generate sufficient traffic or parking demand to warrant
3
I lr~ \J \.. r: ,;
.J (."
mitigation (no significant impacts will be experienced). Additional impact analysis,
and ultimately additional mitigation measures, may be warranted on a case-by-case
basis as the specific project components are developed. As project elements are
proposed, these elements shall be reviewed individually with respect to traffic and
parking impacts. The analysis should include, at a minimum, the following actions:
. Estimate the daily and weekday peak hour trip generation for each project
component.
· Review the Master Environmental Assessment intersection analysis results for
intersections within an approximately one mile radius of each site.
. If project trip generation exceeds 50 peak hour trips, and there is an MEA
intersection with LOS D, E or F operating conditions within one mile, then consider a
more detailed follow-up traffic analysis of the project component.
. Determine the likely user groups and time periods of activity (weekday, weekend, all
day, peak hours, etc.).
. Review the proposed parking supply for the project component, and estimate any
loss of on-street or off-street parking associated with the project.
. If there is expected to be a net loss of parking, or there is the potential for an
increase in parking demand in a sensitive residential area, then a follow-up detailed
parking demand analysis shall be conducted.
. The parking analysis shall include a parking inventory of all on-street parking
spaces within an approximate two-block radius, as well as a parking utilization study
of the potentially affected blocks. The parking utilization survey would be conducted
during the time periods when the project component is expected to be in operation.
For example, if the project component is a soccer field that will operate on weekday
evenings and weekends, then the parking surveys should be conducted during
4
; #. \; ~ 5 ~j
those same time periods. The purpose of the survey will be to determine if there is
excess local parking available for the new use. If a source of off-street parking is
identified for the project component, then the parking analysis would not be required
assuming the parking can be committed for use by the project.
If any significant traffic or parking impacts are identified, then appropriate mitigation
measures must be recommended as needed. The types of traffic and parking
mitigation measures to be considered shall include, but not necessarily be limited to,
the following:
Potential Traffic Mitiqation Measures to be Applied on an As-needed Basis
. Modifications to traffic signal operations or traffic lane striping
. Physical intersection improvements
. Trip reduction measures specifically oriented to the project component
. Neighborhood traffic control measures designed to mitigate traffic intrusion or
speeding on residential streets
Potential Parkinq Mitiqation Measures to be Applied on an As-needed Basis
. Identify nearby off-street parking for use by the project
. Identify remote satellite parking for use by the project, with a plan to provide
transportation to and from the remote parking
. Parking permit district (only with appropriate public input from affected residents and
businesses
b) AIR QUALITY
Because almost all of the project-related air quality impacts derive from vehicular
sources beyond the control of project sponsors or local regulatory agencies, there is
little potential for substantial impact mitigation. Certain mandatory measures such
as dust control during construction to prevent a dust nuisance and compliance with
energy conservation standards in Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations for
anyon-site structures will be implemented, but they do not address the basic
transportation related air quality impact.
5
. 1- "',
\l ,- oJ b
Transportation control measures (TCMs) shall be considered for inclusion where
possible in individual project planning include the following:
. Improved Public Transit
. Areawide Carpool Programs
. On Street Parking Controls
. Park and Ride Lots
. Incentives for Carpools, Transit, Bicycles and Walking
. Bicycle Lanes and Storage
. Traffic Flow Improvements
The Open Space Element is far too small to effectively be a major part in any travel
reduction program. However, every effort must be made to make any individual
projects as "air pollution friendly" as possible.
Project construction is an impact area in need of careful control, particularly with
respect to dust emissions and their regional PM-10 impact. The typical menu of
recommended construction activity control measures, which work to reduce
construction related air quality emissions, includes:
Minimize Construction Activitv Emissions
. Water site and equipment morning and evening using non-potable water
resources, where available.
. Pave on-site roads as soon as possible into the construction cycle.
. Operate street-sweepers on paved roads adjacent to site.
. Re-establish ground cover on construction site through seeding and
watering, if disturbed sites are to be left unconstructed for more than 90
days.
6
~ ~. \i ~> ~-~i
. Terminate grading and travel on unpaved surfaces if winds exceed 25 mph.
Reduce Construction Equipment Emissions
. Wash off trucks leaving site.
. Properly tune and maintain construction equipment.
. Develop construction traffic routes away from sensitive receptors.
. Prohibit truck idling in excess of 10 minutes while trucks are waiting to load
or unload.
Reduce Construction-Related Traffic Conqestion
. Encourage rideshare incentives for construction personnel.
. Encourage transit incentives for construction workers.
. Configure construction parking to minimize traffic interference.
. Schedule operations affecting roadways for off-peak traffic hours.
Many improvements are too small to warrant a major construction activity impact
mitigation program. Any substantial project such as conversion of airport space,
however, would require development of a very comprehensive impact mitigation
plan to maintain impacts at less than significant levels.
c) NOISE
Noise impacts from any individual project-related traffic represent only a minor
increase in existing exposure. Significant noise impacts require a doubling of traffic
volumes to create a clearly perceptible change in noise exposures. With Santa
7
: ; '"'t \) ~.. ~; i<
Monica essentially built-out, no streets currently carrying any substantial volume of
traffic are likely to double in volume either from an individual project component, or
from cumulative growth. Additional analysis of traffic noise impacts shall be
undertaken when individual projects are proposed.
Short-term construction noise intrusion at any specific project site would be limited by
conditions on construction permits to weekday hours when nearby sensitive uses
would be least impacted. Those same permits should also specify construction
access routing to minimize construction truck traffic past existing residential, school,
park or other noise sensitive uses.
Recreational activity noise impacts at any specific project site cannot be evaluated
without a greater level of available information. Separate review may be required
for any non-minimal projects that assess specific noise impact and mitigation
concerns as they relate to the nearest noise-sensitive land uses that may be
affected by the proposed action.
d) NEIGHBORHOOD EFFECTS
A sufficient amount of site-specific information for the proposed project is not
available at this time. As such, it is not possible to accurately define the significance
of neighborhood effects relative to traffic, air quality, noise, and police protection.
Additional analysis of these impacts will be required as individual project
8
. "'" t. '. r_~ C
components are implemented in order to better define significant impacts and
potential mitigation measures.
SECTION 4. The CEQA mandated environmentally superior alternative was found
to be Alternative B which calls for the continuation of the existing Open Space Element
adopted in 1973 without update or modification. As analyzed in the Final EIR in Section VI,
Alternative A, the No Project alternative, and Alternative B would result in impacts that
would be less than the impacts of the proposed project. However, consistent with Section
15091 of the State of California CEQA Guidelines, the City Council finds that Alternative A
is not feasible as it does not meet the key project objectives to expand the open space
system in the City through the use of public properties nor would it establish a citywide
system of pathways and linear open spaces. Alternative A also does not heighten the
sense of nature in the City and would not necessarily increase the accessibility of open
space. Alternative B is also not feasible as the existing Open Space Element since it does
not specifically promote a citywide system of pathways and linear open spaces nor does it
suggest the City heighten its sense of nature. In addition, this alternative does not
specifically call for the expansion of open space areas through the use of public properties
and does not necessarily increase accessibility of open space in the City. In conclusion,
Alternative A, the No Project alternative, and Alternative B are not feasible since they do
not satisfy the project objectives
SECTION 5. As fully described in Section 3, the Final EIR found that the project
9
.;. t. L U
would result in significant unavoidable adverse impacts in the areas of traffic, access and
parking, air quality, noise and neighborhood effects. Consistent with Section 15093 of the
State of California CEQA 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 updated Open Space Element proposes long range objectives and policies for
improving the character and quality of parks and open space facilities for City
residents. The updated Open Space Element proposes to increase the future
inventory of open space through reuse of public lands, redefinition of streets and
transportation corridors, and acquisition of private parcels. Implementation of these
objectives will enhance the overall livability of the community.
(b) The intent of the updated Open Space Element is to create a diverse system of
parks and open space areas, including: undeveloped natural areas, gardens,
greens, pathways, tree-lined streets, urban parks, and various recreational facilities.
These improvements will enhance the City's physical character and expand the
City's passive and active outdoor recreational opportunities.
(c) The benefits of an updated Open Space Element as listed above far outweigh the
potentially significant unavoidable impacts that may occur as a result of the
10
;. ~" \j.... '"": "f
implementation of individual components as listed in Section 3 as the updated Open
Space Element will work toward reinforcing the social, environmental, cultural and
recreational role of open space within Santa Monica.
(d) The individual project components contained in the updated Open Space Element,
which could result in potentially significant unavoidable impacts, will undergo
additional environmental analysis at the time of project proposal so that more
detailed project information can be analyzed to determine what, if any, unavoidable
impacts will occur.
SECTION 6. Consistent with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, the City
Council adopts the Mitigation Monitoring Program, which is included as Attachment A, to
mitigate or avoid significant effects of the Project on the environment and to ensure
compliance during project implementation.
SECTION 7. 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 plans is Paul Foley,
Senior Planner in the City Planning Division of the Planning and Community Development
Department.
11
(... t'
't., \.' \.. b,
SECTION 8. 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:
11(~~ !tl,~
MARSHA JONE'slMOUTRIE
City Attorney
Attachment A: Mitigation Monitoring Program
\'\..
."~, \. '- ...;
Adopted and approved this 11th of December, 2001.
I, Maria M. Stewart, City Clerk of the City of Santa Monica, do hereby
certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 9729 (CCS) was duly adopted at a
meeting of the Santa Monica City Council held on the 11th of December, 2001,
by the following vote:
Ayes: Council members:
Holbrook, Bloom, Genser, Katz, Mayor Pro
Tern McKeown, Mayor Feinstein
Noes: Council members:
None
Abstain: Council members:
None
Absent: Council members:
O'Connor
ATTEST:
~.
~
Maria Stewart, City Cle k