SR-410-001 (29)
t(/(J-OO/
'1-8
A~ i 2 t9'6
/
C/ED:EDD:ERF:CSR
council Meeting of August 12, 1986
Santa Monica, California
TO:
The Mayor and City council
FROM:
city staff
SUBJECT: Approval of Third street Mall Specific Plan and
certification of Final Environmental Impact Report
INTRODUCTION
This report requests that the city Council hold a public hearing
on the Final Draft Third street Mall specific Plan approved by
the Planning Commission on July 14, 1986, certify as adequate the
Final Environmental Impact Report on the document, approve the
Third Street Mall specific Plan, and direct the city Attorney to
draft an ordinance establishing the "TS" Third street Mall zoning
district for the area.
BACKGROUND
city council adoption of the Third Street Mall Specific Plan will
culminate the nearly two year planning process to establish the
blueprint for revitalization of the Third Street Mall area. This
Mall Specific Plan, prepared as a joint planning effort between
the Third street Development Corporation (TSDC) and the City,
encourages the Mallis revitalization through the cooperative
efforts of the City, the Third street Development Corporation,
Mall area property owners, and Mall area merchants. The planning
process has included the involvement of Mall area property
owners, merchants, and the general public in an effort to prepare
7.g
AUG 1 2 ..
- 1 -
'1
a -plan that reflects the goals and objectives of the city, the
TSDC, and the community.
On July 14, 1986, the city Planning Commission held a pUblic
hearing on the Draft Third street Mall Specific Plan and
incorporated a number of modifications into that document. The
Planning commission approved a resolution recommending that the
City council adopt the Commission I s Final Draft version of the
Specific Plan and certify the Final Environmental Impact Report
on the document.
Attachment 1 contains approved Planning
commission minutes for July 14, 1986, and an Addendum to the
Draft Specific Plan showing changes to be included in the
Commission's approved Final Draft Specific Plan.
On July 29, 1986, the city council held a study session on the
Mall Specific Plan. For that meeting, the City Council received
copies of the Planning commission's approved Final Draft Specific
Plan, the Final EIR, two sets of guidelines to be adopted as part
of the Specific Plan (the Mall Design Guidelines and Outdoor
Dining Guidelines), and a staff report summarizing the planning
process to date and the contents of the Specific Plan.
councilmembers asked questions of staff and the consultants who
prepared the Specific Plan and requested staff to clarify several
aspects of the specific Plan for the council's August 12th
meeting.
PLANNING COMMISSION MODIFICATIONS TO DRAFT SPECIFIC PLAN
The Planning Commission approved the Final Draft Specific Plan
which contained modifications to the Draft Specific Plan prepared
- 2 -
by the City's consultants. Most modifications clarified the
intent of a policy or program or created a new pOlicy or program
that did not alter the original concepts contained in the Draft
Specific Plan. However, two modifications did change the intent
of the Draft Specific Plan.
One, the Planning Commission's Final Draft specific Plan requires
department store anchor developments to provide shops along the
Mall frontage with individual access from the Mall and does not
provide the density bonus of 0.5 FAR that was originally proposed
to encourage this form of development.
Two, the Final Draft Specific Plan requires hotel development to
provide parking on-site and deletes the density bonus of 0.5 FAR
that was originally intended to encourage on-site parking.
MALL VENDORS
At the July 29th study session, Councilmember Zane requested
staff to describe how the Specific Plan addresses vendors on the
Mall. The Specific Plan does not specifically discuss vendors on
the Mall so neither permits nor prohibits this type of use. The
Specific Plan does encourage similar activities such as outdoor
dining and outdoor sales of some types of merchandise (POlicies
4.1.23 and 4.1.26) and recommends that pavilions be erected in
the Mall common area that would accommodate information, service,
and retail uses (PUblic Improvement Guideline 12.9). The
Specific Plan will not preclude the city from adopting ordinances
permitting vendors on the Mall and establishing standards for
this activity in the future if that is the council's desire.
- 3 -
OUTDOOR DINING
Councilmember Zane requested staff to discuss the Planning
Commission's reasoning for not permitting permanent barrier
structures for outdoor dining facilities. In its report to the
Planning Commission, City staff recommended that section b of
Policy 4.1.26 on page 29 be revised as follows to permit
permanent barrier structures:
[No) P[pJermanent barrier structures may be constructed if
- -
consistent with the adopted Outdoor Dining Guidelines.
Retractable awnings may be used only in inclement weather.
(Additions to the Draft Policy are noted in bold underlined text
and deletions in [bracketed, italic text)) .
This staff recommendation was intended to permit low permanent
barriers between an outdoor dining area and the Mall common area
and retractable awnings for "sidewalk" cafes on the Mall as long
as they are consistent with the City's design standards for these
types of facilities. Requiring removal of these barriers each
night will not encourage outdoor dining on the Mall and will
result in unnecessary hardship to Mall merchants wishing to
provide this service.
The City Planning Commission did not specifically discuss this
policy modification and did not conduct a vote to approve the
modifications. The staff recommendation was thus deemed denied.
- 4 -
PHASING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS
Councilmember Zane requested staff to discuss the proposed
phasing for implementing the public improvements proposed in the
Specific Plan.
The Third street Mall Specific Plan does not provide a specific
timeline for implementing the various proposed public
improvements identified in the Specific Plan. However, the
Specific Plan does recommend that the improvements be implemented
in four phases and assumes that most public improvements will be
implemented by 1990 in order to minimize disruptions and to
stimulate economic revitalization.
Phase 1 includes the improvement of one Mall block and adjacent
alley segments and improvement of existing passageways between
the Mall and the parking structures. Phase 2 includes the
improvement of a second block and alley segments, and the
development of a new Mall passageway. Phase 3 includes the
improvement of the final block and alley segments and the
development of the Arizona Avenue promenade between 4th Street
and Palisades Park. The final phase includes construction of two
new Mall passageways, the improvement of the Mall's cross-street
intersections, the construction of streetscape improvements
recommended for other streets in the area, and the development of
the central plaza if a property owner is developing the adjacent
parcel at that time.
- 5 -
The specific Plan recommends that the initial expansion of
parking structure #5 (1400 block of 4th street) be begun by 1987.
Additional parking structure expansion is recommended to begin in
the late 1990's.
The final phasing schedule can be determined more precisely when
archi tectural and engineering plans have been prepared and an
optimum construction schedule is developed that considers
budgetary constraints. The final phasing schedule will also be
discussed with area property owners and merchants in order to
minimize disruptions to the area.
INTERIM PROMOTION
Councilmember Zane requested that staff report on those efforts
by the City and others to promote business activity on the Mall.
In its approval of the FY 1986-87 budget for the Third Street
Development corporation, the City council approved $41,400 in
professional services to assist in conducting business seminars
for existing merchants ($2,000); to develop a coordinated
advertising and promotion campaign ($6,300); to prepare brochures
and other promotional material ($6,100); and to assemble a slide
show/video promoting the Mall ($5,000). In addition, the Council
approved $22,000 for printing, advertising, and supplies related
to this Mall promotion campaign.
In addition, the Chamber of Commerce will receive approximately
$99,499 in FY 1986-87 from the retail promotion assessment
district for the Central Business District. This district is one
of three such districts in the city that receives funds from
- 6 -
assessments to businesses in that district for the purpose of
promoting retail trade in the area. The Chamber of Commerce
intends to give the TSDC $20,000 from the Central Business
District promotion fund for Third street Mall promotion activity.
BUDGET/FISCAL IMPACTS
While the act of adopting the Third street Mall specific Plan
will not result in direct budget or fiscal impacts, subsequent
implementation of the programs contained in the document will
require the expenditure of funds to varying degrees. Most of the
policy and program statements contained in the Specific Plan will
require minimal City funds to implement. For instance, the land
use and development standards contained in the Specific Plan will
be implemented by revising the City.s Zoning Code which does not
require direct expenditures other than for city staff time
involved in processing revisions to the Zoning Code.
other policy and program statements, if implemented, may require
the expenditure of funds, but the precise expenditure will depend
on the degree to which the pOlicy or program is implemented.
However, the Specific Plan recommends several funding mechanisms
to offset these anticipated costs and to minimize General Fund
expenditures. The Specific Plan recommends that a new assessment
district be established to raise revenue to pay for the cost of
constructing the proposed public improvements and to pay for the
annual cost to operate and maintain the parking structures and
Mall common area. The Specific Plan also recommends that the
annual cost to fund the TSDC be partially offset by the new city
- 7 -
revenue raised from leasing portions of the Mall common area for
outdoor dining and for retail uses in small pavilions in the Mall
common area.
Approval of the primary source of revenue recommended by this
Specific Plan to finance the maj ori ty of the costs associated
with implementing this Specific Plan -- the establishment of a
new assessment district -- will be before the city Council on
August 19, 1986.
CITY COUNCIL AUTHORITY
Under Government Code Sections 65453 and 65356, the City Council
may adopt the Specific Plan by resolution or by ordinance by the
affirmative vote of not less than a majority of the city council.
The City Council may approve, modify, or disapprove the
recommendations of the city Planning Commission contained in its
Final Draft Specific Plan. However, if the City council proposes
any substantial modifications to the Specific Plan that have not
been previously considered by the Planning Commission during its
hearings on the document, those modifications must be referred
to the Planning Commission for its recommendation prior to City
council adoption of those modifications. The Planning Commission
must report its recommendations on the modifications to the city
council within 45 days, or within the time set by the City
council, or the modifications will be deemed approved by the
Planning Commission.
Similarly, the city Council, as the final decision-making body in
this planning project, serves as the lead agency for the
- 8 -
environmental review process so is responsible for certifying the
adequacy of the Final EIR. The Planning commission will not be
required to reconsider the Final EIR unless the City Council's
actions require a supplement to the Final EIR.
RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO FINAL DRAFT SPECIFIC PLAN
staff has reviewed the original Draft Third street Mall Specific
Plan prepared by the City'S consultants and the various revisions
adopted by the Planning Commission in the Final Draft Specific
Plan. Staff concurs with the Planning commission on most of the
revisions it adopted in the Final Draft Plan but does believe
that the City Council should adopt the Final Third Street Mall
specific Plan with the fOllowing modifications:
1) The city Council should restore the density bonus incentives
for department store and hotel anchor uses that provide
special features in the development. Staff recommends that
the Council adopt the following policies as presented in the
original Draft Specific Plan.
(Additions to the Planning
commission's final draft policy are noted in bold underlined
text and deletions in [bracketed italic text)).
Policy 4.1.40 Allow for development of one or more [no more
than two] department stores wi th a minimum
area of 65,000 square feet in any location
within the Mall area to precipitate higher
levels of customer and economic activity on
the Mall to the standards of the underlying
zone. [The Mall-fronting ground floor shall
open on to the Mall and be visually
transparent and physically accessible from the
Mall. Retail shops with access to the Mall
(excluding the department store) shall be
located along at least 70% of the Mall
frontage.] Department stores shall be subject
to Site Plan Review Permit approval.
- 9 -
Pol icy 4. 1. 4 4 Permit a hotel or mixed use ( II entertainment-
specialty- design") structure in sub-areas B
or C to be constructed to a maximum floor area
ratio of 3.0, which may be increased by an
additional 0.5 if all required parking is
provided on- or off-site, but not within the
Parking District structures.
Policy 4.1.45 Permit the department store in sub-areas B or
c to be constructed to a maximum floor area
ratio of 3.0, but allow an additional bonus of
0.5 if retail shops are incorporated along-
seventy percent of the mall facing elevation.
The result of the city council reincorporating these original
policies will be to permit a hotel in the anchor zones to be
constructed to 3.5 FAR if the hotel provides its own parking
on-site or in close proximity and to encourage rather than
require a department store to provide individual shops along
the Mall facing frontage of the store.
without the
modifications recommended by staff, it may be more difficult
to attract the desired anchor-type development onto the Mall.
2) The city Council should permit permanent outdoor dining
barriers on the Mall as long as they are designed in
accordance with the Cityts outdoor Dining Guidelines. staff
recommends that the City Council adopt Policy 4.1.26 as
follows:
pOlicy 4.1.26 Allow a use encroachment of 12 feet into the
mall from the abutting property frontage to
accommodate outdoor dining and sales of
flowers, produce, and arts and crafts
(excluding clothes, furniture and
"tchatchkaslt). Uses located in the mall
encroachment zone shall be in accordance with
the approved Third street Mall Outdoor Dining
standards subject to an encroachment permit,
and the following guidelines:
- 10 -
a. Outdoor furnishings must be constructed
of sound materials, visually attractive,
and maintained at high quality.
b. [No] ~[pJermanent barrier structures may
be constructed if they are consistent
with the adopted outdoor Dining
Guidelines. Retractable awnings may be
used only in inclement weather.
c. A ground floor setback of twenty-five
(25) feet from the mall facing property
line is permitted to allow for outdoor
dining which must be contiguous with
outdoor dining extending into the mall.
d. A setback of ten (10) feet from the mall
facing property line is permitted along
35% of the mall facing frontage to
accommodate building entries and
promenades for which a minimum of forty
percent (40%) of which shall incorporate
landscaping.
The Third street Development Corporation strongly supports
this revision.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
The modifications proposed above do not alter the basic framework
of the Final Draft Specific Plan analyzed in the Final
Environmental Impact Report (FEIR). Staff concludes that none of
the changes are significant within the meaning of the California
Environmental Quality Act, so the Final ErR may continue to serve
as the final environmental analysis for the Specific Plan as
recommended for adoption by staff.
Staff recommends that the
City Council follow the Planning commission's recommendation and
certify the Final EIR by approving the Resolution included in
this report at Attachment 2.
- 11 -
However, if the City council approves substantial changes to the
Specific Plan that have not been analyzed in the Final EIR and
for which further environmental study would be required, the City
council should direct staff to prepare an addendum to the Final
EIR that analyzes potential significant environmental impacts of
the Council's proposed changes.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends that the City council:
1) Review the Final Draft Third Street Mall specific Plan, Final
Environmental Impact Report, and staff recommendations
contained in this staff report.
2) Hold a public hearing on the Final Draft Specific Plan.
3) Approve the Resolution contained in Attachment 2 certifying
the adequacy of the Final ErR.
4) Approve the Resolution contained in Attachment 3 adopting the
Final Third Street Mall Specific Plan as recommended by the
Planning Commission and with the changes recommended by City
staff.
5) Direct the City Attorney to draft an ordinance amending the
City's Zoning Code by establishing the "TS" Third street Mall
District which contains the land use, development, and other
appropriate standards adopted in the Specific Plan.
- 12 -
Prepared by: Ernesto R. Flores, Manager
Christopher S. Rudd, Sr. Administrative Analyst
Economic Development Division
Community and Economic Development Department
Attachments: 1.
Planning commission Minutes from July 14, 1986
meeting and Addendum to Draft Specific Plan
Resolution Certifying Final EIR
Resolution Adopting specific Plan
2.
3 .
mallccok
- 13 -
ATTACHMENT 1
M I NUT E S
REGCLAR MEETING OF TEE PLAKNIKG COMMISSIOK
OF THE CITY OF SAKTA MONICA
MONDAY, JULY 14, 1986
6:30 P.M.
CITY COUKCIL CHAMBERS
ROOM 213, CITY HALL
L PPESENTATION OF SANTA NONICA HOSPITAL I S MASTER PLAN: Pat
Rousher, EOSpl tal Planner for Santa Manlca Haspl tal
presented the Master Plan. ELII Marsh, City West,
accompan1.ed Ms. Rousher Lh the presentation. Ph1.1 LeV1.ne
and Blll Welngarden Were present representlng Mld Cltles.
2.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Mehrdad Farivar
Margo Hebald-Heymann
Larry Israel
Edward Klrshner
Penny Perlman
Derek Shearer
Elleen Hecht
Absent: None
Also Present: Herb Katz, Clty Councll Lialson
Jonathan Horne, Deputy CLty Attorney
Ann Slracusa, Dlrector of PlannLng
Suzanne Fr1.ck, Prlncipal Planner
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIAKCE: The Pledge of Alleglance 'Was led by
COITID1SS10ner Heba1d-Heymann.
4. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT: Ann Slracusa gave the
Dlrector's Report.
5. APPROVAL OF NIKUTES: June 2, 1986. ThlS ltem wLll be
contlnued next week.
6. PuBLIC HEARING:
A. ReVlew of Thlrd Street Mall Speclflc Plan and
Envlronmental Impact Report.
Ernesto Flores presented the draft t>'lall SpeclfLc Plan
and draft ElF. He stated he would ll.ke to hear the
Comrnlsslon's corrments on the plan and on the draft EIR,
conduct a publlC hearing and then forward the
Comml.ssion's recomrnendat1.ons on the plan and ErR to the
Clty Council.
Dave W1.1cox Economic Research Assoclates,
market study and market analysls.
presented the
j
.
1
_ .J
--~~~~~~
- 1 -
~...- ..oFirtIIl".,....... ~.;..__
-....:~~-::_~~),..:-
Woody 'fescher,
Ob]ectlves that
Plan.
Envlcom,
form the
revlewed
framework
the
for
seven bas lC
the Speclflc
D1Ck Kaku, Kaku ASSOCla tes, presented the parklng and
clrculatlon analysls.
Rlchard Thompson, Archlplan, spoke in regard to the
urban deslgn gUldellnes of the plan.
Chalr Hecht opened the publlC hearlng. The follow1.no
members of the publlc spoke on the Th1.rd Street Mall
Speclflc Plan:
Tom Carroll, l427 'fhlrd Street
John Blurnthal, 309 Santa Mon1.ca Blvd. #404
Laurle Heyman, 1427 Santa Monica Mall
Gary Meyer, 1010 P1CO Blvd. ~6
Sylvla Gentile, 1316 Santa Monlca Mall #3
Ed Wenner, 1415 Third Street
Hanna Hartnell, 1429 Santa Monlca Mall
Kent Strurnpell, 1316 Thlrd Street Mall
Gary Zacuto, 1316 Santa Monlca Mall
Edward Flores, 1415 Thlrd Street
Ron Mandelbaum, 1441 Fourth Street
Wally Marks, 141 E1 Ca~lno, Beverly Hllls
Questlons were asked of the consultants. COF.U;-,lSsloner
Snearer asked if they antlclpate any change ln the
analysls w1.th the passage of the new tax 01.11. It
appears certaln that 1.t wlll affect offlce flnance. Mr.
W1.1cox stated he was more concerned about the potentlal
negatlve lITpact on rental resldentlal unlts than he lS
about off1.ce at thlS t1.me. ComnU.SSloner Shearer asked
lf he had any sense about whether there would be a
market for condomlnlum housing on the mall, for example,
non-subsldlzed. Mr. W1.1cox stated l.n general, thelr
attltude was that there would be probably be relatlve1y
11ttle market rate condoP'Linlum shared houslng on the
mall.
CommlsSloner Shearer asked, on the artlsts' uses, lf
they had been famll~ar with thlS program that they have
done ln St. Paul where they have actually formed artist
lofts cooperatlves and flnanced them. Mr. Flores stated
they have been work~ng wlth some of the developers who
have been prevlously developed space on the Mall who
have been lnvolved ln downtown Los Angeles wlth respect
to some of the artlst lofts that are be1.ng done and the
old lndustrlal areas. There are some lessons that they
are trY1.ng to learn from them In terms of what klnd of a
program would be necessary and are looking forward to
working Wl th them ln trYlng to do things llke that on
the Thlrd Street Mall.
_~R.-... _.....~ -.:...........
~~~!..--.
~..j
- 2 -
COmnll.SS1oner Perlman asked, In dlrectlng our attentlcr:
to the colored grass that had all these shades or
yellow, what lS the rationale for Wllshlre Boulevard nct
havlng the Zone 1 deslgnatlon as Santa Monlca Boulevard
does. The consultant stated that the reason the
wllshlre Boulevard was presented Wl th the opporturll ty
for sorr-e lncreased helght and lncreased denslty was the
recognltlon of Wllshlre as belng a heavlly traveled
street, more heavlly traveled than the other cross
streets; Arlzona, Santa Manlca Boulevard, and lS felt
that if they do select some 10cat1ons for some targets
for some additional hlgher denslty that the cross
streets presented the flrst opportunlty and Wllshlre
Boulevard was the h1ghest opportunlty. CCITmlSS10ner
Perlman asked If a department store or hotel saw the
Wllshlre Boulevard area as more advantageous for theM,
what 1S the development dlst1nctlons between what lS
achlevable for them. The consultant stated thc.t the
developrrent standard would provlde for the department
store lf lndeed that lS a use that comes lnto the area
and any of the areas on the second graphlc to the rlght
ln any of the green areas and any of those overlay
areas. In those overlay areas, they have addltlonal FAR
opportunltles provlded that a certaln percentage of the
frontage of a department store faclng the Mall would ce
set aSlde for retall actlvlty that opens up onto the
Mall.
C01TLITllSS10ner Perlman had a couple of quest10ns on the
park1ng. She requested that Mr. Kaku clar1fy the
purpose of puttl.ng 1n the gates and dropplng the free
parklng to two hours. Mr. Kaku stated that the purpose
of the gates and the reduclng the free parklng to twc
hours 1S that thelr analysls of the usage of these
parklng spaces here 1n th1S study area and ln other
locatlons where they provlde two free hours of free
park1ng for prlmarlly patrons of retall establlshrnents
lS that less than 5% ever stay more than the two hours.
As a result, you are not ellmlnatlng very 8any
leg1tlmate users of thlS free parking. The people whc
you are ellmlnatlng are those who are parklng there all
day long, the three hours provldes them the opportunlty
to move the car tWlce durlng the course of the day. Cue
of the reasons for the gate lS because anyone who wants
to stay there all day has to move hlS car at least three
t1mes and possibly four tlmes durlng the day and he has
to leave the structure each t1me and then re-enter 1 t
each tlme.
COIT~lSSlOner Klrshner asked If a redevelopment dlstrlct
belng proposed. Mr. Flores stated that the
implementat1cn sectlon of the Speclflc Plan recoITIDends
that the Clty Councll dlrect staff to pursue the
feas1blllty of establlshlng a redevelopment area for the
distrlct.
- 3 -
_--l.....J'i~...,~_
,-:t
~..
j
Co~mlssl0ner K1rshner req~ested an outl1ne of the areas
where tlns Plan specif1.cally allows, 1n maJor areas, a
more dense development In terms of floor area rat10 ~~
he1ght and storles than the ZOD1ng that 1S be1r;~
proposed for the Land Use Element. The consultant
stated that currently the General Plan w1ll allow a FAR
of 3.0 so th1S 1S conSlstent. Only the 1ncent1 ves en
1ndlV1dual reVlew would allow for the hlgher denslty.
CorrmlSS1oner Shearer stated they d1d not ment10n whether
they recommended any 1mprovements 1n Use of mass
trans1t, any k1nd of lncent1ve prograws for err-ployees or
any lmprovements that the Clty ~lght make 1n the current
mass trans1t system. Mr. Kaku stated thC'..t one of ~l1e
th1ngs that was recommended was to try to make a much
better t1e 1n W1 th the r-1all 1 tself and especlally the
cross streets wlth mass tranSlt. In other words, one of
the recommendatlons lS to lmprove bus steps w1th
shelters, bus llghtlng, better secur1ty, bus 1nformatlon
system so that off of Ar1zona, W1lsh1re and Santa Mon~ca
there 1S a much better tie 1U to the bus syster>. They
also felt that lf at all posslble, the C1ty should
encourage cont1nuatlon of the shuttle WhlCh eX1sted when
th~s was f1rst wr~tten.
C0ffi1l11SS10ner Israel was under the 1mpress1on that the
park~ng structures are pald for, at least In part, by
contr1but1ons from werchants and a fa1rly w1de area that
exceeds the Th~rd Street fo'lall itself. He asked. ~f the
merchants on Second and Fourth Street were also surveyed
and lnv1ted to contrlbute to tr.e development of the
TInrd Street 1-1a11 Spec~flc Plan as 1t was gOlng alor.g.
Mr. Flores stated that, at th1S t1me, all of ~~e
properties from Flrst Court to Fourth Court, Broadway ~c
W1lsh1re 1nclus1ve of that area contr1bute to the
eXlst1ng assessrrent d1strlct. There are two forms of
contribution; one is by the County based on the
operat1on by the C1ty on the property owner Wh1ch 18 a
tax, the second component lS a buslness 11cense tax and,
today, that merchant or tenant would pay f1ve t1mes the
bUS1ness license tax for that area. W1 th respect to
people who have been lnvlted to part1c1pate in the Plan,
the plann~ng process has been very open.
COmffilSS1oner Israel requested COIT~ent on the publlC
comments about the restroom problem and the1r perceptlcr.
on that and how they thl nk 1 t shOll 1 d be dea 1 t Wl th 1. f
they thlnk there 1S a problem. Mr. Flores stated he
thlnks they need some gU1dance when they select the
arch~tectural team as to what are some areas that need
to be cons1dered for locatlons of bathroows.
Comm~ssioner Israel stated that the center area of the
Mall w1l1 permlt varlOUS klnds of bus1ness enterprlses
and that one of the publlC speakers expressed some
concern that buslness enterpr1ses ffi1ght be permitted In
~~-- - - ~.:' ~....-.
j
- 4 -
that area that were COfi'pet1 t1 ve w~ th owners or rent
pay~ng tenants along the sldes of the Mall and that they
m1ght rece1 ve cancel vably an unfa1r advantage because
they don 1 t have to pay for the cost of the land. He
asked lf thlS lssue had been addressed and, If so, how
would they th1nk 1 t would be dealt W1 th. Mr. Flores
stated that they had that problem presented to them when
they went forth w1th the cowmerc1al reta11 space 1n the
parklng structures and the Cl ty Councll at that t1me
made It very clear to staff that they shall rent that
space at market rate and the preva1llng market rate for
that area and that they should take bUS1nesses based on
the ablllty to pay that rent and look at lt as any other
lesser would with the ablllty to pay.
Corrm1ssloner Israel stated that one of the lssues that
the wr~ters of the Plan were asked to cons1der the
questlon of potentlal confl1ct between pedestrlans and
vehicles in the alleys between the NaIl and Fourth and
between the Hall and Second. If 1n fact the Plan 1S
gOlng to encourage pedestrlan orlented uses, Vlsltor
1nvitlng uses on the alley frontages, COr.~lSSloner
Israel felt 1 t was a slgrnflcant hazard 1n allowlng
those alleys to be used by vehlcles at the same t1me as
they are be1ng used by pedestrlans. He requested
comrrent on the safety l5sues concern W1 th the use of
those alleys for both pedestrlan and veh1cle purposes
when there 15 no sLdewalks, many of the current
bULldLngs eXlt r1ght onto the alley w1th no effectlve or
adequate clearance. Mr. Kaku stated that they
recommended to the planner that any alley orlentec
actlv1tles only be allowed ln those bUl1dlngs that have
a set back away from the alley and there are bUlldlngs
that do. These prov1de a marg1n of safety for at least
that portlon of the potent1al lnterface between
pedestr1ans and veh1cles 1n the alley and that 15, as
the people leave the bUlld1ng, they don I t leave the
bU1ld1ng d1rectly onto the alley, they leave the
bU1lding onto a park1ng space or parklng area and access
the alley. Mr. Kaku felt that the best way to ensure
safety 1S to make sure that the alleys remaln clear.
Mr. Flores stated that one of the thlngs that they would
be will1ng to take as an amend~ent would be requlrlng a
recessed entry at the rear. The other pOlnt would be,
they would also in the program seetLon, also be wllllng
to conslder work1ng W1 th the Th1rd Street development
corporatlon and the property owners and the r.erchants 1n
partlcular to try to establ1sh hours of' dell ver les to
try to mlnim1ze some of that lrnpact and also try to deal
wi th the general serV1ce and WL th the publlC safety
people Wl th CLrcula t1on, slgnage, hours, speed Ilml ts,
etc.
Commlssloner Hebald-Heymann asked If the property owners
are presently assessed and, lf so, what 1S the amount.
_ .....~ "_"'-.J-~
j
.- .....
- 5 -
t>lr. Flores stated that the assessment d~str~ct that ~s
currently ~n place was establ~shed back ln the early
1960's. L;'t that t~me, pr~or to Prop 13, ~t was very
custorrary for mun~c~pal~ t~es to use an evaluat~on of
the property as a bas~s by wh~ch to charge an assessment
to the property owner for urproverrents. Because th~s
ordinance, th~s assessment was allowed to stay on the
books after Prop 13. The rate that has been pald todate
~s $.56 per each $100 of value for the land and
lrrproverents.
Corrm~ss~oner Hebald-Heymanr. asked lf they consldered
~ncreaslng the tlrre of the operator controlled park~ng
and pald park~ng on weekends. Hr. Flores stated thct
one of the needs on the Third Street Mall both from the
oplnlon of the consultants and the publlC was for the
Clty to actlvely encourage the attractlon of evenlng
uses; theater, entertalnment, restaurant, outdoor
dlnlng. In speaklng to those establishrrents wh~ch have
thelr peak In the evenlng, they felt that at th~s tlme
lt seerred that lt would not be conslstent to the
charglng parklng after 7:00 p.m. At th~s tlme, they do
not seem to have the demand for parklng that we have on
weekends Slnce many of our offlce users are not here
durlng the weekend. It has been brought to thelr
attentlon that they may wlsh to work wlth the local
merchants and buslness ccmmun~ty to make sure that they
allocate spaces more ratlonally.
Corrmlssl0ner Far~ var asked ~f r-ir. Kaku felt that the
ratlo that we are gettlng for the new square footage
added In the new parklng spaces proposed to be provlded
was conslstent Wlth the present parklng standards In the
Clty as ~nadequdte. Mr. Kaku stated that lt was more
than adequate given the current standards that the Clty
has. One of the reasons why they have reconmended that
the number of spaces that be added lS more than you
would actually need to sat~sfy Just the add~tlonal
demand frorr the square footage. Conur~SSlcner Far~var
asked lf Hr. Kaku felt that that number of parklng
spaces 15 adequate for the amount of square footage to
be added, then how lS he synchronlz~ng the phas~ng of
the addl tlonal park~ng spaces Wl th the developrr.ent of
the Mall. Mr. Kaku stated they have recommended that
the f~rst phase of increased parklng of 300 spaces that
the efforts for that be started lwmedlately. They
recommend that every effort be made to have that
completed by the end of next year. The second part of
lt ~s that they feel there lS currently surplus supply
of park~ng regardless of what the publlC perceptlon lS.
Corrmlss1oner Hebald-Heymann
department stores would be
assessment distrlcts for parking
those requlrements. Mr. Flores
current assessment distr ~ct, If
asked lf hotels and
contr~butlng to the
or will they be walved
stated that under the
you provlde your own
......,. --"".,,;,.,...........-
J
- 6 -
-=---
parkLng on-sLte and Lf ~t ~s avaLlable to the publlC ane
l~ LS not allocated for errployee parklng, you get 100b
credlt towards your levy. They would look at when they
create an assessment dlstrlct that they would provlde a
credl t for any buslness or any parcel where parklng 1S
provlded on-slte. He stated that the new assessmen~
dlstrlct that lS belng proposed 15 one that lS proposed
on the a~ount of gross floor area that 1S bUllt on that
parcel and lt does not plck up the 1nequ1tles of
anythlng that 15 based on valuatlon. h-nat is belng
consLdered lS a na1ntenance fee that would be used to
front operatlons and rna1ntenance of the area.
Chalr Eecht closed the publlC hear~ng.
A motlon was made to pass the Background Beetlon. All
were In favor.
On page 23, Item B, Corrllils5loner Hebald-Hey~ann made a
motlcn to change "rrunlmum of 65,00 square feet II to
"mlil1ffiun of 45,000 square feet". No second was made to
the rrotlon.
On page 18, under General ObJectlves, Corr~lssloner
Shearer suggested addlng, "preserve eXlstlng uses such
as the Farmer's Market whlcn neet CorrIDunlty needs". All
were In favor.
On page 23, COITirllSS10ner Klrshner made a r.Lotlon that
there be a ~axiITum of one hotel, that we keep the
worclng for the ground floor that says, "the ground
floer lS requlred to lncorporate retall restaurant and
other consurrer lntenslVe uses" change the word "and" to
"WhlCh are to be vlsually and physlcally accesslble from
the f.1all and represent at least 75% of the Hall
frontage". Comr.llSS10ner Bebald-Heymann seconded the
motlcn. COmIT1SS10ner Israel stated lt was premature to
llmltlng lt to one hotel. Ee was not sure Lf he agreed
at all that the language rlght now 15 deflclent.
COrUlllSS10ner Bebald-Heymann stated she would feel
comfortable leavlng 1 t open to havlng more than one
hotel but would llke to have some wordlng to keep the
scale down. Comnnssloner Klrshner agreed to remove the
maXlmum of one hotel. Corr~lSSloner Farlvar: Yes.
COmID1SS10ner Hebald-Heymann: Yes. COIT~lSS10ner Israel:
Yes. Cor.m~ssloner Klrshner: Yes. Corr~lssloner
Perlman: Yes. Comffilssloner Shearer: Yes. Chalr
Becht: Yes.
On page 33, 4.1.45, 1 t allows an addl tlonal bonus lf
retall shops are lncorporated along 70% of the Mall
faclng elevat1.on, add to Item D, that retall shops be
l.ncorporated along 70% of the Mall faclng elevatlon,
maklng lt mandatory. Commlssloner Israel suggested
saYlng "lndependently accesslble". Commlss1oner
Hebald-Heymann suggested addlng that they are well
- 7 -
J
_~..s.."F--_
artlculated, and to add tnat where a depart~ent store lS
on a corner that the sa~e type of uses 15 on all ground
floor not Just faclng the Hall. COIrJl11SS10ner Klrshner
suggested another motlon; the wordlng to stay the sane
on the department stores except that there would be a
r:1aXlffiUm of two new department stores, keep the square
footage and the Mall frontlng ground floor lS requlred
to open onto the Hall and be vlsually transparent and
physl.cally accessl.ble from the Mall and lnclude retal.l
shops along 70% of the Mall faclng elevatl.on. Also, any
department store desl.gn be subJect to slte reVlew.
Co~missloner Farl.var: Yes. CommlSSloner
Hebald-Heymann: Yes. Cornmlsslcner Israel: ~o.
Corrmlssioner Klrshner: Yes. CO~lSSloner Perlman: No.
COmml.SS10ner Shearer: Yes. Chal.r Hecht: Yes.
Chair Hecht made a
COmml.SS1oner Farivar:
Hebald-Heymann: Yes.
COITID1SS10ner Klrshner:
Commlssloner Shearer:
to delete 4.1.45.
Yes. COITElSS10ner
CommlSSloner Israel: ~o.
Yes. CommlSSloner Perl~an: No.
Yes. Chair Hecht: Yes.
motlon
COrtUTI1SS10ner Klrshner
subJect to slte reVlew.
made a ~otion that any hotel
All were In favor.
be
On page 25. 4.1.3, Chalr Hecht wade a motlcn to char.ge
"encourage" to "promote" and 4, 1.9 and 10 change
"accorr.modate" to "promote". All were In favor.
In 4.1.15, COWW1SSlcner Perlman suggested, after the
words "vlsually transparent" to add "and physlcally
accesslble to enhCince observatlon and pedestrlan access"
Chalr Hecht suggested "requlre that 70% of any facade '.::.0
the helght of 10 feet frontlng the Mall be". All were
ln favor.
On page 26, 4.1.17, Chalr Hecht suggested statlng
replacement bUlldlngs and In flll shall carr-ply wlth
Thlrd Street Mall archltectural deslgn gUldellnes.
were In favor. In 4.1.18, delete sta te~ent W~ th
bulk". All were ~n favor.
all
the
All
"and
In 4.1.22, COITUTI1SSloner Shearer made a Plotlon to say
"rna~ntaln the Hall development corporatlon to coord~nate
Mall promotlon". Corrmlssloner Israel suggestlng saYlng
"malntain a nanagement organ~zat~on". ThlS was
acceptable to Co~mlSSloner Shearer and all were In
favor.
Chalr Hecht ~ade d motlon to delete 4.1.19 wh~ch lmplles
that you can have a hlgher intensl ty beyond what ~s
suggested. Cornmlssloner Israel stated that there are
dlfferent FAR's at dlfferent pOlnts on the Mall and th~s
~s a general Ob]ectlve that opens the door for speclf~c
guidellnes. Chalr Hecht then suggested addlng "Wl thln
the parameters of thlS document". All were In favor.
---~""
J
- 8 -
..-~
On page 27, ~n the sect~on deallng \.....~ th ground floor
uses, Cornr:ussloner Israel rrade a ITot~on to add,
following the preface, "such uses shall be perml t tee.
wlth due cons~deratlon to pedestrlan and veh~cular
safety lncludlng restr~ctlons on delivery hours to alley
fronting buslnesses and sUbJect to reVlew and approval
of the C~ ty' s Park~ng and Traff~c Engineer". All were
In favor.
CorrmUSSloner Perlman made a motlon that we deslgnate
another category followlng 2 and before 3 that would say
Cl ty Passage Hays and A) PubllC Restroorrs.
Commlssloner Farlvar: No. Commlss~oner Bebald-Heymann:
No. CorrIDlssloner Israel: Yes. CommlSSloner Klrshner:
Abstain. COWIDlssloner Perlman: Yes. CorrmlSSloner
Shearer: No. Chalr Hecht: Yes. Motlon fa~ls.
CommlSSloner Israel suggested that 4.1.23 Sub 1 have a
new Sub Item D added to ~ t wh~ch says that all street
frontages of any corner lot wlth Mall frontage shall be
subJect to the sawe standards. Th~s wlll be Made
conslstent throughout. All were ln favor.
On the top of page 28, Item 3, Comm~SSloner Israel made
a ~otlon to make 3A General Offlces. All were in favor.
Under 2A delete the words "on the Mall frontage" should
be deleted. All were In favor.
On page 26 #1, Cha~r Eecht made a mot~on to say, "all
uses located below grade except for parklng shall be
counted as floor area". Comrnlssloner Farlvar: Yes.
CorrmlSSloner Hebald-Heyxann: No. Corr~lssloner Israel:
Yes. Corrmlssloner K~rshner: No. COmM~ss~oner Perlman:
Yes. CommlSSloner Shearer: No. Cha~r Hecht: Yes.
On page 28, Comm~SSloner Israel moved to delete Day Care
Fac~lltles as a condlt~onally perm~tted use. ~o second
was made to the motlon.
Conun~ssloner Bebald-Heymann made a motlon to delete, on
Item ie, sports faCllltles and bowllng alleys. No
second was made to the motlon.
COmffilSS10ner Heb~ld-Heymann made a mot~on to permlt
llbraries and museu~s on the ground floor. CO~~lss~oner
Farlvar: No. COMWlssloner Hebald-Hey~ann: Yes.
Commlssloner Israel: Yes. Commlssloner Klrshner: Yes.
Commlssloner Perlman: Yes. Con~lSSloner Shearer: Yes.
Chalr Hecht: Yes.
Cowmlssloner Hebald-Hey~ann made a mot~on to delete art
stud~os as a condltionally permltted use. Comwlss~oner
Farlvar seconded the motlon and all were in favor.
___..:o-"-N ".____-...~
J
- 9 -
---
Cha1r Hecht made a ITot1on to add a new obJect1ve stat1ng
that the m1n1ffium Sl te Slze for any new parcels 1n the
Mall spec1f1c plan area shall be 7,500 square feet.
Corrm1ss1oner Perlman seconded the mot1on and all were 1n
favor.
Cha~r Hecht stated that Item D should be J to be
cons1stent. Under Dl, ground floor Mall or alley
frontage types of uses, separate those out and have
alley uses Ilmi ted to for the CUP to C. C0ITIr.11SS10ner
Perlman seconded the mot1on and all were in favor.
Comm1SS1oner Perlman made a mot1on that 1n 4.1.27, th1rd
Ilne from the bottom, where it says "and 1nclude an
entry" It should state "and a recessed entrance". Cha~r
Hecht seconded the mot1on and all were ln favor.
In 4.1.28, middle of the paragraph, where 1t says "or
presence of significant arch1tectural des1gn deta1l"
COmITL1SS1oner Kirshner stated 1t should be consistent
w1th other word1ng elsewhere and should say "slgn1f1cant
eX1st1ng architectural features". Cor.:mUSSloner Perlr.tan
seconded the mot1on and all were 1n favor.
Cha1r Hecht stated that staff has reques-ced to a.dd below
grade Mall frontage, all uses located below grade except
for parklng. She rr:.ade a mot1on to have a neVi headlng
"Below Grade Under CUP" and to ~nsert "all uses located
above grade except for park1ng". Comnassloner 2arlvar:
Yes. Commlss1oner Hebald-Heyrr.ann: Yes. Corr~lsSloner
Israel: Yes. Cornm1ss1oner Klrshner: Yes.
CO~lsSloner Perlrr.an: Yes. Commlss1oner Shearer: Yes.
Cbalr Hecht: Yes.
Cornmlss1oner Hebald-Heymann made CJ. mot1on to c.elete "A"
and Arts and Crafts 1n 4.1.26. C0IT\IT1lSS1Cner Farl var:
Yes. CornmlSSloner Hebald-Heymann: Yes. COW~lssloner
Israel: No. COIDWlssloner K1rshner: No. CCITK1SS10ner
Perlwan: Yes. Co~mlss~oner Shearer: No. Chalr Hecht:
No. Mot~on falls.
Cornm1SSloner Perlman made a motion to say "no chati<.es II
(staff will come up with word1ng) . COUW1SS1oner
Far1var: Yes. COIDW1SSloner Hebald-Heyrann: Yes.
Commlssioner Israel: Yes. Commissloner Klrshner: Yes.
CommlSS1oner Perlman: Yes. Commlssioner Shearer: Ko.
Chalr Hecht: Yes.
Commiss1oner Hebald-Heymann made a mot1on In 4.1.26D to
change 10 to 7 feet. No second was made to the rotlon.
Commlssl0ner Hebald-Heymann made a mot1on on 4.1.29 to
delete the last sentence and replace 1 t Wl th "mlrrored
hlghly reflective glass shall be prohlblted at all
levels ". Commissloner FarI. var: No. Conun1ssloner
Hebald-Heymann: Yes. Commiss~oner Israel: No.
~- _..._.;;,~~
~ ~....~ -....t-..... ";."0.- -- . ....!-.. -~ ~
>
l
,"J
- 10 -
Co~mlssloner Klrshner:
Commlssloner Shearer:
Yes.
Yes.
Cor~lSSloner perlran:
Chalr Hecht: Yes.
Xo.
Cornmlssloner
"uses" put
ComI1ussioner
favor.
Klrshner rrade a motion In 4.1.32, after
"with entrances and vlsual penetratl.on".
Perlman seconded the motlon ana all were l.n
CommlsSloner Hebald-Heymann made a rrotlon on 4.1.31
delete the words "other than Wlre mesh" and per~lt 1':.
go above SlX feet. No second was made to the ITotlon.
..~
,-v
to
On page 30, Zone 2, lnclude a number of the
that were In Zone 1 that should be ldentlca1.
in favor.
pollCles
All .....ere
On page 30, 4.1.34, CommlSSloner Hebald-fieymann nIede a
motlon to add "all access to parklng shall be froIr the
alley and there shall be no curb cuts". Xo second was
made to the motlon.
Cn page 31, CommlSSloner Klrshner made a Qctlon that the
SlX sltes be pedestrian orlented at ground fleor level.
Chalr Hecht seconded the ffiotlon and all were In favor.
On page 33, 4.1.42, Substltute wlth staff's revlsed
language and delete as unnecessary Policles 4.1.46 and
4.1.49. Corr~lSSloner Farlvar: Yes. Corrlssloner
Hebald-Heymann: Yes. Commlssloner Israel: Yes.
Cormr.1SSloner Kirshner: Yes. Corrunlssloner Per~:-ar::
Yes. Comwlssloner Shearer: Yes. Chalr Hecht: Yes.
In 4.1.44, delete hotels.
All were In favor.
On page 35, 4.1.51, 4.1.52, 4.1.53 modlfy to staff' s
recommendatlons. All were ln favor.
Chalr Hecht made a mctlon to accept the rest of staff
recommendatlons #15-24. Cormnissloner Per lIT'an seco:1c.ed
the motlon and all were In favor.
Cowmlssioner Hebald-Heymann made a motlcn to reccnslder
ltem 16 of the staff report and delete staff's
recommendation to requlre pedestrlan entry to bUl1dl~gS
from the alley. COmID1SS10ner Perl~an seconded ~he
motlon. Motlon dld not carry.
On page 41, add sea tlng to the plaza.
favor.
All ",-ere In
CorrnnlSS10ner Perlman made
pollcles, that the parklng
every flve years. Chalr
Commissloner Farlvar:
Hebald-Heymann: Yes.
a motlon that under parkl.ng
and clrculatlon be revlewed
Hecht seconded the motlon.
Yes. Co~mlssloner
Commlss1oner Israel: Yes.
.~_ ~ T_ ,,~__
J
- 11 -
~....~~
Corun1SSloner K1rshner: Yes.
Yes. CO~lssloner Shearer: Yes.
Comm1SSloner
Chalr Hecht:
Perlrran:
Yes.
On page 54, Comrrllss~oner Shearer made a rTiotlcn to add
that the C~ty shall provlde b~ke racks e~ther ~n the
Mall open space or ~n the publlC parklng lots.
Corrmlss~oner Perlman seconded the mot~on and all were ~n
favor.
On page 42, 5.2.3, where 1t d1scusses street furnlture,
Corrm1ss~oner Hebald-Heymann made a mot~cn to add a
sentence that ~n terms of the POllCY meets the needs of
pedestrlan act~vity and dlSCQUrage ffi1suse such as
sleep1ug on benches. Commiss~oner Perlrran seconded the
motlon and the motlQn passed 5-2 Shearer, Klrshner
vot~ng no.
On page 51, Commiss1oner Perlman suggested lnstead of
malntalnlng the eXlst1ng ratlo of publlC spaces to
perml t spaces in each structure, W1 th staff's gUldance
to have SOll'e language about inCre6.S1ng the number of
spaces avallable to commerclal leasees on a monthly
baS1S. Mr. Flores stated he would be comfortable Wl th
language that would read "revlew the eXlstlng ratlo of
publlC spaces to permlt spaces ln each structure and, 1=
feaslble, lncrease the number of spaces allocated to
permlt spaces". Chalr Hecht seconded the motlon and all
were 1n favor.
COlillf'lSSlOner Hebald-heymann made a motlon on page
delete the reference to reserv~ng the ground floor
the nOV vehlcles. Cheilr Hecht seconded the r'lotlon
all were 1n favor.
SL
rc::-
a:lc:
On page 50, Corr.rr-1SSloner Bebald-Heymann IT.ade a mot1on
under A, to modlfy "gates controlllng eXlts shall rerralrl
open over nlght" to say "shall remaln open frc~
mldnlght" No second was made to the motlon.
Cornmlss1oner Perlman suggested to make the same hours on
weekends as weekdays. CCIrnUSS10ner Rebale-Heymann
seconded the motlon and all were In favor.
CorrmlSSloner Shearer moved
95. All were in favor
Corrmlssloner Rebald-Heymann.
to accept pages 57 through
Wl th the exceptlon 0::
CommlSS1oner Israel moved to
86-001. Corrmlssloner Shearer
all were 1n favor.
approve
seconded
the
the
resolutlon
!potlon and
7. OLD BUSINESS:
8. NEW BUSINESS:
9. CCMMUNICATIONS:
,-~..-~....,.,..-.;;......
I
j
j
~
. ""'_,~ .J....
- 12 -
A. C1V1C Center Improvement Program
10. COMMISSION AGEKDA
11. ADJOURKNEI\T
SF:dt
pcm71486
07/31/86
. - :fqO..-d...,.
I
_J
- 13 -
ATTACillIENT 2
'/I 0- 001-
CA: R~t1: DK~~: klc
C1ty CouncIl MeetIng: 8/12/86
Santa MonIca, Ca11fornla
RESOLUTION NO.
7283{CCS)
(C1ty CouncIl SerIes)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SANTA MONICA CERTIFYING
THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ON
THE THIRD STREET MALL SPECIFIC PLAN
WHEREAS, a NotIce of Prepar a t10n of an Env 1ronmen tal
Impact Report was 1ssued 1n September 1986; and
WHEREAS, NotIce of CompletIon of a Draft EnvIronmental
Impact Report was pub11shed In AprIl 1986, in complIance wIth the
CalIfornIa EnvIronmental QualIty Act and the CIty of Santa MonIca
CEQA GUIdelInes; and
WHEREAS, a publIC reVIew perIod exp1red In June 1986i
and
WHEREAS, In July 1986, the completion of the F1nal
EnVIronmental Impact Report on the proposed proJect, conSIstIng
of the Draft EnVIronmental Impact Report, comments on the
document, and responses to comments was cert1fIed; and
~vHEREAS, In July 1986, the CI ty Pl annlng CommISS Ion
rev Iewed the FInal Env lron;:)en tal Impac t Repor t and recommended
Its certIfIcatIon to the CIty CouncIl; ana
- 1 -
HHEREAS, on August 12, 1985, the Clty councll, as Lead
Clty Agency, revIewed the FInal Envlronmental Impact Report,
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA
MONICA DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The CIty Councll nas revlewed the FInal
EnVIronmental Impact Report on the ThIrd Streec Mall Speclflc
Plan conSIstIng of the Draft EnVIronmental Impact Report, publIC
comments and CIty responses.
SECTION 2. The CIty Councll flnds that the Flnal
Envlronmental Impact Report adequately reVlews and analyzes
potentIal envIronmental effects of the proposed proJect.
SECI'ION 3. The Cl ty CounCIl fInds tha t ther e are no
reasonable and avallable alternatlves to the proJect that would
slgnlflcantly reduce the 1mpact on tne enVIronment and and would
accomplIsh the proJect ObJectIves.
SECTION 4. The C1 ty Councll hereby makes a Statement
of OverrIdIng Conslderatlons, pursuant to ArtIcle VI, SectIon 13
of the CIty CEQA GUldellnes and Sectlon 15093 of the State CEQA
GUldellnes, and flnds that whIle the Flndl EnVIronmental Impacc
Report Indlcates tnat there may be slgnlflcant effects on
cIr~ulatlon 1f antIc1pated development substantIally exceeds that
proJected by the SpeCIfIC Plan, these lmpacts are unll.kely to
occur, and that w1th the amount of antlclpated development, there
w1ll not be slgnl.flcant adverse effects on clrculatl.on, and that
as development 1S proposed, approprlate analysls pursuant to CEQA
- 2 -
will be performed, and If nec2ssary, approprla~e mltlgat10n
measures wlll be requlred of such development, and that the
development standards proposed by the Speclf1c Plan are necessary
to ass 1St 1n the revitallzatlon of the Th~rd Street Mall, Wh1Ch
lS an Impor tant sac lal, and eCOnOffi1.C goal of the C1. ty of Santa
Monlca, and that therefore, the patent1.al lmpact on clrculatlon
1S acceptable and cannot be reasonably avolded wlthout
Jeopardlzlng the fundamental goals of the Thlrd Street Mall
Speclflc Plan.
SECl'ImJ 5. The Cl ty Counc 11 her eby makes a Statement
of OverrId1ng ConsIderatIons, pursuant of Art1cle VI, Sectlon 13
of the City CEQA GU1del1nes and Sectlon 15093 of the State CEQA
GU1dellne3, and flnds that wnlle th~ Flnal Envlronmental Impact
Report lndlcates that there may be slgnlflc3nt effects on alr
quallty, tne proposed Thlrd Street Mall Speclflc Plan
1ncorporates a number of mltlgat10n measures 1n its Parklng and
C1.rculatlon ana Conservatlon Elements WhICh wIll reduce, although
not el1mlnate alr quallty eff2cts, that a Clty-wlde
Transpor ta. tlon Systems i1ana:;remen t PI an WhlCh wlll address
approprlate mltlgatlon measures to reduce vehlcle trlps for
lndlvldual proJects lS ln preparatlon, that the amount of
development proposed by the Th~rd Street Mall Plan IS necessary
to promote rev 1. tall zatlon of the area, WhlCh is an lmpor tan t
soclal and economlC goal of the Cl1:Y <lnd that therefore, the
potentIal lmpact on a1r quallty 1S acceptable and cannot be
reasonably avolded wlthout Jeopardlzlng the fundamental goals of
the Third Street Mall Speclflc plan.
- 3 -
SECTI:)N 6_ The
C~ty
Counc~l
cert~f1es
that
the
env1ronmental reV1ew for the proJect was conducted 1n full
complIance w1th State and CIty CEQA GU1del1nes, that there was
adequate publIC reV1ew of the Draft Env1ronmental Impact Re~ort,
that the C1 ty Counc1-l has consldered all comments on the Draft
Envlronmental Impact Report, and responses to comments, that the
F1nal Env1ronmental
Impact Report adequately dIscusses all
s 19n1 f 1can t env Ir onmental 1ssues and that the C1 ty Counc 11 has
cons1dered the contents of the F1nal EnvIronmental Impact Report
1n Its decIS1on-makIng process.
SECI'ION 7. The
C1ty
Clerk
shall
certIfy
to
the
adopt1on of thIS Resolut1on, and thenceforth and thereafter the
same shall be In full force and effect.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
~~.'--~
ROBERT fL HYERS
CIty Attorney
a--
mallres
7/14/86
- 4 -
Adopted and approved th~s 12th day of August, 1986.
,~/~k, ~.,~
~ Mayor
I hereby certlfy that the foregoing Resolution No. 7283(CCS)
was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Monica
at a meeting thereof held on August 12, 1986 by the following
Counel.l vote:
Ayes: Councilmembers:
Conn, Epstein, Jennl.ngs, A. Katz,
H. Katz, Zane and Mayor Reed
Noes: Counc1lmembers:
None
Absta2n: Counc~lmembers:
None
Absent: Counc21members:
None
ATTEST:
C~\./ <--7), +/7J,L/UZ
City Clerk