SR-410-017
~W'
t!IO-OIr-
(-A-
t -\1 ~ ~ ()
THE SANTA MONXCA BEACH HOTEL AND COMHUNXTY CENTER
CXTY COUNCJ:L STAP'P REPORT
COUNCIL MEETING DATE: JULY 17, 1990
$2.00
ATTACHMENTS AVAILABLE AT ADDITIONAL CHARGE UNDER SEPARATE COVER
~IAL-
I
?kC~k&t
""'\
-----
\
]
I
r
,
,
-$2511D
\
\
\
\
'.
\
"'---
I
i
~
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Planning Commission Staff Report (May 23, 1990)
2. Development Agreement
3. Concession Agreement and Ground Lease
4. Disposition and Development Agreement
5. Tri-Party Agreement
6. Planning Commission Information Item (May 30, 1990)
7. Resolution Certifying Final Environmental Impact Report
with Statement of Overriding Considerations
8. Ordinance Adopting the Development Agreement
9. Resolution Authorizing the Negotiation and Execution of
the Concession Agreement and Ground Lease
10. Resolution Authorizing the Negotiation and Execution of
the Disposition and Development Agreement
11. Resolution Approving the Tri-Party Agreement
12, Mitigation Monitoring Plan
w/sstbl
o an overview of the environmental review process and
compliance with CEQA which includes a discussion of the
public review process, alternatives analyzed in the EIR and
Addendums 1 and 2 (pgs 14-19);
o a review of the key elements contained in the Development
Agreement including the proposal for targeting of Transient
occupancy Tax revenue (pgs 19-20);
o a brief description of the purpose and content of the
Concession Agreement and Ground Lease and Disposition and
Development and Tri-Party Agreements (pgs. 21-26;
o a Sl1lftlft-:lry of the proposed proj ect' s fiscal benefits to the
City including annual revenue payments and municipal taxes
to the City (pgs 26-27);
o a discussion of the proposed project's conformance with the
Municipal Code and General Plan (page 27);
o a presentation of the Planning Commission Actions and
Recommendations from meetings held on May 23 and May 30,
1990 (pgs 28-30), and
o a comparative analysis of a public beach facility
alternative which would convert the existing private
facilities into a City-run public beach facility (pgs
30-35) .
The report concludes with staff recommendations to approve the
proj ect (pgs 35-36). Many sections of the report refer to the
reader to attachments. All attachments have been made
available to the public.
BACKGROtmD
The project site is a 4.9~ acre beach front parcel located at 415
Pacific Coast Highway (PCH). The property was originally
developed in the 1920's as a private estate for Marion Davies by
William Randolph Hearst. The estate was purchased in the 1940's
by a private party and converted to a hotel and beach club. In
1959, the State of California acquired the property and granted
management responsibility to the City of Santa Monica under the
terms of a long-term operating agreement.
Since 1960, the property has been occupied pursuant to a
concession agreement by the Sand and Sea Club, a private, limited
membership beach club. Regular access to facilities on the site
- 2 -
Availability of the RFP was noticed in several statewide
publications. Nearly 200 potential developers requested and
received copies of the RFP. Eleven proposals were received by
the deadline of July I, 1987. City staff from the City Manager's
office, co~munity and Economic Development Department and
Recreation and Parks Department were assisted by the consulting
firm of Keyser Marsten Associates, Inc. in the review and
analysis of the proposals. The state Department of Parks and
Recreation was also kept advised during the review process.
All eleven proposals were reviewed in detail. The principals
were invited to interviews as well as asked for written responses
to outstanding questions and issues during the evaluation
process. In addi tion to meeting the obj ecti ves of the RFP,
developers were evaluated on the basis of financial capability,
experience with projects of similar scale and character,
experience in working with public agencies on similar
public/private partnerships, as well as qualifications of key
staff, management experience, and organization and management
approach.
Four development teams emerged as the most capable and
experienced of the 11 proposals, while at the same time most
effectively balancing the public access and revenue generating
components of the RFP. City staff evaluated each of the four
finalists in a number of key land use and lease agreement areas
and recommended to the City Council that it select the Santa
Monica Beach Development Partnership to develop the property. On
June 14, 1988 the City Council conducted a public hearing and
voted to select the Santa Monica Beach Development Partnership to
enter into exclusive negotiations of lease, development, and
other agreements necessary for development of the property.
Once selected the Partnership began work to more specifically
define a development and progr~mming concept necessary to begin
work on the environmental review documents. This development
took nearly a year to accomplish and included the active
participation of City staff, consultants and the public. Because
- 4 -
staff, which proposes new active recreational facilities south of
the pier as soon as funds from the project become available.
S~nce council selection of the project, State agencies have also
been kept informed of project developments. Coastal Commission
staff has reviewed and provided comments on the project as well
as the state Department of Parks and Recreation and Caltrans.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Existing improvements include the Sand and Sea Club facilities, a
public beach restroom at the northwest corner of the site, a
176-space public beach parking lot and small concession stand at
the south end of the site. Also located on the site is the City
Landmark North House. The Landmarks Commission has recognized
the entire site as one of Historic Interest. The proposed
project would relocate the North House to the northern edge of
the parcel. It would be restored and expanded to house the
Community Center. All other existing improvements would be
demolished.
The Santa Monica Beach Hotel and Community Center would consist
of a full service luxury hotel and an adjacent Community Center
complex. The hotel would contain a minimum ot 148 and a maximum
of 160 rental rooJllS. Twelve suites would be designed to be
sub-divided into smaller suites and single rooms.
The proj ect developer proposes to develop a total of 209,684
square feet of adjusted floor area on the 4.91 acre site. The
following table provides a floor area Sl)llnnary for selected uses
of the project.
- 6 -
A shared use analysis of the project1s parking demand was
conducted and determined that the peak parking demand would be
524 spaces. The proposed supply of 528 spaces will be sufficient
to accommodate the combined peak hotel and Community Center
demands along with the replacement of the beach parking.
The Santa Monica Beach Hotel
The hotel guest room arrangements consist of single roo~s (124),
one bedroom suites (12), two bedroom suites (10), a Vice
Presidential Suite and a Presidential Suite. Some suites would
be arranged on two floors connected by an interior circular
stair. All the two bedroom suites would be designed to break
down to single rooms, if needed. The two presidential suites
would be designed to break down to separate one bedroom suites,
if needed. A minimum of 148 and a maximum of 160 room keys will
be provided. All rooms feature either direct ocean views or
views of the project's landscaped gardens and have private
balconies or patios.
The archi tecture consists of 2, 3 and 4 story builcl1nqs. The
hotel buildings parallel to Pacific Coast Highway would be
4-stories and 35 feet high. Four stories can be accommodated by
the smaller floor-to-floor height characteristics of a hotel, and
setting the four-story building approximately 5 feet below the
grade of Pacific Coast Highway, since the grade slopes downward
toward the ocean. The design includes mechanical screening to
create a more interesting roof line and more appealing view of
the project from palisades Park. These roof enhancements would
add a maximum of 10' feet in building height to a limited area.
Thus, the effective build~nq height for these portions of the two
buildings with screening would be 45 feet, 10 feet greater than
the prescribed limit but the same as the 45 feet height maximum
~n the R-4 Zone.
In addition to lodging, the hotel is proposed with an
indoor/outdoor restaurant which would begin inside the main hotel
building and expand outward toward the pool and beach. The
- a -
Directly adJ acent to the Communi t.y Center would be an outdoor
sculpture garden, a children's play area, a seasonal sales/rental
kiosk for beachgoers, and a direct connection to the beach
bicycle path.
The developer would be responsible for construction, staffing and
operation of the beach cafe, public changing and shower
facilities, meeting room, arts and Marine Learning Center and all
related cultural, artistic and environmental programming. The
developer proposes to use revenues from the beach cafe, fees
generated from other public uses of the community Center and fund
raising to contribute to these operating costs. The developer
anticipates subsidizing the remainder of the Community center
operat~ng costs from hotel revenues.
The Beach Cafe
The western end of the community Center's ground floor would
feature a moderately-priced 200-seat cafe with an open kitchen
plan. A walk-up window would also be available for beach
visitors and bicyclists. Packaging of food in recyclable
materials would be required at the walk-up window. The
Development Agreement requires the developer to conduct a beach
litter cleanup effort twice daily during peak activity periods
within 500 feet of the project site.
The Public Changing Facilities
Located on the Community Center's ground floor, and adjacent to
the Beach Cafe, would be separate changing rooms and showers for
women and men. Beach visitors would be able to place their
clothing into special baskets to be stored in a secure separate
storage room that would be maintained by Center staff. Towels
and other shower items would be also be available. The changing
rooms would be equipped with bas ic locker room ameni ties and
would be open year round.
- 10 -
Angeles county Natural History Museum has signed a letter of
int.ent. wi th the developer to pursue negotiations to manage and
operate the environmental facility.
The arts component would occupy most of the second and third
floors of the center and provide a variety of innovative visual
and performing arts activities. This space includes three
studios, offices and storage areas. It is anticipated that the
Wests ide Arts Center would relocate to the site. Program
examples could include an arts curriculum designed to be part of
the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District's Middle School
curriculum and a variety of visual and performing arts classes
geared towards different age groups, including adults and
seniors. other activities could include arts demonstrations,
performances and special events. Weekend programs would consist
primarily of drop-in activities for beach visitors, biCYClists,
and Beach Cafe customers.
Ot.her Out.door Recreat.ion Facilities
Adj acent to the Community Center there would also be several
ot~er outdoor recreation facilities for the public. Immediately
west of the public parking entrance ramp would be a public
sculpture garden. To the west of the outdoor seating area for
the beach cafe would be a children's play area to be equipped by
the developer. A boardwalk plank from the sculpture garden to
the beach area would be provided to improve access to the beach
for those with physical limitations. A new connection to the
beach bike path would be constructed and bike racks would be made
available. Beach volleyball facilities would also be available.
Other Project Aspects
Project Art Proqram
The proposed proj ect would display contemporary art, featuring
local artists throughout the site. Art would be featured in the
sculpture garden as well as the hotel gardens. Public art with a
value of at least 1% of hard construction costs would be provided
- 12 -
down to the public parking contained on level 2. The
281 ramp would also be used by service vehicles. The
ramp leads to Parking level 1 which contains the
publicly accessible handicapped spaces, hotel parking,
loading and unloading for service and trash vehicles.
o a drop-off zone for school buses and vans is located
just south of the project driveway, parallel to Pacific
Coast Highway;
o pedestrian access from the public parking level 2 ~s
provided by way of an elevator to the ground floor of
the Community Center, and by stairs located at the
northwest corner of the parking garage. Public wiShing
to access the beach may use either the elevator or
stairs.
o pedestrian and bicyclists would be able to access the
site from the beach (west). A new link to the beach
bike path would be made to the site;
o a five-foot wide sidewalk parallel to pacific Coast
Highway stretches from the project driveway to the
south end of the site;
o an over-the-sand wood plank system for access to the
shoreline for the disabled.
Proposed D.velopmeD~ Schedule
The project would be constructed
of 18 to 24 months beginning in
simultaneous occupancy for the
Community Center in late 1993.
in a single phase over a period
1992. Current plans anticipate
Santa Monica Beach Hotel and
CEQA COMPLIANCE: THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS
The CEQA review began in August, 1988 with an Initial Study.
This preliminary assessment of the proposed proj ect determined
that the proposed project could have a significant adverse impact
- 14 -
significant iEpact at the intersection of PCR and the California
Incline during weekday afternoon rush hours.
After preparation of the Final EIR, the developer proposed two
project changes to reduce the significant impact. These measures
would require that the hotel restaurant be closed on weekdays
between 3:30 and 6:30 and reduce the size of the Beach Cafe from
200 to 160 seats. Upon a technical analysis by the City's
traffic consultant, staff concluded that these measures were
feasible, enforceable and would reduce the impact to an
acceptable, less than significant level.
The EIR analyzed six alternatives to the proposed project:
(A) No change in pre-project conditions;
(B) Hotel development at decreased intensity;
(C) Public park and parking lot;
(D) A mixed-use recreational facility inCluding restaurant,
museum, meeting room, and a parking lot:
(E) Public beach facility and restaurant, and
(F) Alternative sites for the proposed project.
The selection of alternatives was based on an ability to satisfy
the two major criteria for alternatives established by the CEQA
Guidelines: the potential to mitigate significant
project-related impacts and the feasibility relative to the
project objectives. these objectives were:
o To remove the private beach club use of the project
site in response to a directive from the State.
o To provide for increased public access to the project
s~te.
o To provide a minimum annual revenue of $500,000 to the
City for beach improvements and maintenance.
o To provide for development of coastal/beach-dependent
activities.
- 16 -
Addendum 1 analyzed a development alternative consisting of the
project as proposed but with the two-level subterranean garage
located entirely east of the 1921 Mean High Tide Line. Under
this alternative, the location of the driveway entrance to the
site would remain the same, but the public parking ramp would
be9in approximately 10 feet to the east of the location shown for
the proposed project and curve under the hotel (see Addendum I,
Figure 1). The hotel's valet parking ramps would remain as shown
in the Project. Under this alternative, each parking level would
be rectangular rather than square in shape.
Square footage changes under this alternative as compared to the
proposed project are limited to subterranean parking levels,
hotel back-of-house and health spa, and the hotel multi-purpose
room. This alternative does not change the gross or adjusted
floor area of the Project as analyzed in the DEIR or FEIR
because: (1) subterranean parking is not counted in the City's
defini tion of "floor area," and (2) the additional floor area
needed for the health spa and hotel back-of-the-house areas
(which results from a less efficient rectangular design of the
P-l parking level) is no greater than the floor area associated
with the hotel multi-purpose room, which has been eliminated in
this alternative to accommodate the new public parking ramp.
The environmental implications of this development alternative as
compared to the proposed project are discussed in the Addendum.
The document concludes that, although there would be some
increase in construction noise and air quaIl ty related impacts
with this alternative as compared to the proposed project, these
increases would not create any significant impacts. All other
dens~ty-related impact issues and design-related issues would be
the same or comparable to the proposed project.
The costs of constructing the alternative garage design are
substantially higher than the preferred garage. If the developer
elects to construct the alternative garage design, up to half of
the additional construction cost to a specified maximum may be
offset by percentage rent over time. The amount of construction
- 18 -
D.r:;v ~LOPHEN'1' AGREEMENT
The Development Agreement (DA) contains the land use and
development standards that will regulate the proJect uses,
height, size design and scale of the proj ect. The Agreement
delineates the responsibilities and obligations or both the
Developer and the City before, during, and after construction of
the project.
A detailed discussion of the key elements contained in the DA can
be found in the Planning Commission staff report (Attachment 1,
pages 35 - 46). These elements describe:
o maximum floor area
o building height
o maximum parcel coverage
o minimum setbacks
o access and circulation
o landscaping
o parking
o permitted uses
o changes to the project
o application of existing land use regulations
o Landmarks Commission Review
The DA also describes the mitigation measures required for the
project. Mitigation measures and ree categories include:
o parks and recreation
o arts
o design
o General Services requirements
o public sewer capacity allocation
The Development Agreement, in its entirety, is provided as
Attachment 2 to this report.
- 20 -
Prior to commencement of any construction work, the developer
w~ll be required to deliver to the City a performance bond and
labor and material payment bond guaranteeing full performance of
the construction of the proj ect . Additionally a construction
security deposit of $1,000,000 (cash or letter of credit) will be
required as further securi ty for the developer · s construction
obligations.
The Lease provides the City with a guaranteed source of ground
rent income from the property and an opportunity to participate
in the various types of profits the developer may realize from
the proj ect. The Lease also provides that the developer is
responsible for all expenses of Community Center operations, with
no City subsidy.
The Lease obligates the developer to pay a construction holding
fee once it takes poss~ssion of the property in an amount between
$54,167 and $79,167 per month. At the end of the construction
(or no later than IS months after taking possession), the
developer is obligated to begin base rent payments.
The annual base rent will be not less than $1,080,000. The
lease also provides for escalation of the initial guaranteed base
rent to keep pace with inflation. Base rent will be increased
proportionately with the increase in CPI each five-year
anniversary of the COMMencement date, throuqh the term of the
Lease, with an annual floor of three percent and an annual cap of
six percent, determined cumulatively over each five year period.
The developer is required to pay the City a share of the gross
revenue it realizes from operation of the Hotel. The City will
receive as percentage rent the amount by which the sum of the
following amounts exceeds base rent: 6% of Hotel room occupancy
charges; 3% of Hotel food and non-alcoholic beverage sales, 5% of
alcoholic beverage sales, 10% of Hotel parking revenue; 8% of
electronic information and data service revenue; 10% of sublease
revenue; and 10% of all other revenue. Additionally, the City
will be entitled to receive 60% of all Public Parking Revenue,
- 22 -
Center obligat1on is further guaranteed by a minimum $800,000
ongoing letter of credit.
DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
The Disposition and Development Agreement (nDDA") governs the
relationship between the City and the developer from the time the
city approves the DDA and Development Agreement, until the
property is ground leased to the developer. The principal
activities occurring during the DDA period are the acquisition of
additional city and state land use approvals necessary for the
project, and pre-eonstruction development required prior to the
developer taking possession of the property. The DDA is provided
as Attachment 4 to this report.
The DDA delineates the city and state approvals to be obtained by
the developer during the state approval period. The City
approvals consist of approval of the Architectural Review Board,
and approval by the city Landmarks Commission. If necessary,
approval by the Santa Monica Rent Control Board will be required
prior to demolition of existing improvements. The primary State
approvals incluae: approval of the Concession Agreement and
Ground Lease by the State Department of Parks and Recreation:
approval of alcohol sales by the State Parks and Recreation
Commission, approval by CalTrans of traffic improvements required
pursuant to the Development Agreement: approval of the
Development Agreement and issuance of a Coastal Development
Permit by the California Coastal Commission, and issuance of a
liquor license from the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board.
The State approval period commences on the effective date of the
Ordinance adopting the Development Agreement, and terminates one
year later. The period is Subject to an extension of six months
upon approval of the City, if the developer is diligently
pursuing the state approvals. The period is subject to
additional extensions only under certain delineated conditions
not within the control of the developer. The DDA provides that if
the primary State approvals are not obtained within the state
- 24 -
during the pre-construction development period. The developer is
also required to indemnify the city and State from liability for
the developer's acts occurring on the property.
The DDA also contains provisions concerning title reports and
title insurance; clean up of hazardous materials if found on the
property; approval of construction plans and the construction
budget; defaults and remedies7 assignment: extension of the state
operating agreement; and arbitration of certain disputes.
TRI-PAR'l'Y AGREEKEN'l'
Since 1949, the City has been party to various operating
agreements with the state, under which State Parks and Recreation
has granted authority to the City to manage state Park land and
tidelands in the city, while title to the land remains vested in
the state. The state has now asked that the City enter into the
"Tri-party Agreement" which is intended to clarify issues
regarding title to and control of beach and beach adjacent lands
in the City. On behalf of the State, the Tri-Party Agreement
will be executed by the state Department of Parks and Recreation,
the State Lands Commi3sion, and the Department of General
Services, and approved by the Attorney General's Office. The
Tri-party Agreement will also: transfer jurisdiction over
tidelands in the City (at the state level) from state Lands to
State Parks for a period of sixty years: establish a boundary
line between tidelands and uplands for the entire Santa Monica
shoreline; and confirm the legal effect of various grants and
legislation transferring title to tidelands. The Tri-Party
agreement is provided as Attachment 5 to this report.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT
The lease term proposed for the project is sixty years with an
option to extend the lease to ninety-nine years should there be a
change in state law authorizing such term.
Upon completion, the proposed project would provide economic
benefits to the City of Santa Monica from annual revenues, annual
- 26 -
exact amount would be based upon the duration of the construction
period.
MUNZCXPAL CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE
The use of a Development Agreement to approve the proj ect is
proposed due to the time involved for State approvals and the
extended development period. The Development Agreement will
provide a consistent set of land use and development standards
for the entire period of proj ect development and a program of
mitigation measures and other developer obligations.
The Municipal Code establishes procedures for adopting
development agreements. To approve a development agreement, the
City Council must determine that the proposed Development
Agreement nis consistent with the General Plan and any applicable
Specific Plan." However, development standards such as density,
maximum height or permitted uses co~tained in a development
agreement may vary from those established in the Zoning
Ordinance.
The proposed project is in conformity with the General Plan, the
Zoning Ordinance and the Draft Land Use Plan of the Local Coastal
Program as discussed in the Final EIR, Volumes 1 and 2 and
summarized in the Planning Commission staff report pages 47 - 50
(see attachment 1).
PLANNING COMHISSION ACTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on Wednesday, May
23 , 1990 in the Ci ty council Chambers. All Planning
Commissioners were present to hear public testimony from 34
speakers. The hearing was continued to Wednesday May 30th when
another 14 speakers were heard.
The actions under consideration by the Commission were
recommendations to Council to certify the EIR and approve the
Development Agreement. Prior to making a motion, the Commission
questioned staff about:
- 28 -
1. If legally feasible, the City should require the developer
to give priority status for employment opportunities to
Santa Monica residents. Second priority should go to
persons living within 3 miles of the site. The intent of
this recommendation is to reduce the commute distance of
employees to the site. (The City has received preliminary
indications from State staff that such a requirement would
be unacceptable.)
2. The "economic feasibility" clause with reference to the
reha.l:lilitation of the North House be removed from the DA.
(Staff recommended that the clause remain with the
stipulation that the feasibility be subject to staff
approval. The Commission agreed.)
3. A public advisory committee be established to monitor and
review Community Center programming. (The community Center
Operating Agreement requires the on-going review of the
Community Center by a public advisory group.)
4. The selection of the developer I s preservation architect be
approved by the Landmarks commission.
5. The developer be required to provide a presentation model of
the project for the Landmarks Commission and Architectural
Review Board.
6. The City study the feasibility of installing large elevators
from the public parking level to the Community Center.
7. The City council earmark the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT)
from the site and allocation of the tax be subject to public
review.
8. The City review the financial forecast of the Wests ide Arts
Center.
9. The City Council open the 5i te for public use as soon as
possible.
- 30 -
These assumptions are based upon a physical conversion of the
facilities currently on site. No programming efforts or City
sponsored events are included in the calculations. In all
cases, staff assumed that the public demand for the physical
facilities and access to the site/beach would be quite high.
Poeeneial Revenue Source.
Based upon the existing facilities on site, staff identified four
potential revenue sources: cOlDlllunity room rental rates in the
North House, daily visitor use fees, cabana daily use fees, and
parking. It was assumed that any food service would be operated
as a break-even operation in order to maintain affordability to
public.
H~urly Meetinq Room Rates
Based upon discussions with the City's cultural and Recreation
services Department, staff projected a high demand for the North
House community rooms. Staff estimated that North House could
provide two community meeting rooms that could be reserved for
two hour blocks, three times every weekday, and four times a day
every Saturday and Sunday. Based on maximum occupancy 365 days a
year and room rental rates of $20 for 2 hours, the annual gross
reve~ue would be $47, 840.
Daily Use Fees
The existing Sand , Sea Club facilities were designed to
accommodate a private beach facility that would generate revenue
from annual membership dues. Conversion to a public beach
facility eliminates this membership fee revenue stream, currently
estimated to be over $1 million annually. In an attempt to
recover this revenue at a public beach facility, staff looked at
charging a daily per person use or admission fee. A survey of
Southern California cities found none that had comparable public
beach clubs; however, of the public facilities located on the
beach, none charge a daily use fee other than hourly meeting room
rental rates and court/field reservation fees.
- 32 -
Club has another approximately 100 spaces on site for Club
members.
As stated above, staff projects that 34,01.7 cars would park at
the site each year. At the current parking fee of $5 per car,
this would generate $170,085 per year.
~~~ua1 aevenue an_Mary
Community Room Rentals
Daily Visitor Fee
Cabana Daily Use Fee
Parking
$ 47,840
$170,084
$ 50,370
$110,085
Total Annual
$438,379
Expenses/Costs
capital and Rehabilitation Costs
For the City to operate a public beach facility at the site, the
buildings would have to be meet the City and state accessibility
requirements as well as be rehabilitated and refurbished. Staff
estimates that this would cost approximately $2,000, 000 ~ Debt
service on a $2,000,000 loan over a 10 year period at 8% would be
$292,120 annually.
Expenses/Operatinq Costs
Staff estimated the operatinq costs
facility. These estimates include
utilities, security and staffing
smnTnarized in the following chart ~
to run a public beach
supplies, maintenance,
among others. They are
General & Administrative
Personnel Expenses
Debt service
$270,000
$444,420
$292,120
Total
$1,006,540
Net Annual Income <Loss> Projected
- 34 -
population of users. In contrast, the proposed project includes
a $1.50 beach facility use fee while at the same time requiring
no city subsidy and providing the state required net revenue
flow.
In snmmary, although the existing improvements could be converted
to a public facility, such conversion would not achieve the
Statets major financial objective and, it could be argued, does
not provide a maximized public access usa in terms of unique
recreational/educational opportunities. and support for the
maintenance and operation of the most heavily utilized public
beach in the state of California.
STAPP RBCOMH!lNDATIOHS
To approve this project, the City Council introduction for first
reading an Ordinance adopting the DA, certify the EIR, adopt a
finding of overriding considerations for potentially unmitigated
siqnificant adverse impacts, and approve the resolutions
directing the city Manager to negotiate and execute the
concession Agreement and Ground Lease Agreement and DDA
consistent with the documents attached to this staff report.
CEQA aecommendations
1. The Planning Commission and City staff recommend that the
City Council certify the Final Environmental Impact Report
as complying with the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) and the City's Guidelines for Xmplementation of CEQA
and as adequately analyzing the recommended project.
2 . The Planninq Commission and Ci ty Staff recommend that the
City Council adopt a statement of overriding considerations
for the potentially unmitigated traffic impacts and a
general statement of overriding considerations in the event
any subsequent adverse environmental effects identified in
the Final EIR are not considered substantially mitigated
under the requirements of CEQA (Attachment 7).
- 36 -
4. Disposition and Development Agreement
5. Tri-Party Agreement
6. Planning Commission Information Item (May 30,
1990)
7. Resolution Certifying Final Environmental Im-
pact Report with statement of Overr~ding
Considerat~ons
8. Ordinance Adopting the Development Agreement
9. Resolution Adopting the Concession Agreement
and Ground Lease
10. Resolution Adopting the Disposition and
Development Agreement
11. Resolution Adopting the Tri-Party Agreement
12. Mitigation Monitoring Plan
~
~
- 38 -
~.
.
~A
.
.
1//0"- tJ/?-
A T T A C B MEN T S 7-11
RESOLUTION CERTIFYING FEIR, ORDINANCE ADOPTING DA,
RESOLUTIONS, ADOPTING CONCESSION AGREEMENT;
GROUND LEASE DDA, AND TRI-PARTY AGREEMENT
$2.00
"'1 ...- \ ,.... crt)
,
,
~.
~
.
....
,
\ i
ATTACHMENT
7
CjED:PPD
City Council Meeting: July 17, 1990
Santa Monica,California
RESOLUTION NUMBER
(City Council Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
ON THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE SANTA MONICA BEACH DEVELOPMENT LIMITED PARTNERSHIP AND
THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
FOR THE BEACHFRONT PARCEL AT 415 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY
WHEREAS, a Notice of Preparation of an Environmental
Impact Report was issued on November 7, 1988; and
WHEREAS, a Notice of Completion of a Draft Environmental
Impact Report was published in December, 1989; and
WHEREAS, in May, 1990, the Final Environmental Impact
Report was published; and
WHEREAS, in May, 1990, an Addendum to the Final
Environmental Impact Report was published; and
WHEREAS, in JUly, 1990, a second Addendum to the Final
Environmental Impact Report was published; and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Impact Report and all notices
were prepared in compliance with the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), and the City of Santa Monica CEQA Guidelines;
and
- 1 -
.~
..
.
.
WHEREAS, in May, 1990, the Santa Monica city Planning
Commission reviewed the Final Environmental Impact Report,
including Addendum 1, and recommended its certification to the
city Council; and
WHEREAS, in July, 1990, the Santa Monica City Council,
as Lead City Agency, reviewed the Final Environmental Impact
Report, including Addendum 1 and Addendum 2,
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA
MONICA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council has reviewed and considered
the Final Environmental Impact Report on the project to be
developed in accordance with the Development Agreement between
the Santa Monica Beach Development Limited Partnership and the
City of Santa Monica prior to acting on the project.
SECTION 2. The city Council finds that the Final
Environmental Impact Report adequately reviews and analyzes
potential environmental effects of the proposed project.
SECTION 3. The city Council finds that there has been
an alteration to the project which reduces the environmental
impacts identified in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). In
response to concerns over the project's potential environmental
impacts, the applicant revised the project design which included
a four foot step back on the second and third levels on the south
- 2 -
.
.
)
These measures will significantly avoid or reduce the potential
impact on traffic circulation, therefore, the City Council finds
that, as substantially mitigated by the above specified
requirements, the potential impact on circulation is acceptable.
SECTION 7. In the event any of the adverse
environmental effects identified in the Final EIR are not
considered substantially mitigated within the meaning of Article
VI, Section 13 of the city CEQA guidelines, and Section 15093 of
the state CEQA guidelines, the city Council finds that the
benefits of the project outweigh its unavoidable environmental
risks for the reasons stated in sections 4 (a) and 5.
SECTION 8. Pursuant to Public Resources Code
section 2108l.6, the mitigation measures required by this
Resolution shall be monitored by the city to ensure their
compliance during project implementation in accordance with the
requirements of the EIR1s mitigation monitoring program (Final
EIR, Volumes 1 and 2), Development Agreement, Disposition and
Development Agreement, and Ground Lease. The monitoring program
shall include the filing of annual reports to the City in
conjunction with the Development Agreement annual reports and, as
required by the Disposition and Development Agreement, or Ground
Lease, the designation by the City of staff whose principal
function shall be to implement the mitigation measures.
SECTION 9. The City Council certifies that the
environmental review for the project was conducted in full
compliance with state and City CEQA Guidelines, that there was
- 36 -
.
.
.
~
and east side of the property and incorporated the multi-purpose
center into the main hotel building, further reducing the
building massings along Pacific Coast Highway. In response to
concerns over the treatment of the North House, a City Landmark,
the applicant has revised the plans for the community center
preserving and restoring all the significant interior historical
features. The site plan revisions incorporating the
mUlti-purpose center into the main hotel building serve to open
up the north end of the site and enhance views of the North
House.
SECTION 4. The City council makes the following
findings, consistent with Article VI, Sections 12 and 13 of the
City of Santa Monica CEQA Guidelines and Sections 15091 and 15093
of the state of California CEQA Guidelines. In addition to the
Final EIR, the record upon which these findings are made includes
the following, of which the City council takes administrative
notice: Request for Development Proposals, 415 Pacific Coast
Highway, Santa Monica, California, April l, 1987~ Santa Monica
City Council staff Report Regarding Developer Selection (June 14,
1988); Santa Monica Planning Commission Staff Report, May 23,
1990.
(a) (1) The City Council finds that there are no feasible,
reasonable and available alternatives and there are no further
mitigation measures to the project that would significantly and
substantially reduce the impact on the environment while
accomplishing the City's goals and objectives for use of this
- 3 -
.
.
beachfront parcel contained in the Request For Proposal (April 1,
~
.
1987) .
(2) Further, the City Council finds that the project will
convert a state-owned, City-operated beachfront parcel from a
private beach club into a high quality, visitor serving hotel and
state of the art community center. The project will also deliver
relief and additional revenues to the City's depleted Beach fund
while encouraging increased public access to the site by
providing the following community service enhancements:
(a) increased public parking (up to lOO spaces) during
peak beach going seasons~
(b) a 200 seat beach cafe and outdoor patio;
(c) a public beach facility with restrooms, lockers,
and showers;
(d) community center educational and activity
programming to include cultural arts and
environmental awareness;
(e) shuttle vans to and from remote sites such as
schools for special classes and activities;
(f) a community meeting room and outdoor deck
overlooking the grounds and ocean;
(g) a children's play area;
(h) a sculpture garden;
(i) beach volleyball facilities, and
(j) public art displayed throughout the site.
- 4 -
.
.
None of the capital, programming or operating costs associated
with the Community Center will require City funding.
(3) Further, the city Council finds that the project will
preserve, rehabilitate and open to the public a City designated
Landmark, the North House. All the significant interior historic
features will be preserved and rehabilitated by the applicant.
(b) The Final EIR determined that without mitigation
the project could result in significant adverse impacts on ~he
natural terrain and local geology in the following manner (Final
ErR, Volume ~, Section IV-B). There will be temporary disruption
in the project locale during excavation and construction.
Project construction will require dewatering of the upper,
unconfined aquifer. Potential geologic hazards exist from
naturally occurring gross or surficial failure of the bluffs.
The location of the property in relation to known active faults
indicates that the site is not exposed to greater seismic risk
than other locations in the local region. Nevertheless, movement
on any of the active or potentially active faults could cause
ground shaking at the building site. consistent with Article
VI, section 12 of the City CEQA Guidelines and Section 15091 of
the state CEQA Guidelines, the city finds that the following
changes or mitigation measures have been required in the project
which will mitigate or avoid the potential significant
environmental effects identified with respect to natural terrain
and local geology:
(1) dewatering and pumping techniques for both the
upper unconfined aquifer and lower confined aquifer
- 5 -
.
.
shall be approved by the City Building and Safety
Division prior to project construction:
(2) the preparation of a comprehensive geotechnical
report specifically for the site which will include
provisions for excavation, the correction of
potential geologic hazards, and an analysis of the
bluffs to the northeast of the site to assess its
factors of safety against gross and surficial
failure;
(3) all grading during construction shall be carefully
observed, mapped and tested by the project
engineer:
(4) all grading shall be performed under the
supervision of a licensed engineering geOlogist
and/or soils engineer in accordance with applicable
provisions of the Municipal Code and to the
satisfaction of the City Building and Safety
Division~
(5) all applicable specifications of the local building
codes and regulations shall be complied with in the
design and construction of the project; and
(6) the liquefaction potential during construction
shall be eliminated to the satisfaction of the
Building and Safety Division by utilizing
techniques such as recompaction of soil, dewatering
device to relieve pore pressure, grout injection or
installation of reinforcing stone columns.
- 6 -
.
.
These measures will avoid or sUbstantially lessen the potential
for significant adverse impacts on natural terrain or local
geology and thus avoid or substantially lessen the significant
environmental effects identified in the Final EIR (Final EIR,
Volume 1, section IV-B).
(0) The Final EIR determined that without mitigation the
project could result in a significant impact to short-term air
quality during site demolition and construction in the following
manner (Final EIR, Volume I, section IV-C, Volume 2, Responses to
Comments). The creation of dust and the daily emission of
pollutants from construction equipment could slightly exceed
threshold criteria established by SCAQMD. Such impacts would be
temporary in nature but are considered unavoidable significant
adverse effects attributable to the proposed project. Consistent
with Article VI, Section 12 of the City CEQA guidelines and
sections 15091 of the state CEQA Guidelines, the City finds that
the following changes or mitigation measures have been required
in the project which will mitigate or avoid the potential
significant environmental effects identified with respect to
short-term air quality impacts:
(1) ground wetting shall be required for dust control during
grading and construction in compliance with SCAQMD Rule
403:
(2) any stockpiles of soil, sand and similar materials shall
be covered and located at least fifty feet from adjacent
properties:
(3) all construction equipment shall be shut off when not in
- 7 -
.
.
direct use;
(4) low sulfur fuel shall be used for construction
equipment;
(5) construction activities shall be discontinued during
second stage smog alerts;
(6) loading of haul trucks shall take place at least 50 feet
from adjacent properties;
(7) construction of temporary barriers/screening of at least
eight feet in height shall be erected to eliminate the
adverse effects of windblown excavated matter; and
(8) prior to issuance of a demolition permit, the project
applicant is required to certify that, should asbestos
be found in existing structures, a licensed, certified
contractor specializing in asbestos removal shall
perform the required work in accordance with California
OSHA standards.
These measures will avoid or substantially lessen the potential
for significant adverse impacts to short-term air quality, and
thus avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental
effects identified in the Final EIR (Final EIR, Volume 1, section
IV-C, Volume 2, Responses to Comments, Letter A) .
(d) The Final EIR determined that without mitigation the
project could result in significant impacts to long-term air
quality in the area in the following manner (Final EIR, Volume 1,
Section IV-C). The Final EIR determined that the project would
result in an increase in long-term daily emissions. Increased
daily emissions will be generated by vehicular trips to the site
- 8 -
.
.
and by stationary sources such as the consumption of natural gas
and burning fire places but are not predicted to exceed the
SCAQMD thresholds. Consistent with Article VI, Section 12 of the
City CEQA Guidelines and Section 15091 of the state CEQA
Guidelines, the City finds that the following changes or
mitigation measures have been reuqired in the project which will
mitigate or avoid the potential significant environmental
effects identified with respect to long-term air quality:
(I) the project shall comply with the SCAQMD's Regulation XV
to help improve the region's air quality by reducing
employee peak hour trips;
(2) vents for all subterranean parking areas shall be
located as least fifty feet from adjacent residential
properties;
(3) all fireplace chimneys shall be equipped with spark
inhibitors and designed to facilitate fast burn rates
and high intensity flames; and
(4) vents for all kitchen areas shall be located as far away
as possible from adjacent residential property. A
charcoal or similar air filtration system will be
required to remove odors from air vents. Vents for the
hotel restaurant shall be located on top of the hotel
roof. Vents for the Beach Cafe shall be located on the
south side of the North House away from the residential
area and as high up on the North House facade as can be
accommodated within historic preservation practices.
Where feasible, the location of the vents shall take
- 9 -
.
.
into account the predom~nant prevailing wind direction
to minimize impacts on adjacent residences.
These measures will avoid or substantially lessen the potential
for significant adverse impacts on long term air quality and thus
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental
effects identified in the Final EIR (Final EIR, Volume 1, Section
IV-C) .
(e) The Final EIR determined that without mitigation the
project could result in adverse environmental impacts in
Water/Hydrology due to storm runoff and drainage in the following
manner (Final EIR, Volume 1, Section IV-D). Consistent with
Article VI, section 12 of the city CEQA Guidelines and Section
1509l of the state CEQA Guidelines, the city finds that the
following changes or mitigation measures have been required in
the project which will mitigate or avoid the potential adverse
impacts due to storm runoff and drainage at the site:
(1) high points in pavement grade shall be designed to
prevent runoff from the site and PCH from entering the
subterranean parking structure:
(2) site drainage shall be graded directly toward the beach
or to local catch basins where non-closable grate drains
shall be placed;
(3) grate openings shall be of a size to accommodate 1.5
times the amount of water that the outflow pipe can
convey. The outflow pipe shall be composed of polyvinyl
chloride (PVC) or other non-caustic pipe;
- 10 -
.
.
(4) If the PVC-type pipe is exposed to additional weight or
load, the pipe shall be encased to prevent failure. The
outlets for drainage pipes shall include a rock or
concrete splash dissipater pad to prevent scouring;
(5) a project drainage plan shall be submitted to the City
Engineer for review and approval, prior to development
of any drainage improvements; and
(6) any additional proposed drainage improvements shall be
developed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and
shall meet applicable requirements from other
responsible agencies.
These measures will avoid or substantially lessen the potential
for storm runoff and drainage impacts at the site and thus avoid
or sUbstantially lessen the potential adverse effects identified
in the Final EIR.
(f) The Final EIR determined that without mitigation the
project could result in significant impacts to noise in the
project area in the fOllowing manner (Final EIR, Volume 1,
Section IV-E). Construction activities resulting from project
implementation would result in increases in ambient noise levels
in the vicinity of the site on an intermittent basis. Noise
levels would fluctuate depending on construction phase, equipment
type and duration of use, distance between noise source and
listener, and presence or absence of barriers between the noise
source and listener. Estimated noise levels would not change
significantly from existing conditions. Consistent with Article
VI, Section 12 of the City CEQA Guidelines and Section 15091 of
- 11 -
.
.
the state CEQA Guidelines, the City finds that the following
changes or mitigation measures have been required in the project
which will mitigate or avoid the potential adverse noise
impacts identified:
(1) a construction period mitigation plan shall be prepared
by the applicant for approval by the Department of
General Services prior to issuance of a building permit.
The plan shall be in sufficient detail to determine the
duration of construction activities and the specific
types of equipment to be used and approximate locations,
especially compressors and pumps;
(2) project shall comply with applicable City noise
regulations specified in the City Ordinances (Santa
Monica Municipal Code Chapter 3A; Ordinance Numbers 1406
CCS and 1458 CCS) i
(3) project contractors shall muffle and shield intakes and
exhaust, shroud and shield impact tools, and use
electric-powered equipment, as feasible;
(4) temporary walls and noise barriers shall be placed
around the site and/or locations of noisy activities to
block and deflect the noise from the adjacent
residential properties;
(5) pile drilling with tie-down anchor method shall be used
to minimize noise impacts;
(6) during feasible stages, portable noise curtains or
panels shall be used to contain noise from powered
tools;
- 12 -
.
.
(7) truck deliveries and trash pickup shall be prohibited
between the hours of 7:00 PM and 7:00 AM.
(8) the level of noise from rooftop mechanical equipment
shall conform to the provisions of the Santa Monica
Noise Ordinance for Zone I. Should the equipment exceed
the noise ordinance thresholds at the property line,
then the rooftop mechanical equipment 5hall be fully
enclosed or partially enclosed (depending on the
equipment) in a manner that will achieve the Zone I
noise levels at the adjacent property line.
(9) parking garage ramp surfaces shall be of the type to
minimize the potential for tire squeal;
(10) windows and walls on the north side of the Community
Center Building shall have a sound transmission class
rating (STC) sufficient to eliminate the transmission of
any sounds exceeding the sound level limits established
in the City of santa Monica Noise Ordinance for Noise
Zone I;
(1l) a minimum a-foot wall shall be constructed along the
northern project property line, or other noise
attenuation measures shall be taken, to reduce sounds
from the outdoor dining area and children's play areai
(12) all state and local standards for exterior and interior
noise exposure shall be met for the proposed project;
(13) prior to issuing building permits, the applicant shall
submit evidence, to the City'S satisfaction, that all
project land uses will meet applicable exterior and
interior noise standards;
- 13 -
.
.
(14) a detailed acoustical assessment may be required to
indicate, to the city's satisfaction, that the project
has achieved acceptable exterior and interior noise
levels through the use of mitigation measures such as
acoustically rated glazing, sound insulation in exterior
walls, adding mass to the exterior walls, sealing seams
and joints in exterior walls and fixed windows designed
with double paned or laminated glass; and
(15) a construction period mitigation plan shall be prepared
by the applicant for approval by the Department of
General Services prior to issuance of a building permit.
These measures will avoid or substantially lessen the potential
for adverse noise impacts at the site and thus avoid or
sUbstantially lessen the potential adverse effects identified in
the Final EIR (Final EIR, Volume 1, Section IV-E) .
(g) The Final EIR determined that without mitigation the
project could result in an increase in daytime glare and evening
illumination in the project area in the following manner (Final
EIR, Volume 1, Section IV-F). The project could create a
significant impact on residents south of the site and change the
nighttime character of that section of the beach front. In
addition, the project would result in nighttime illumination that
would be perceptible to motorists, neighbors, and pedestrian
traffic. Consistent with Article VI, section 12 of the City CEQA
Guidelines and Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the
city finds that the following changes or mitigation measures have
been required in the project which will mitigate or avoid the
- 14 -
.
.
potential significant environmental effects identified with
respect to light and glare:
(1) applicant shall prepare a lighting and building
materials plan for approval by the City's Architectural
Review Board;
(2) lighting and building materials shall be built and/or
installed in accordance with City of Santa Monica
ordinances, standards and applicable requirements:
(3) measures to reduce adverse light and glare impacts to
acceptable levels shall include:
(a) lightly tinted glass to decrease reflectivity
and emission of ambient light where
appropriate:
(b) exterior surface colors, materials and
textures that reduce daytime glare, foliage;
(c) landscaping shall be planted to limit exposure
to project lighting and to decrease
reflectivity:
(d) outdoor lighting shall be shielded and
directed on-site and downward:
(e) outdoor lighting shall be reduced or softened
after peak hours, especially in pool, garden
and restaurant areas: and
(f) outdoor lighting shall be restricted to
security lighting between the hours of 12:00
AM and 7:00AM,
- lS -
.
.
(4) restrictions on lighting emitted from the southern
facade of the project shall be required as part of
conditions of approval; and
(5) light emitted from the northern facade shall be shaded
with window treatment or obstructed with landscaping
along northern walls.
,
,
These measures will avoid or substantially lessen the potential
for adverse light and glare impacts at the site and thus avoid or
substantially lessen the potential adverse effects identified in
the Final EIR (Final EIR, Volume 1, Section IV-F).
(h) The Final EIR determined that without mitigation the
project could result in significant land use impacts in the
following manner (Final EIR, volume 1, section IV-I). This
determination was made because of the project's potential to be
physically incompatible with the adjacent residential uses, the
project's massive visual character from Pacific Coast Highway and
an inadequate sideyard setback on the North end of the site.
Consistent with Article VI, Section 12 of the City CEQA
Guidelines and section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the
City finds that the following changes or mitigation measures have
been required in the project which will mitigate or avoid the
potential significant environmental effects identified with
respect to land use:
(1) a four-foot unexcavated side yard setback from the
northern property line shall be included to allow for
deep-root landscaping to buffer the adjacent residential
- 16 -
.
.
property; and
(2) no outside activities shall be allowed within the North
sideyard setback.
These measures will avoid or substantially lessen the potential
for significant land use impacts and thus avoid or substantially
lessen the potential adverse effects identified in the Final EIR
(Final EIR, Volume 1, section IV-I).
(i) The Final EIR determined that without mitigation the
project could result in significant adverse impacts on the City's
water conservation efforts in the followinq manner (Final ErR,
Volume 1, section IV-M). Consistent with Article VI, Section 12
of the City CEQA Guidelines and Section 15091 of the State CEQA
Guidelines, the City finds that the following changes or
mitigation measures have been required in the project which will
mitigate or avoid the potential significant environmental
effects identified with respect to water conservation:
(1) the project shall incorporate water saving devices and
techniques such as low-flow toilet tank, water-saving
showerhead fixtures and xeriscape landscaping into the
design and operation of the proposed project in
accordance with the requirements of all City Ordinances;
(2) the applicant shall install a water recycling system
within the laundry facilities of the hotel portion of
the proposed project; and
(3) improvement costs to meet fire flow requirements and any
improvements to on-site water lines shall be borne by
the project applicant.
- 17 -
.
.
These measures will avoid or substantially lessen the potential
for significant adverse impacts on water conservation and thus
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental
effects identified in the Final EIR (Final EIR, Volume I, Section
IV-H) .
(j) The Final EIR determined that without mitigation the
project could result in significant adverse impacts on sanitary
sewerage in the following manner (Final EIR, Volume 1, section
IV-M). Consistent with Article VI, Section 12 of the city CEQA
Guidelines and Section 15091 of the state CEQA Guidelines, the
City finds that the following changes or mitigation measures have
been required in the project which will mitigate or avoid the
potential significant environmental effects identified with
respect to sanitary sewerage:
(1) the applicant shall comply with current and future
ordinance provisions regarding sewer capacity allotment
in the city;
(2) prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the
applicant shall present documentation to the General
Services Department certifying that the project will not
result in a net increase in wastewater flow by
retrOfitting existing occupancies per General Services
guidelines; and
(3) the applicant shall be required to pay a sewerage
facilities charge to the city before a permit can be
issued to connect to the sewer per section 7190 of
Ordinance 1451.
- 18 -
.
.
These measures will avoid or substantially lessen the potential
for significant adverse impacts on sanitary sewerage and thus
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental
effects identified in the Final EIR (Final EIR, Volume I, Section
IV-M) .
(k) The Final EIR determined that without mitigation the
project could result in significant adverse impacts on solid
waste in the following manner (Final EIR, Volume 1, section
IV-M). The development and operation of the proposed project
would result in an adverse impact as it would contribute to the
ultimate exhaustion of one of several landfills. consistent with
Article VI, Section l2 of the city CEQA Guidelines and Section
l509l of the state CEQA Guidelines, the City finds that the
following changes or mitigation measures have been required in
the project which will mitigate or avoid the potential
significant environmental effects identified with respect to
solid waste:
(1) the applicant shall participate in the Santa Monica
Recycle program; and
(2) trash receptacles sufficient in size and number to
contain the trash generated on the parcel shall be
provided with outdoor receptacles shielded from public
view on at least three sides by impact resistant walls
of not less than five or not more than eight feet in
height and an impact resistant gate of not less than
five and not more than eight feet high.
- 19 -
.
.
These measures will avoid or substantially lessen the potential
for significant adverse impacts on solid waste and thus avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effects
identified in the Final EIR (Final EIR, Volume I, Section IV-H).
(1) The Final EIR determined that without mitigation the
project could result in significant adverse impacts on
communications in the following manner (Final EIR, Volume 1,
section IV-M). Consistent with Article VI, section 12 of the
city CEQA Guidelines and Section 15091 of the State CEQA
Guidelines, the City finds that the following changes or
mitigation measures have been required in the project which will
mitigate or avoid the potential significant environmental effects
identified with respect to communications:
(1) the proposed project shall comply with Section 4.
Subsection 7166 of the Santa Monica Municipal code
requiring underground installation of commercial project
cables.
These measures will avoid or substantially lessen the potential
for significant adverse impacts on communications and thus avoid
or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects
identified in the Final EIR (Final EIR, Volume I, Section IV-M).
(m) The Final EIR determined that without mitigation the
project could result in significant adverse impacts in fire
protection in the following manner (Final EIR, Volume l, section
IV-N). Project implementation would increase the need for fire
protection and emergency medical services in the area.
- 20 -
.
.
consistent with Article VI, Section 12 of the City CEQA
Guidelines and Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the
City finds that the fOllowing changes or mitigation measures have
been required in the project which will mitigate or avoid the
potential significant environmental effects identified with
respect to fire protection:
(1) unless otherwise mitigated through design solutions
reviewed and approved by the Fire Department, no
building or portion of a building shall be constructed
more than 150 feet from the edge of a roadway of an
improved street, access road or designated fire lane;
(2) unless otherwise mitigated through design solutions
reviewed and approved by the Fire Department, the
entrance or exit of all ground floor units shall not be
more than l50 feet from the edge of an access road or
designated fire lane;
(3) fire hydrants shall be located on-site with their number
and location determined after the Fire Department
reviews definitive project plans and specifications;
(4) a set standpipe water distribution system shall be
installed throughout the project;
(5) fully automatic sprinkler systems and fire alarm systems
shall be installed throughout all project structures;
(6) fixed extinguishing systems shall be installed in
restaurant and kitchen areas~
(7) automatic fire alarm systems shall be installed
throughout all project structures;
- 21 -
.
.
(8) improvements to the water system may be required to
provide adequate fire-flow and the costs for these
improvements shall be borne by the applicant~
(9) the proposed project shall comply with all applicable
state and local ordinances regarding fire prevention and
suppression; and
(10) definitive project plans and specifications shall be
submitted to the Fire Department, and requirements shall
be satisfied prior to issuance of a building permit.
These measures will avoid or substantially lessen the potential
for significant adverse impacts in fire protection and thus avoid
or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects
identified in the Final EIR (Final EIR, Volume I, Section IV-N).
(n) The Final EIR determined that without mitigation the
project could result in significant adverse impacts on police
protection in the following manner (Final EIR, Volume 1, section
IV-N). Project implementation would increase the need for police
protection in the area. consistent with Article VI, section l2
of the City CEQA Guidelines and Section 15091 of the State CEQA
Guidelines, the city finds that the fOllowing changes or
mitigation measures have been required in the project which will
mitigate or avoid the potential significant environmental effects
identified with respect to police protection:
(l) public spaces, such as hallways, elevators, and
entrances shall be designed to prevent areas of
concealment:
- 22 -
.
.
(2) adequate lighting levels shall be provided for the hotel
perimeter and adjacent beach frontage and shall be
designed to minimize illumination impacts on surrounding
land uses;
(3) guests shall be informed of beach safety guidelines, use
of emergency telephone numbers and telephone extension
of the security department;
(4) a system shall be established to enable hotel staff to
rekey entrylocks whenever a key is lost, rendering
previous keys useless;
(5) the applicant shall meet with the Police Department for
security design assistance and shall prepare and a
security plan for Police Department approval prior to
issuance of a building permit; and
(6) upon completion of the project, the applicant shall
provide the Police Department with a design of the
project that shall include diagrams of access routes,
hotel unit numbers, and any information that might
facilitate police response.
These measures will avoid or substantially lessen the potential
for significant adverse impacts on police protection and thus
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental
effects identified in the Final EIR (Final EIR, Volume I, Section
IV-N) .
(0) The Final EIR determined that without mitigation the
project could result in significant adverse impacts on street
maintenance in the following manner (Final EIR, Volume I, Section
- 23 -
.
.
IV-N). During construction, the project would result in
shor~-term adverse impacts on street maintenance. Upon project
completion, vehicular traffic generated by the project would have
a long-term incremental impact on street maintenance. Consistent
with Article VI, section 12 of the City CEQA Guidelines and
Section 15091 of the state CEQA Guidelines, the City finds that
the following changes or mitigation measures have been required
in the project which will mitigate or avoid the potential
significant environmental effects identified with respect to
street maintenance:
(1) City streets impacted by construction activities shall
be rehabilitated as necessary to the satisfaction of the
city's General Services Department. Rehabilitation
costs shall be borne by the applicant.
This measure will avoid or substantially lessen the potential for
significant adverse impacts on street maintenance and thus avoid
or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects
identified in the Final EIR (Final EIR, Volume I, Section IV-N).
(p) The Final EIR determined that without mitigation the
project could result in significant adverse impacts on energy in
the following manner (Final EIR, Volume 1, Section IV-O).
consistent with Article VI, Section 12 of the City CEQA
Guidelines and Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the
City finds that the following changes or mitigation measures have
been required in the project which will mitigate or avoid the
- 24 -
.
.
potential significant environmental effects identified with
respect to energy:
(l) the proposed project shall conform to Title 24, Article
2 of the California Code of Regulations and all
buildings constructed as part of the proposed project
shall be required to comply with the regulations in
force at the time of the application for the necessary
building permits;
(2) the applicant shall prepare support energy analyses of
all building designs as part of the proposed project,
and consider all economically attractive conservation
measures for inclusion in the project;
(3) unnecessary consumption of energy during construction,
operation and maintenance shall be avoided, siting
orientation and design should be done so that energy
consumption is minimized, peak energy demand of energy
shall be reduced and the use of alternative or renewable
fuels and recycling shall be encouraged~
(4) toplighting and sidelighting should be considered for
their potential energy savings and, if feasible, shall
be incorporated into building design as an effective
means of utilizing sunlight to reduce energy
consumption. Toplighting involves installation of clear
or translucent windows as an integral part of new
building roof construction. High performance glass or
double glazing shall be installed to minimize heat gain
and loss. Effective sidelighting requires strategic
- 25 -
.
.
choice in size, shape, number and orientation of
windows;
(5) Lighting controls shall be installed in the project and
shall incorporate an automatic control system for
adjusting the lighting level of electric lights;
(6) motions sensors-controlled lighting shall be installed
in the project, where feasible; and
(7) energy saving lamps shall be installed in building
operations support rooms.
These measures will avoid or substantially lessen the potential
for significant adverse impacts on energy and thus avoid or
sUbstantially lessen the significant environmental effects
identified in the Final EIR (Final EIR, Volume I, Section IV-O).
(q) The Final EIR determined that without mitigation the
project could result in significant adverse impacts on recreation
in the following manner (Final EIR, Volume I, section IV-Q).
Consistent with Article VI, section 12 of the City CEQA
Guidelines and section 15091 of the state CEQA Guidelines, the
city finds that the following changes or mitigation measures
have been required in the project which will mitigate or avoid
the potential significant environmental effects identified with
respect to recreation:
(1) the city should increase the personnel and equipment
required to maintain the beachfront adjacent to the
project site if beach-going activity increases
sufficiently to require it;
- 26 -
.
.
(2) the project shall include appropriate signage along the
beach and in and around the Community Center to notify
beach visitors that the changing rooms and public
restrooms are intended for public use~ Prior to its
approval by the City of Santa Monica and the California
Coastal commission, a signage program shall be reviewed
by the Los Angeles County Department of Beaches and
Harborst and
(3) public parking lot #530, located at 530 Pacific Coast
Highway, shall be striped and its entrance gate
relocated to allow lifeguard and paramedic access to the
beach.
These measures will avoid or sUbstantially lessen the potential
for significant adverse impacts on recreation and thus avoid or
sUbstantially lessen the significant environmental effects
identified in the Final ErR (Final EIR, Volume I, Section IV-Q).
(r) The Final EIR determined that without mitigation the
project could result in significant adverse impacts on
cultural/historic resources in the following manner (Final EIR,
Volume 1, Section IV-R, Volume 2, Responses to Comments).
Consistent with Article VI, section 12 of the City CEQA
Guidelines and section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the
City finds that the following changes or mitigation measures have
been required in the project which will mitigate or avoid the
potential significant environmental effects identified with
respect to cultural/historic resources:
- 27 -
.
.
(1) to the extent feasible and consistent with the public
access and project design objectives, the proposed
project shall conform to the "Secretary of the
Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines
for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings" which shall
include a project design which is historically and
architecturally compatible with the existing North
House;
(2) the proposed project will require a Certificate of
Appropriateness by the City's Landmarks Commission and
the applicant shall comply with the specific
requirements imposed as a result of an issuance of a
certificate of Appropriateness with respect to historic
preservation;
(3) the North House shall be moved in one piece and shall be
adequately secured and protected to reduce damage to its
interior and exterior. Should it be determined that it
cannot be moved in one piece, the Landmarks Commission
shall review an alternate approach. The project
applicant shall acquire appropriate liability insurance
to insure the North House from inadvertent damage or
destruction as a result of its relocation:
(4) tiles from the existing pool shall be used if feasible
and appropriate in the proposed project's pools, or
elsewhere on the site;
(5) the entire property shall be photo-documented in its
current state before development proceeds. A
photographic record shall be made of all interior and
- 28 -
.
.
exterior historic fabric if preservation is not
possible. Photographic documentation shall be of
archival quality and delivered to the city upon
completion;
(6) a plaque commemorating the site shall be incorporated
into the proposed project:
(7) the North House exterior shall be restored to its
original design consistent with preservation practices
approved by the Landmarks Commission;
(8) the project applicant shall preserve the "primary
historic fabric" of the interior elements of the North
House structure;
(9) the North House shall be rehabilitated including the
reconstruction of the chimney, the return of the
porte-cochere to its original configuration,
rehabilitation of all facades, the restoration of the
shutters on the two first floor windows on the northern
facade, and removal of the plywood panels on the west
balcony and the restoration of the balcony;
(10) prior to commencement of construction of the proposed
project, the project applicant shall prepare a detailed
plan for review by the city of Santa Monica discussing
the relocation of the North House. Such plan shall
include proposed relocation techniques, rehabilitation
measures, and a demonstration of appropriate liability
insurance;
(ll) during the Landmark Commission review process, the City
shall ensure that the new work is compatible with the
- 29 -
.
.
North House in terms of size, scale, design, materials,
color and texture; and
(12) the new construction shall relate to the North House in
proportion of openings, width to height relationships of
doors and windows, rhythm of solids to voids in the
facade, alteration of strong and weak elements,
architectural details such as continuity of elements
such as cornices, arches, balustrades and the size of
building and detail in relationship to people and open
space.
These measures will avoid or substantially lessen the potential
for significant adverse impacts on cUltural/historic resources
and thus avoid or substantially lessen the significant
environmental effects identified in the Final EIR (Final EIR,
Volume I, Section IV-R, Volume 2, Responses to Comments).
(s) The Final EIR determined that without mitigation the
project could result in significant adverse impacts on aesthetics
in the following manner (Final EIR, Volume I, Section IV-S,
Volume 2, Responses to Comments, Letter A). Consistent with
Article VI, section 12 of the City CEQA Guidelines and Section
15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City finds that the
following changes or mitigation measures have been required in
the project which will mitigate or avoid the potential
significant environmental effects identified with respect to
aesthetics:
- 30 -
.
.
(1) the project design shall be visually compatible with
development in the surrounding locale;
(2) during the project's architectural review approval
process, the City shall evaluate building mass, height,
materials, colors, and perimeter and exterior and
interior landscaping to ensure appropriateness for their
location. special attention shall be given to colors
and building materials to ensure compatibility with
surrounding properties;
(3) the project's facade along Pacific Coast Highway shall
be broken up with indentations and articulations to
mitigate the solid 35 foot mass from the southern
property line setback to the hotel auto court area; and
(4) the project shall comply with applicable sections of the
City's xeriscape ordinance.
These measures will avoid or substantially lessen the potential
for significant adverse impacts on aesthetics and thus avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effects
identified in the Final EIR (Final EIR, Volume I, Section IV-S,
Volume 2, Responses to Comments).
(t) (1) The Final EIR determined that without mitigation the
project could result in significant impacts to site right-Of-way
and access the following manner (Final EIR, Volume 1, Section
IV-J). Left-turn movements from northbound PCB into the project
and the beach bikepath need to be addressed to ensure safe access
to the site from Pacific Coast Highway and from the beach.
- 31 -
.
.
consistent with Article VI, Section 12 of the City CEQA
Guidelines and section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the
City finds that the fOllowing changes or mitigation measures have
been required in the project which will mitigate or avoid the
potential significant adverse access and right-of-way impacts
identified:
(1) a three-phase traffic signal shall be installed at the
project site access point to Pacific Coast Highway, with
protected left-turn phasing for left turns from North
bound PCH into the project. Costs for implementation
shall be borne by the project applicant;
(2) applicant shall submit Final design plans to City
Traffic Engineer for review and approval;
(3) a boardwalk plank from the site to the beach area shall
be provided for seniors and those with special physical
needs in accordance with the requirements of Title 24 of
the California Code of Regulations;
(4) the beach bikepath shall be re-routed and reconstructed
by the applicant providing a spur to the Community
Center for bicycle access;
(5) applicant shall comply with all State and City
standards, codes and ordinances in the provision of
access and parking to the project;
(6) appropriate signage shall be installed to prevent
pedestrian crossing of PCHi
(7) a left-turn storage lane shall be striped with the
- 32 -
.
.
exiting painted median on PCH to allow for safe
left-turns from northbound PCH;
(8) the project shall include appropriate signage along the
beach and in and around the community Center to notify
beach visitors that the changing rooms and public
restrooms are intended for public use. Prior to its
approval by the city of Santa Monica, a signage program
shall be reviewed by the Los Angeles County Department
of Beaches and Harbors;
(9) pUblic parking lot #530, located at 530 Pacific Coast
Highway shall be striped and its entrance gate relocated
to allow lifeguard and paramedic access to the beach;
and
(10) the project driveway shall be widened to provide two
outbound lanes, one exclusive left-turn lane and one
exclusive right-turn lane. A minimum of 30 feet is
necessary to accommodate both outbound lanes and the
inbound lane.
These measures will avoid or substantially lessen the potential
for significant right-of-way and access impacts and thus avoid or
substantially lessen any potential adverse effects identified in
the Final EIR (Final EIR, Volume 1, Section IV-J). The three
phase traffic signal and left turn storage lane mitigation
measures are within the control and jurisdiction of Caltrans and
are feasible and can be implemented.
(2) Further, the city Council finds that in the event
Caltrans does not approve implementation of the mitigation
- 33 -
~
.
.
measures, the Final EIR determined that the development of the
project would not result in a significant impact to right-of-way
and access to the site (Final EIR, Volume I, Section IV-J) 0
SECTION 5. The Final EIR found that the development of
the project could result in a significant impact to traffic
cirulation at the intersection of Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) and
the California Incline on weekdays during the pm peak hour
conditions (Final EIR, Volume I, Section IV-L). Consistent with
Article VI, section l3 of the City CEQA Guidelines and Sections
15091 and 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City Council
hereby makes a Statement of Overriding Consideration and finds
that the benefits of the project outweigh its unavoidable
environmental risks based on the findings in Section 4 (a) and
for the following reasons:
(1) the project will convert a state-owned, City-operated
beach front parcel from a private beach club into a high
quality, visitor serving hotel and state of the art
community center;
(2) the project will deliver financial relief and additional
revenues to the City's depleted Beach fund:
(3) the project will provide and pay for the following
public facilities and programming:
(a) increased public parking (100 spaces) during peak
beach going seasons:
(b) a 200 seat beach cafe and outdoor patio:
(c) a public beach facility with restrooms, lockers and
showers;
- 34 -
~
.
.
(d) educational programming and activities at the
community center to include cultural arts and
environmental awareness;
(e) shuttle vans to and from remote sites, such as
schools, for special classes and activities;
(f) a community meeting room and outdoor deck
overlooking the grounds and ocean;
(g) a children's play area;
(h) a sculpture garden
(i) beach volleyball facilities; and
(j) public art displayed throughout the site,
(4) the project will preserve, rehabilitate and open to the
public a City designated Landmark, the North House.
SECTION 6. Further, the City Council finds that the
project will undertake the following mitigation measures which
will reduce, although not eliminate, the significant impacts
identified with respect to traffic and circulation:
(1) the hotel restaurant will not be open for business
during the pm peak period of traffic. The hotel
restaurant shall not be open for new seating on weekdays
from 3:30 pm to 6:30 pm. No employees may travel to or
from the site during the pm peak hours of 3:30 to 6:30
pm.
(2) the proposed project shall implement a Transportation
Demand Management (TOM) Program to reduce
site-generated traffic.
- 35 -
.
.
These measures will significantly avoid or reduce the potential
impact on traffic circulation, therefore, the city council finds
that, as substantially mitigated by the above specified
requirements, the potential impact on circulation is acceptablee
SECTION 7. In the event any of the adverse
environmental effects identified in the Final EIR are not
considered sUbstantially mitigated within the meaning of Article
VI, section 13 of the city CEQA guidelines, and Section 15093 of
the state CEQA guidelines, the City Council finds that the
benefits of the project outweigh its unavoidable environmental
risks for the reasons stated in sections 4 (a) and 5.
SECTION 8. Pursuant to Public Resources Code
section 21081.6, the mitigation measures required by this
Resolution shall be monitored by the city to ensure their
compliance during project implementation in accordance with the
requirements of the EIR's mitigation monitoring program (Final
EIR, Volumes 1 and 2), Development Agreement, Disposition and
Development Agreement, and Ground Lease. The monitoring program
shall include the filing of annual reports to the City in
conjunction with the Development Agreement annual reports and, as
required by the Disposition and Development Agreement, or Ground
Lease, the designation by the city of staff whose principal
function shall be to implement the mitigation measures.
SECTION 9. The City Council certifies that the
environmental review for the project was conducted in full
compliance with State and City CEQA Guidelines, that there was
- 36 -
'.,
.
.
adequate pUblic review of the Draft Environmental Impact Report,
that the City council has considered all comments on the Draft
Environmental Impact Report and responses to comments, that the
Final Environmental Impact Report adequately discusses all
significant environmental issues, and that the City Council has
considered the contents of the Final Environmental Impact Report
in its decision-making process.
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:
f'~~ ~ ~
Robert M. Myers
City Attorney
w/ssreso
July 2, 1990
- 37 -
.
.
A T T A C H MEN T a
C/ED:PPD
Council Meeting: July 17, 1990
Santa Monica, California
ORDINANCE NUMBER
(City Council series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
APPROVING THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE SANTA MONICA BEACH DEVELOPMENT LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
AND
THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTJ:ON 1.
The Development Agreement attached hereto as
Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference between the
Santa Monica
Beach Development Limited Partnership,
California Limited Partnership, and the City of Santa Monica, a
municipal corporation, is hereby approved.
SECTION 2.
Each and every term and condition of the
Development Agreement approved in Section 1 of this Ordinance
shall be and is made a part of the Santa Monica Municipal Code
and any appendices thereto.
The City Council of the City of
Santa Monica finds that public necessity, public convenience, and
general welfare require that any provision of the Santa Monica
Municipal Code or appendices thereto inconsistent with the
- 1 -
,
,
6
a
~
.
.
a
provisions of this Development Agreement, to the extent of such
inconsistencies and no further, be repealed or modified to that
extent necessary to make fully effective the provisions of this
Development Agreement.
SECTION 3. Any provision of the Santa Monica Municipal Code
or appendices thereto inconsistent with the provision of this
Ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and no further,
is hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to give
full force and effect to the provision of this ordinance.
SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or
phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or
unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent
jurisdiction, such decision shall not render invalid the
remaininq portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby
declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each and
every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not
declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether
any portion of this Ordinance would be subsequently declared
invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 5. The Mayor shall sign and the city Clerk shall
attest to the passage of this Ordinance. The city Clerk shall
cause the same to be published once in the official newspaper
within 15 days after its adoption. This Ordinance shall become
effective 30 days from its adoption.
- 2 -
.
.
'I/o-o/?
~
e,
A T T A C H MEN T 9
C/ED:PPD
Council Meeting: July 17, 1990 Santa Monica, California
RESOLUTION NUMBER
(City council Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
AUTHORIZING NEGOTIATION AND EXECUTION OF
A CONCESSION AGREEMENT AND GROUND LEASE BETWEEN
THE SANTA MONICA BEACH DEVELOPMENT LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
AND THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
WHEREAS, California state law and the city of Santa Monica
City Charter permits the City to enter into a Concession
Agreement and Ground Lease for the development of State owned,
city operated property; and
WHEREAS, the state of California has directed the city of
Santa Monica to no longer permit a private beach club to operate
as a concession at 4lS Pacific Coast Highway; and
WHEREAS, the state of California has directed the city of
Santa Monica to encourage year round public access and to
generate concession revenues of at least $500,000 yearly for the
City'S Beach Fund on the site; and
WHEREAS, the City prepared a Request for Development Proposal
(RFP) and released the RFP in April 1987 inviting proposals to
- 1 -
.
.
increase public access to the site and generate a minimum annual ~
revenue of $500,000 for the City.s consideration~ and,
WHEREAS, the City carefully evaluated the ability of eleven
proposals to meet or exceed the RFP objectives and on June 14,
1988 selected the Santa Monica Beach Development Partnership to
enter into exclusive negotiations of lease, development and other
agreements necessary for development of the propertYi and
WHEREAS, on July l7, 1990, the Ci ty Council conducted a
properly noticed public hearing on the Concession Agreement and
Ground Lease between the Santa Monica Beach Development Limited
Partnership and the City of Santa Monica at which it received and
reviewed the terms of the Concession Agreement and Ground Lease;
and
WHEREAS, the public health, safety, and general welfare of
the citizens of the City of Santa Monica will be furthered by
approval of the Concession Agreement and Ground Lease,
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council authorizes the City Manager to
negotiate and execute the Concession Agreement and Ground Lease
and any exhibits thereto with the Santa Monica Beach Development
Limited Partnership for the parcel at 415 Pacific Coast Highway
consistent with Exhibit ItAIt.
- 2 -
t
.
.
.).
SECTION 2. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of
this Resolution, and from then on the same shall be in full force
and effect.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
(l....vt~ 'N'- ~
ROBERT M. MYERS
city Attorney
- 3 -
.
.
A T T A C H MEN T 10
CjED:PPD
Council Meeting: July 17, 1990 Santa Monica, California
RESOLUTION NUMBER
(City Council series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
AUTHORIZING NEGOTIATION AND EXECUTION OF THE DISPOSITION AND
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE SANTA MONICA BEACH DEVELOPMENT LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
AND
THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
WHEREAS, California state law and the City of Santa Monica
City Charter permit the city to enter into a disposition and
development agreement with a private party for the development of
State owned, City operated property located at 415 Pacific Coast
Highway; and
WHEREAS, the state of California has directed the City of
Santa Monica to no longer permit a private beach club to operate
as a concession at 415 Pacific Coast Highwayt and
WHEREAS, the State of california has directed the City of
Santa Monica to encourage year round public access and to
generate concession revenues of at least $500,000 yearly for the
City's Beach Fund on the site; and
WHEREAS, the city prepared a Request for Development Proposal
(RFP) and released the RFP in April 1987 inviting proposals to
- 1 -
..
.
.
.
~
~
increase public access to the site and generate a minimum annual
revenue of $500,000 for the City's consideration: and
WHEREAS, the city carefully evaluated the ability of eleven
proposals to meet or exceed the RFP objectives and on June 14,
1988 selected the Santa Monica Beach Development Partnership to
enter into exclusive negotiations of lease, development and other
agreements necessary for development of the property: and
WHEREAS, approval of a disposition and development agreement
is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act: and
WHEREAS, on July 17, 1990, the City council conducted a
properly noticed pUblic hearing on the Disposi tion and
Development Agreement between Santa Monica Beach Development
Limited Partnership and the city of Santa Monica at which it
reviewed and approved the terms of the Disposition and
Development Agreement; and
WHEREAS,
require the
Agreement,
the public health,
approval of the
safety, and
Disposition
general welfare
and Development
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council authorizes the City Manager to
negotiate and execute the Disposition and Development Agreement
with the Santa Monica Beach Development Limited Partnership for
- 2 -
f>
.
.
~
~
SECTION 2. The city Clerk shall certify to the adoption of
this Resolution, and from then on the same shall be in full force
and effect.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_~_~__ h ~ ~
~~lc U
ROBERT M. MYERS
City Attorney
- 4 -
.
.
A T T A C H MEN T 11
CjED:PPD
Council Meeting: July 17, 1990 Santa Monica, California
RESOLUTION NUMBER
(City Council Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
CONCERNING STATE LAND
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Monica and the state of California
acting through the state Department of Parks and Recreation
entered into that certain Operating Agreement dated as of
September 1, 1981; and
WHEREAS, the city of Santa Monica and state of California
wish to clarify and confirm certain issues concerning said
Agreement,
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council authorizes the City Manager to
execute the Agreement with the State of California attached as
Exhibit "Au.
- 1 -
..
- ~
~
. ..
.
.
..
SECTION 2. The city Clerk shall certify to the adoption of
this Resolution, and from then on the same shall be in full force
and effect.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
~~" ~ ~
ROBERT M. MYERS
city Attorney
- 2 -
M.EM.ORANDUM
/!tDD -/6 f-c.
//-8
JUL 1 7 1990
I/I~"- O/~
DATE:
July 17, 1990
TO:
Mayor and city council
FROM:
Robert M. Myers, City Attorney
RE:
Development Agreement for Santa Monica Beach
Hotel and Community Center
The purpose of this memorandum is to provide the City Council
wi th information about certain legal issues pertaining to the
development agreement for the Santa Monica Beach Hotel and
Community Center ("project") proposed to be entered into between
the city and the Pacific Beach Development Limited Partnership
("developer"). Specifically, the opinion discusses the impact of
pending initiatives on the development agreement and the legality
of paragraphs 42, 43, and 44 relating to revenue targeting. By
memorandum to the Planning Commission dated May 23, 1990, the city
Attorney analyzed the application of the Santa Monica Bay Ordinance
of 1973 to the development agreement. (A copy of the memorandum
to the Planning commission is contained in Attachment 1.)
The conclusions contained in this memorandum were communicated
to the developer in May, 1990. The opinion has been delayed to
give the developer an opportunity to provide the City Attorney with
input prior to the public release of the opinion.
1. November Ballot Measures.
Two initiatives have qualified for the November, 1990, ballot
which, if enacted, would potentially affect the current Sand and
Sea Club site. The so-called "Save Our Beach" ("SOBII) initiative
seeks to prohibit hotel development at this location, while the
initiative sponsored by "Santa Monicans for a Livable Environment"
("SMLE") may permit hotel development. While these initiatives
have somewhat cross purposes, they each suggest through their
qualifying for the ballot that a substantial number of Santa Monica
voters are interested in having a say on when and how beach-area
property is developed. However, the approval of a development
agreement prior to the November election may limit the ability of
the people to have an effective say by conferring upon the
developer a vested right.
Absent the approval of a development agreement, a developer
secures a "vested right II only after incurring expenditures or
1
AIiD ~ ;>- e..
/1-$
J U L 1 7 19M
liabilities following the final governmental approval of the
proj ect. In Avco Community Developers, Inc. v. South Coast
Reqional Commission, 17 Cal. 3d 785, 533 P.2d 546, 132 Cal. Rptr.
386 (1976), the California Supreme Court stated:
It has long been the rule in this state and in
other jurisdictions that if a property owner
has performed substantial work and incurred
substantial liabilities in good faith reliance
upon a permit issued by the government, he
acquires a vested right to complete
construction in accordance with the terms of
the permit. Once a landowner has secured a
vested right the government may not, by virtue
of a change in the zoning laws, prohibit
construction authorized by the permit upon
which he relied. Id. at 791, 553 P.2d at 550,
132 Cal. Rptr. at 389.
(Given the proposed schedule for the project, it is unlikely that
a vested right would be obtained under this test prior to the
November election.)
In 1979, the California Legislature enacted legislation
authorizing cities and counties to enter into development
agreements with developers that would be binding notwithstanding
subsequent changes in the law and notwithstanding the fact that the
developer did not otherwise have a "vested right." (Government
Code Section 65864 et seq.) Al though there is a general principle
that contracts purporting to limit the government's right to
exercise the police power in the future are invalid (see, e.q.,
Delucchi v. County of Santa Cruz, 179 Cal. App. 3d 814, 225 Cal.
Rptr. 43 (1986)), it is generally believed that a development
agreement confers a statutory vested right that may not be taken
away by subsequent exercises of the police power by the local
government body entering into the agreement.
The question whether the approval of a development agreement
will confer a vested right for the Santa Monica Beach Hotel and
Community Center is complicated by the pending initiatives.
The California Constitution reserves to all voters the right
of initiative. The right of initiative has been called "precious
to the people" and is one which courts are zealous to preserve to
the fullest both as to the spirit and the letter of the law.
Schmitz v. Younqer, 21 Cal. 3d 90, 92, 577 P.2d 652, 654, 145 Cal.
Rptr. 517, 518 (1978). Indeed, numerous court decisions have
recognized that this right should be liberally construed in favor
of allowing the voters to have a say on matters that the voters
consider to be important. See, e.q., Associated Home Builders of
Greater Eastbay, Inc. v. City of Livermore, 18 Cal. 3d 582, 557
P.2d 473, 135 Cal. Rptr. 41 (1976). Put in the context of the
2
ci ty' s approval of the proposed development agreement, the question
arises whether or to what extent the city's action will prejudice
the initiative process and, as a result, thwart the voters'
reserved prerogative to adopt legislation that affects the Sand and
Sea Club site.
No court has addressed this issue. Under the state Elections
Code, no statute expressly prohibits a City council from adopting
an ordinance (here, the development agreement) while initiatives
potentially dealing with the subject of the development agreement
are pending. Unlike a pending referendum which upon qualification
for the ballot halts implementation or adoption of legislation, a
pending initiative imposes no similar impediments.
Nonetheless, a strong argument can be made that the public
policy in support of the initiative right cannot be made compatible
with public officials acting in advance of an initiative to
effectively defeat the votersr ability to legislate. If by
approving a development agreement, a vested right is granted to a
developer, which an initiative could not dislodge, then the pending
initiative is made meaningless and the constitutional power of the
people to legislate through the initiative process is foreclosed.
Should the SOB initiative become law in November, litigation
would likely commence to resolve an array of legal issues to
determine whether the initiative or development agreement controls.
In order to avoid this litigation and in order to ensure that the
constitutional right of the people to adopt legislation by
initiative is fully protected, it is recommended that the
development agreement, lease and other documents, if approved,
should provide that they are subj ect to the November election
results.
since the City Attorney commenced preparation of this
memorandum, some members of the City Council have indicated that
they desire the project to be subject to the outcome of the
November elections. Mayor Pro Tern David Finkel has requested that
we outline the various options available to the City council if it
decides to make the project subject to the November elections.
We have identified four alternative approaches that the City
Council could take to make the development subject to the November
election.
First, the city council could provide that the development
agreement shall be subject to any changes in the law that occur in
the November election. This approach would preclude the developer
from obtaining a vested right before the election. However, this
approach could make the courts the final decision-maker on whether
the initiative measure applies to the project, since the developer
might assert that local zoning initiatives cannot apply to state
property and commence litigation challenging the applicability of
3
any approved initiative to the property. (The developer, for
example, asserted that the Santa Monica Bay Ordinance of 1973 could
not apply to the property because the city was preempted by state
law from applying such local ordinances to the subject property.)
Second, the City Council could place the development agreement
directly before the voters for a decision on whether the specific
project should be approved or disapproved.
Third, the City Council could provide that the development
agreement, lease and other documents shall be void and of no
further force or effect if a majority of the voters voting on the
SOB initiative at the Regular Municipal Election on November 6,
1990, vote in favor of such initiative and the SMLE initiative
either fails to be approved or is approved with less votes than the
SOB initiative. This approach resolves the potential conflicts
between the SOB and SMLE initiatives in favor of the measure that
is approved with the most votes.
Fourth, the city Council could provide that the development
agreement, lease and other documents shall be void and of no
further force or effect if a majority of the voters voting on the
SOB initiative at the Regular Municipal Election on November 6,
1990, vote in favor of such initiative. This approach resolves the
potential conflicts between the SOB and SMLE initiatives in favor
of the SOB initiative, which expressly prohibits hotels on the
subject property.
2. Proorietv of Revenue Targetinq Provisions.
Paragraphs 42, 43, and 44 of the Development Agreement attempt
to target various city revenues from the proj ect. These provis ions
are inappropriate in a development agreement.
The purpose of the development agreement is to enter into an
agreement for "the development of the property.1t Government Code
Section 65865. The appropriate contents of a development agreement
are set forth in Government Code Section 65865.2:
A development agreement shall specify the
duration of the agreement, the permitted uses
of the property, the density or intensity of
use, the maximum height and size of proposed
buildings, and may include provisions for
reservation of land for public purposes. The
development agreement may include conditions,
terms, restrictions, and requirements for
subsequent discretionary actions, provided
that such conditions, terms, restrictions, and
requirements for subsequent discretionary
4
actions shall not prevent development of the
land for the uses and to the density or
intensity of development set forth in the
agreement. The agreement may provide that the
construction shall be commenced within a
specified time and that the project or any
phase thereof be completed within a specified
time.
The agreement may also include terms and
conditions relating to applicant financing of
necessary public facilities and subsequent
reimbursement over time.
The purpose of the legislation authorizing development
agreement was to respond to concerns in the building industry that
there be certainty in the development approval process. Holliman,
Development Aqreements and Vested Rights in california, 13 The
Urban Lawyer 44, 45 (1981). Government Code section 65864 states
the purpose of for the law and states in subdivision (b):
Assurance to the applicant for a development
project that upon approval of the project, the
applicant may proceed with the project in
accordance with the existing policies, rules
and regulations, and subject to conditions of
approval, will strengthen the public planning
process, encourage private participation in
comprehensive planning, and reduce the
economic costs of development.
Paragraphs 42, 43, and 44 fall well-outside the bounds of what
is appropriately included in a development agreement.
Paragraph 43 mandates that for a ten year period, various
revenues obtained from the lease of the property shall be deposited
into the Beach Fund. This requirement currently mirrors ci ty
obligations pursuant to an operating agreement with the state of
California dated September 1, 1981. Paragraph 44 mandates that for
a ten year period the transient occupancy tax generated from the
project shall be allocated to Bay restoration, certain park
purposes, and the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District.
Both paragraphs 43 and 44 "are solely for the benefit of
members of the general public" and the developer expressly waives
any right to enforce them.
In effect, the developer is seeking to confer a vested right
upon members of the public which may not be changed by subsequent
ordinance or initiative. The vehicle of development agreement
cannot limit the authority of the City to take subsequent action
in areas unrelated to conferring upon the developer a vested right
5
for the project. Government Code section 65866 makes clear that
revenue targeting provisions of the development agreement would not
preclude subsequent legislative action by the City to change the
method of allocation:
Unless otherwise provided by the
development agreement, rules, regulations, and
official policies governing permitted uses of
the land, governing density, and governing
design, improvement, and construction
standards and specifications, applicable to
development of the property subj ect to the
development agreement, shall be those rules,
regulations, and official policies in force at
the time of execution of the agreement.
Our schools and other public services clearly suffer from a
lack of financial support by the taxpayers of this state. The City
clearly has the power to assist the school system with financial
aid. However, the development review process is not the proper
forum for this financial assistance.
6
ATTACHHENT 1
HEMORAHDUH
DATE:
May 23, 1990
TO:
Planning Commission
FROM:
Robert M. Myers, City Attorney
Development Agreement for Santa Monica Beach
Hotel and Community Center
RE:
The purpose of this memorandum is to provide the planning
commission with information about the application of the Santa
Monica Bay Ordinance of 1973 to the development agreement for the
Santa Monica Beach Hotel and Community Center ("projectU). This
issue arose during the course of negotiations with the Santa Monica
Beach Development Limited Partnership ("developern). A separate
memorandum is being prepared for City council consideration on the
impact of pending initiatives on the development agreement and on
the legality of paragraphs 42, 43, and 44 relating to revenue
targeting.
The Santa Monica Bay Ordinance of 1973 was adopted by the
citizens of Santa Monica on April 10, 1973. with certain limited
exceptions, the ordinance provides that U[n)o person shall
construct, build, or assemble any building, pier or island seaward
of the mean high tide line, unless such person shall have obtained
a permit from the City Manager." (Section S(A).) No permit may
be issued by the city Manager unless "[t]he voters of the city of
Santa Monica, by a majority vote specifically approve the proposed
island, pier, or building in an election wherein the proposal is
specifically described in the ballot measure." (Section 5(B) (2).)
In addition to other remedies, lI[a]ny resident of Santa Monica may
bring a civil action to enjoin any violation of this ordinance.1I
(Section 9.)
The mean high tide line for purposes of the ordinance is the
1921 mean high tide line as set forth in Municipal Code section
10229. (Section 4(B).)
For purposes of the ordinance, "building" is defined as
follows:
"Building" is a structure have
supported by columns or walls.
includes structure. (Section 4(C).)
a roof
Building
1
A portion of the subterranean parking structure will extend
approximately 100 feet seaward of the mean high tide line. Thus,
a question has arisen whether a permit is required in accordance
with the terms of the Santa Monica Bay Ordinance of 1973.
It is well-established that in seeking to interpret a
statutory scheme, one must first turn to the words of the statute
itself. See Carroll v. state Bar of California, 166 Cal. App. 3d
1193, 1200, 213 Cal. Rptr. 305, 308-09 (1985). Indeed, when the
words of a statute are clear and unambiguous, there is no need to
undertake statutory construction. Tiernap v. Trustees of Cal. st.
University, 33 Cal. 3d 211, 218 655 P.2d 317, 322, 188 Cal. Rptr.
115, 120 (1983); Mitchell v. Franchise Tax Board, 183 Cal. App. 3d
1133, 1136-37, 228 Cal. Rptr. 750, 752 (1986). The clear meaning
of the words themselves controls. Berain v. Portman, 141 Cal. App.
3d 23,26,190 Cal. Rptr. 81, 82 (1983). The clear provisions of
a statute cannot be enlarged under the guise of statutory
construction even if such an interpretation would bring about a
more desirable or equitable result. Comite de Padres de Familia
v. Honiq, 192 Cal. App. 3d 528, 532, 237 Cal. Rptr. 517, 518-19
(1987); Simpson v. Unemployment Ins. Compo App. Board, 187 Cal.
App. 3d 342, 351, 231 Cal. Rptr. 690, 694-95 (1986).
The attorney for the developer has asserted that this
ordinance is ambiguous as applied to this project:
There are at least two ambiguous
prov1s1ons of the Bay Ordinance which relate
to the subterranean garage at the Project.
First, the Bay Ordinance prohibits
construction of buildings seaward of the mean
high tide line. However, it is unclear
whether this prohibition applies to below
grade construction as well as above grade
construction. Second, the term ubuildingU is
defined in the Bay Ordinance as Ua structure
having a roof supported by columns or walls.
Building includes structure." It is unclear
whether a subterranean garage is a building or
structure within the meaning of the Bay
Ordinance. A subterranean garage does have
walls which support a ceiling. However, it is
unclear whether a ceiling would be classified
as a "roof" and the term roof is not defined
by the Bay Ordinance. (Memorandum to Robert
M. Myers from Christopher M. Harding dated May
1, 1990, at 12-13.)
Based upon this ambiguity, it is argued that a subterranean
parking structure is not a building within the definition of the
ordinance based upon the stated purpose of the ordinance:
2
It is clear from these sections that the
central purpose of the Bay Ordinance was to
prohibit structures interfering with the view
of the Santa Monica Bay. A subterranean
garage cannot interfere with any views since
it is below grade. 14. at 16.
Among attorneys in the city Attorney' s office there is
substantial disagreement about whether the ordinance is ambiguous
and, if so, whether the purpose of the ordinance includes
prohibi ting subterranean parking structures. Because of this
disagreement, we cannot predict with certainty how a court might
interpret the ordinance as applied to this project.
A reasonable argument can be made that the ordinance is not
ambiguous. The developer's attorney asserts that the ordinance is
unclear whether it applies to below grade construction. However,
the ordinance is clear that it applies to construction seaward of
the mean high tide line. As Section 5A provides, II [n]o person
shall construct. . . any building, pier, or island seaward of the
mean high tide line. . . . U UnderWater or underground facilities
would, in many situations, be "detrimental to the ecosystem of the
Santa Monica Bay." (Section 2(E).)
Likewise, a subterranean parking structure would seem to fall
squarely within the definition of building. The attorney for the
developer argues that the term building is ambiguous because it is
unclear whether or not a subterranean parking structure has a roof
and roof is not defined in the ordinance. However, the ordinance
provides in Section 4 that U[o]ther words and terms not
specifically defined herein and not defined elsewhere in the Santa
Monica City Charter, City Code, or California or federal law shall
be defined according to common usage consistent with the purpose
of this ordinance.u The City's zoning ordinance currently defines
"roof" as U[t]hat portion of a building or structure above walls
or columns that shelters the floor area or the structure below."
Municipal Code Section 9000.3. Under this definition, a
subterranean parking structure appears to have a roof.
Moreover, even if the ordinance is ambiguous, the purposes of
the ordinance would appear to be frustrated by many types of below
grade construction. The ordinance either applies to all below
grade construction seaward of the mean high tide line or does not
apply to any below grade construction. Prohibiting all below grade
construction seaward of the mean high tide line is fully consistent
with the purpose of the ordinance to "preserve the natural beauty
and environment of Santa Monica Bay."
In the opinion of the city Attorney, there is a reasonable
possibility that the ordinance would be interpreted by the court
to prohibit the construction of the subterranean parking structure
seaward of the mean high tide line without approval of the voters.
3
However, recognizing the substantial disagreement among attorneys
in this office, the City Attorney cannot give an unqualified
opJ.nJ.on that the ordinance precludes the subterranean parking
structure. Accordingly, the development agreement provides for an
alternative parking scheme in the event a court does conclude that
the structure seaward of the mean high tide line is prohibited
without voter approval.
(The attorney for the developer has also asserted that the
City is preempted by state law from applying the ordinance to this
project. This argument has no merit. Insofar as the City of Santa
Monica is involved in the approval of the project and the issuance
of permits therefor, such approvals and permits must be consistent
with all provisions of city law.)
4
.
tjIO/{J/?
.
C/ED:CPD:
w/ssbron
July 17, 1990
Santa Monica, California
INFORMATION ITEM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: City staff
SUBJECT: Response To June 29, 1990 Letter From Clare Bronowski
INTRODUCTION
This report provides the council with clarification of the issues
raised in the June 29, 1990 letter from Clare Bronowski to the
City Council. The issues raised include the following:
1. Necessity for Recirculation of the Finai EIR.
2. Legal Inadequacies of the EIR.
3. Appropriateness of a Development Agreement.
4. General Plan Consistency
5. Lack of city Control and Developer's Guarantee
6 Proposed Additional Conditions and Hi tigation
I1easures.
Issues 1 through 4
The first four issues were raised in connection with the Planning
Commission review of the project and as a result a response was
prepared by Carlyle Hall and city staff.
The response from
Carlyle Hall dated May 30, 1990, and the portion of the May 30,
1990 Planning Commission staff report on the use of development
agreements are still applicable and are attached for review by
the Council.
- 1 -
.
.
within issue No.2, Legal Inadequacies of the EIR, Ms. Bronowski
has brought up several new points. She questions the EIR
analysis and finding that the addition of l60 working fireplaces
at this location will not have an adverse air quality impact.
The air quality analysis cited on page IV-C-16 of the DEIR
calculated fireplace emissions under worst case conditions.
Fireplace emissions are highly variable and are a function of
both wood characteristics and operating practices. In general,
condi tions which promote a fast burn rate and a higher flame
intensi ty will enhance secondary combustion and thereby lower
emissions. Mitigation measures require that all fireplace
designs shall be of a type that facilitates fast burn rates and
high intensity flames, particularly through the use of hearth
insert type equipment. As a result, no significant impacts are
anticipated.
In relation to site access, Ms. Bronowski states that the EIR
inadequately addresses the impact from vehicles entering and
exiting the project on Pacific Coast Highway, that the EIR does
not provide an analysis of an additional driveway exit lane on
PCH traffic, and that the Development Agreement does not provide
assurances that the signal coordination plan will be implemented
by the developer.
The FEIR provides a detailed traffic study that analyzes project
traffic on Pacific Cost Highway. In addition, response to
comments (Q-3), letter Q, Palisades Beach Property Owners
Association, provided the analysis and determination that the
proj ect driveway should be widened to accommodate two outbound
- 2 -
.
.
lanes to facilitate traffic turning south towards Santa Monica.
The analysis concluded that the additional right turn lane would
permit right turn movements to exit the site without waiting for
left turning vehicles, thus reducing delays to the right turning
traffic, decreasing the amount of vehicles which may be forced to
queue within the project site, and decreasing the amount of green
time which would be allocated to the driveway and thereby
creating delays along Pacific Coast Highway.
Attachment D to the Development Agreement, Right of Way and
Access, requires the developer to prepare and implement a signal
coordination plan prior to the installation of the traffic
signal.
The letter questions the Resolution certifying the EIR,
specifically, Section 4 (t) (2), stating that the finding is
unacceptable and is not supported by the evidence in the record.
The Resolution contains two findings relating to site access and
right of way, Findings 4 (t) (1), and 4 (t) (2).
The first
finding sets forth ten mitigation measures that were identified
in the EIR to reduce impacts related to access and right of way.
The three phase traffic signal is one of the ten proposed
measures. The second finding states that, in the event Cal Trans
does not approve the three phase signal, and therefore it is not
installed, the project will not create a significant impact.
'Ihis conclusion is substantiated in the FEIR Volume I, section
IV-L. The FEIR analyzed the project without the installation of
the signal and found that no significant impacts would occur due
to a lack of a signal. However, to improve access to and from
- 3 -
----
.
- v -
.
.Ul'12 00:9
pUl? .m. 12 00: 2:1 JO s..:moq al.r~. ua6Jo\:+aq .J:a".:\.ua::>
A=+TUnUIUlo;J att=+ ".:\.~ ToqooT~ JO aT~s al.!:+ s:+lUl1T
va aq+ aou1s aTqe=+dao:::lE ".:\.ou 5T u01=+TPuo~ aq~
: (~)E# uOl:+TPuo::>
.=+UE:::l1Tdde aq=+
=+ou PUE 5ue~~ Te:) JO UOT+~lPsT~n~ al.!=+ .J:apun s1
=+1 aou15 =+~a~o~d al.!:+ 0+ pa~uTT aq ".:\.OU PTnotts
ueTd u01".:\.l?U1P~OOO Tl?U015 att=+ JO uOT=+e=+u6UlaTdmI
, Teuo1s aq=+ }O u01:+~.J:ado 0=+ ~oT~d
UETd u01=+12zTuo.J:q:::lUA5 reuo15 E JO U01:+12.;[-eda~d
aq".:\. sa..1:plba.1 va aq,r, , u.J:a:moo s1Q:+ ssa.1pp-e
0=+ a5en5ul21 sU1e=+uoo Xpea~T12 va 6tt::j. aouls
alq~=+daooE ::j.OU 51 pasodo.J:d 5-e uOT=+ TPUO:::l aq.r,
:Z# uOT=+lpuo;J
'=+lUl.1ad nUTP1Tnq 12 JO aou12nssl
0+ .;[01..1:d apEll! aq +5nll! au~t U01=+E~aTa:::lOE al.I=+ UO
UOTST:::lap ati".:\. aouTs atql2=+daooe 51 U01:+TPUO:::l al.!~
:1# uO'T".:\.1Puo::>
:aSUOd5a..1: S,}}12+s sau11=+no oUT~OI10J
aq,r. 'su01~lPuOO T12uol=+1Ppe 8 S:+511 ..1:6:+:+a1 sll~s~ouo~g JO 01 ao12d
5a..1:nSeaw uOl:+EoT+1W pu12 suo1=+1puoJ lEu01=+lPPV pa5odo..1:d
':+uaUlaa~ov :+uamdOTaAaa pu12 UOT:+lsodsTa
aq=+ pu12 Jase6~ puno..1:~ l=+uamaa.J:ov u01ssaouoJ 8l.!:+ ulq=+r~ paSSa.1ppE
uaaq aAEq s=+uammoo asaq+ JO =+50W
'0661 JE AlnE uo :+..1:oda.J:
JJl2+s TTouno::> A:+TJ aq::j. JO aSEaTa~ 0:+ .J:oT~d pa+JE~p se~ ..1:a=+=+a1 eq,r.
aa+UE~BnD sl~adOlaAaG pUB 10..1:".:\.uo::> A=+l::> }O ~:::lE~
.paAo.J:ddE =+OU
51 TEUDrS aq::j. :+uaAa al.!=+ ur padoTaAap aq ABU! :+oa~o.1d aq:+ JEo1uoW
E::j.UES JO ^=+ T::> aq=+ JO 10.:quO:::l aq=+ u1q=+ 1/0\ :tOU PUE ' 5U1:?.:::l:,L 1'e::>
JO U01=+o1Ps1.1n~ aq=+ .J:apun 51 TEUDrS aq:+ asnEoaq ".:\.nq 'paTTe=+suT
aq PTnoqs reuDT5 aq=+ =+l2tt=+ 5a:+l2=+s '8:l3: aq=+ oUrAJ1=+.J:ao uOT=+nTosa.J:
att=+
Je.J:OJ8..1:aq,L
. TEUDrS aSEqd aa.:n.{:+ aq~ JO u01=+E1Tl?".:\.sul
aq=+ a~nSEam UOT:+EoT-=+Tm E 512 papuammoOa.J: ~I~~ a~:+ a:+ls aq=+
Condition #3(b):
condition #3(c):
Condition #3(d):
Condition *3(e):
Condition #3(f):
Condition #3(g):
Condition #4:
Condition #5(a):
Condition #5(b):
Condition #5(c):
Condition #5(d):
condition #6:
Condition #7:
.
.
The condition is not acceptable since the DA
limits the sale of alcohol in the Hotel
between the hours of 2:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m.
The condition is acceptable and is already
included in the DA.
The condition is not acceptable. If hours are
to be limited, they should be at least from
7am to 9 pm.
The condition is not acceptable. The DA
requires the developer to meet with the Police
Department for security design assistance.
Prior to issuance of a building permit the
Developer shall receive Police Department
approval of a security plan for the project.
The condition is not acceptable. Exhibit "0"
to the DA (General Services requirements)
requires a twice daily litter cleanup effort
during the summer and once daily during the
winter with 500' of the project.
The condition is not acceptable or necessary.
Any activity or use will comply with the
provisions of the Noise Ordinance.
The condition is not acceptable. Sufficient
provisions exist in the Concessions Agreement,
Ground Lease, and the Disposition and
Development Agreement.
The condition is acceptable.
The condition is acceptable provided the
following change is made: Haul trucks shall
be located at least 100 feet from the south
property line and 50 feet from the north
property line.
The condition is acceptable.
The condition is not acceptable. The DA
requires pile drilling with tie down anchor
method to minimize noise impacts.
The condition is not acceptable.
requires all subterranean parking
located at least 50' away from
residential properties.
The DA
vents be
adjacent
The condition is not acceptable. The DA
requires all kitchen vents to use a charcoal
or similar air filtration system.
- 5 -
Condition #B:
.
.
The condition is not acceptable. The DA
requires outdoor lighting to be reduced after
peak hours. Outdoor lighting of the Hotel and
Community Center is restricted to security
lighting between the hours 12:00 am and 6:00
am.
- 6 -
"
. HALL t3 PHJLUPS
I
.
I
I
I
,
.JC.....N PI Pt-d...:"IP5
C.....OL,.--...{:.. ...... IHA_Lt ..,JR
_'~.... ~T I. (; ;:"_=-5" ~1...1
......"Y ~O'-"S~ CC,,!:,..
A1"iCR"l~,{S .1.1 t.....'N
IOgSI W~5T riCO Il OUL.EVARC:. THIRC F'1..0CR
Lc~ ^"Cll..f.~. UU1ClI.JoolrA 90064.<!IS6
:r Cwl,:N-SCl.
G~OFFR~Y ~:::""""N
11......11'.:1::::", go I'\,R.....",.,~.A
CYNTHI... D ilOSill"S
Te:L~I'..ONl. [2.31 "70-20C,
n::~c<;c",c~ IZI;]l "7"-7009::1
P',jIlt.JC I...T!:~E:S~
V:~.':'I""G r'[_l-OWS
~Y..... E e~-'s
A""N .! C;.R....-=-:i~
C":"';;l:L)ot .... ~Cp')
l.AI,..:~::" ^ SA._'r--tCEnS
Hay 30, 1990
VIA p~X
(2~3) ~'-i-0992
S~n~~ Xonica ?lan~i~g CC~i5Sio~
~anta Monica ci~y p.all
2685 ~aln Street
San~a ~cn~ca, calirOT~ia
Re: ~IR Issues Rec2rc~ng ~~e PrcDcsec Sa~ta ~or.ica
3e2ch Rote~ and CO~~~hity Certe~ -- EI~ No. S~8i
$c~ No 88~3027
Dear CC~:SSloners:
This flY? has be~n r~talhed bv the Sa~~a Monica c~tv
~~.o~np'Tls C?fiC~ -5 -~eCl~' c~uns~l ~e~aYc',~c c~~~l~anc~
.....'-'- .J.... -;1 ..L.__ - c:. ~,:; c:;o..... k.J .. Il,;.. - ':1 - _....... -..}~_~...... --:"' .......
~i~h t~e califoy~ia r~viron~er.~al Quallty Act's envirc~€n-
tal i~Dact reno~t re~~ir€~en~s as thev relate to the Ci~V'S
~ ... - ... t'"
nrocessir.c of the Sa~~a Monica Beach Hotel a~d Co~u~ity
Cen~er. i have been asked to respond to three ~Oln~s
rega=ding CEQA raised In the }~y 18, 1$90 letter ~TiLte~ ~y
~~~orney Claire Brcnowskl ~~ ~ehalf of the palisaees Reach
?roperty Ow~ers Association.
.,
- .
Adem13CY o! th~ Public Review P~r~cd fer t~9 ?inAl
E'R ?rior to t~e ~lar.i~q Cc~.lsGion H~ar~~qs.
Ms. Bronow~k~ cite& th~ Clty1b ~ay 9, 1990 lette~
that adv~sec of thQ availablli~y of t~a Final E:~ a~d
notlfiec the publlc of the Plann~ng CC~~~65~cnI8 ~ay 23rd
?~bl~c hearing rQgarding thQ Hotal and Ccmmun~ty ~er.~~r.
She a~~Qrts (at pp.~-2) that this limited e~ount cf tl,-e
-
Santa Monica Plann1ng Com~isslon
}l'..ay 30, 1990
Page 3
2.
:!ihether the Plnal EIRI s Disc~s~~()!1
AlteTnatives Is ~de~J~tp.
-j
of Pra;ect
I
i
,
I
Ms. Brono~skl asserts (at pp. 5-6) that the Final
E~R'S discussion of proJect alternatives ~s ~hade~~a~e uhd~r
C:::QA because, IJthe.re is a ca"rlsistent r~11ance on;the r.;cuc_c
fiscal benefits of reduced develop~ents as a ba~~~ to rwJoct
alternatJ..ves" chd because tbe C.1.SCClSS.:lOn of alternat,::"vd
s.:~es is lIc~rsary ar..d inac.e.sc.atell due to th.. pro]Gct1s "sit...
specific objectives." i
l
The State CEQA Gci~~l~neb spGci:y that~~~e EI~
r
i
I
;
J
:ilUbt:
Cescri~6 a ~a~ce of ~e~3Qne9le
alte~nat~ves to the proJect,
or to the location of the
proJect, which could fe~Slb~Y
attain the basic g9~ective~ cf
~he p=cject er.d ev~lu~~e the
corr?e~at~ve te~1~s o~ ~he
e!.ltern1::.t~ve:s.
~ 15l26(d). (~~phasls sup~l:ed.) T~e calitorr.ia :s~p~e~e
Ccu=-t rece:1tly st:=essed tha-: "one of [ilil :E!R'S] rr;ajoy
f~~C~lCDS. . is to E~SU~~ t~at ~ll reasci~ble I
21terT-a~ives are ~noroughly assessed by the ~esp~ns~le
c==icial." :..aurel neiqbts I~?rOVel'l'e'1L ;'.ss I n v Recents o.f
t~e Dniv. of ca11tcrnia (~S89) 47 Cal.3d 376, 25~ ca~.xpt~.
~26. (E."lp~asis suppl.ied..) i
~e~e, the flnal ErR Clscu5sed a broad ra~~e cf
alterr.atlves encc~passirg several dlfferer.t developien~ and
"-on-cevelc?~ent opclons. Notably, even tbo~Sh the sta~e
Deoa~ment of Park and Recreation (vh~ch o~r.s the prope~ty
~~.q~estlon) has ~andated that any deve~o~r.ent of t~e slte
~~st obta~n a f2~~ return O~ the fa~r ~a~ke~ value of ~he
croc€~v cr.d has soecified t~at such a falr re~uYn ~oulc ~e
~t ieast $.5 r.illion ann~ally, the ErR c~r.s~=erea sc~e
alternatives t~at, ~Dcn ar.alysis, would ~ct a~~aLrc ~~a~
speclfied f~scal ObJEctlve. Tte State ~as in=crned the Clty
that the II fal.r returnl1 re~.:dre:!!:ent l5 e::nbac.led In s~2te
leg~slaticn and that It ~s deslgnec to prEven~ agalns~
t~llC subsidization of a ccm~Erci~l ente~~~lse thToua~ a
iess-than-fair-rra~ke~-value lease to the c~~~~rc~l Q~ti~y_
T~e staLe has also incica~ed ~ts prefer~nce fo= a ~e~u~
tha~ ~ould exceed the ~ini~~ fair ret~=~ so as tc gQ~QratQ
funds for a broad gnv~ron~ental purpo~Q: prov~ci~~~
cperational and ~3~4te~anCQ f~~d~ ~cr ~hQ bta~a ~ach~~
.i
I
I
i
.-1 b .. I
operate~ y t~e c~ty. Nothlng In CEQ~ wc~ld precl~de t~e
C~ty fro~ t~ki~g into aCCGur.t these s~a~e speci!1ed project
objectives wher. evaluating Lhe various projec~ alternatlves.
T~e city may consider and chose a proJect alte~native that
would ~o~ meet these p~oject objectives, but any\such cho:ce
would ce sUbject to the state's ultl=ate reJection cf that
al~ernative due to the state leglslatlon and pOllcies ncted
above. FU~ther, it appears that the Clty ltself !co~curred
in theSE project c~Jectlves when it cir~~lated ~e RFP
regarding t~e SUbjEct pa~cel. I
I
It should also be noted that the EIR evaluatec
several off-s~~e alterratives ter a proposed hct~l p~oJectJ
even t~cugn such off-slte alternatlves would c~2arly not
achieve the site-s;ec:f:c objectives rcndated by !the sta~e
regarding ternlnatlon of pr~vate club uses of t~e state
awned la~d in question and regarding cbtalnin~ a ifai~
econonic return fo~ that land. A~a~n, ~~e ElR he~e has gone
beyond the C2QA Guidel:nes Ye~~~re=ents by cGnslderir.g
al te!'hatives that would net 2r.eet t.~ese baslc :proJ'ect
obJectives. Ttese alte~atives were incl~ced :~ ,the ErR so
that t~e Cltv Geclsicn-~ckers ~ould be i~:c~ed cf a ~lde
range of p=ojec~ opt:o~s, even cptic~s t~ct may ~ct ful=lll
casic proJect oCJect~ves.
.
Santa Monica
Hay 30, 1990
Page -1-
?lann1ng co~~i~~~on
U::ide~ t::ese circunsta~cQs, J..-t :'5 0'-"'- C:;;':'::i.l.C~ tha~
~e :l~al EI2Js discuss2cn of projEc~ 2lte~at~vQs ~s
legally adequate u~cer C~QA.
;
3. ~net~eT t"& Fi~al EI~ ar.d Aacendur. HUb~ B~
R8C~~GU~atad for ~n Add~t~o~a~ ?cu~d of p~~~c
CO"""r:~Q",'t:b
Ms. Eror.ows~i conter.d~ (at pp. 2-3) ~~~~ ~ne final
EIR a~d Addend~~ ~~~~ be r~c~rc~leted fc~ a ne~ ~cu~a c~
;~l~c co~ent~ C~e to u~u.b~te:r:tlc..l neW i:l::c~~ti.Gn and.
t;::t'oject ::rodl=;.cet~o:1.5."
CEQA re~~~~e5 t~~t an LIR ~ust te recirculatea Ior
~ddJ.t:~O:1a~ p~bllc c~mnents wher. "sign:!.!2-.cant r:eN'infor::i2.-
ticn ::'5 adc.ec,n "to ar EIR a!te.!: circ~la"t.lcn c! a ~a!~ ElF..
~~d C~lar to certi:icatian or a ~inal EIR. See ~~. Res.
-ode- p. 210"'2' ~"'re ...ne "-"er.r ~"""or:na-~on"-citc.,-'l b', Ms
....... ::::I __;J. _.. .....- I .....4.1. ... ~ ..;.........;... 'l,..."':" .... ___ .1.
ero~o~ski Yela~es tc the possible reces~gn of the -
~~de~ground pa~king garage ~hat is descrlbed In tte E~R
Adde~du~. Tr_e issue 15 whether thlS pcssible reQEslgn
constitutes "sl:::n::.fl.cant new lnfor:natl.on." ;'.ccord.:.nc: to tce
"j;'IR "~de"'''''u~ ....;,e ""'050<::,1-1,:;, c:a.....ace re"';",c:.'Sn t.''''''.l'd p-r''::'ar,'"
~ .... n-.......A.. _J.~ LL", '-...... i:-" _..L._ - ..... .......... ___..... '(/1/"-'''- - ...L.-:'L. - --.1
i~volve a =ecta,,~ular shaped, rather than square 5hap~dl
~~dcrsro~r.d 5t~ucture so as to keep t~e subsurface s~ruct~re
.
I
el
I
I
!
Santa Monica Planning Cor~ission
Hay 30, 1990
Page 5
I
entir~ly ~ast of ~~e 1921 MQan High Tid~ LinQ. ~hi~ ~culd
not chargQ ei~her thQ sro~b or the adju~tQd floor arga of
the proposed prej~ctr and ~o~ld en~ail thQ less ~f only 2
OU~ of 527 parking spaCQ~ (lQ~~ than ana percent). Yu~her,
although the pc~~iblQ rQdss~gn vould inc~ease non-traffic
S6:lerating hallvay space for the undergrO\.:nd "back-of-ho\4~en
hO~Ql ad~inistrative oif1ces by about 2500 5q.ft.l, tr~ffic
ganarating space of a?pro~ir.ately 2500 ~q. ft. ~iat W~5
proposed for the hotell~ lI~clti-purpo~e 1:'001:\11 would be
deleted. Th::'5 d-elet~on would le~3en -t:!-_e prc;e.ct '_;5 i1;I":Jncts
by 51ightly re.duc~ng traffic i~pccts n~d by ~llc~in9 ~ ~ore
expensive ~cve-=urface vie~ corridor. I~ceed{ ~he only
di~cer~eble l~cre~se i~ p~tential adverse ~~~acts would be
cue to the g~e~ter volu~e of earth (lS7,OCO c~.ydS" rather
than 112,000 cu.yds.) to be excavated by t~e pos~ible garage
redesign. According to the EIR AdQe~d~n, ~owever, this
c~e~ter volu~e of excavation would T2sult :n no s1cni~icant
~nyironmental impacts. ror all prac~ical purposes; the main
Gi~!erence te~~een the original garage d8s~gn a~a t~e
possible redesign is that t:~e duration of tetpora~
cons~ruct~on a~tlv~tles would be exte~ded bv c few ~on~s
(e.g., frcrn 6.5 t~ 9.75 ponths for derrclltlon a~d r.ass
excava~lon). It seems h~ghly unl~kely t~at public con~e~ts
about a 9 mcntn excavatlon schedule wculd d~=fer :In any
~eanlnaful way from TIubllC cca~e~ts about a 6 r.c~~h
c:: . ..", T -....."!,.t.,.. ,;'..... ,.. 4...,...._, 1-."" ...... "'l~ .,....."...1 ~~..;.. 1---.e
_cne.c__e. _~ ,-<__5 ..:. _on,-, ~ecl_.....U C1 ,-l~n ",au ~ a.~....-e__ ...0 _ <=
~aan~ngless ey.e~c:se sl~?ly delaying considera~lcn o~
projec~ approval. (Cf. state CEQA Guidellnes ~ l5100(b):
liThe ~eq.l::r:e::!ent for -:~e prepa~aticr. cf an En shculd not
ccuse unc~e delays lr. ~~e precessing cf appl:c~~icns for
cermi ts or other e r.-::.. tle::nBnts f 0::- llse. It} ~
. I
I
Finally, Ms. Bronow5k~, uYges (at p~. 2-3) ~hat
vaYicus project redesigns and moaif~cGt~ons recc~e"cad by
t~e final EIR fer lncorporation into the prcJec~ as
Gi~igation measures -- such as redesign of t~e bc=.l reOD
~ings anc eleva~lc~5. redesign of ~he C~~~~r.~~y CGntGr'b
interior, aDd '.:lcs::,abl '7 relecating tl:.c- 11 I:lU 1 t:,-purPosa rco~1I
-- occas~on th~ neec fer r~c~rculat~cn of the Fir~l EI~.
SiS~ifican~lYI hcwave~, all of th2~Q propcsed ~~t~gat~o~
~a6Ures ar. ~hG result of 5cec~=ic co~~ents by ~l~c
agQnc~es and ~~e general pUbi~c about the origln~ proJect
desLgnj all are prcpoeec to le~~en end ~it2cate potential
env1ro~~ental i~pact~ ~~en~ified in t~e d~~=t EIR; andl
according to the fi~al ErR, none would crea~e ~ni
s1gnificant additio~al e~viron~ent~l ~p~ct~. Age~n, t~e
cublic ~a~ already had the onpcrt'~itv ~o co~~~~er ~be
propc~ed pr~Jec~ ~nd lt~ pot~;tiel i~p~c~~ and to sugge5t
Fotent~al ~~t~g~t~o~ ~e~su~es. !f recirculat~or. ~e~e
required fc~ eVe~ pro?osed project IDod~fica~~cn and
.
i
I
I
.1
I
I
I
I
i
i
Santa Monica Planning Co~ission
Hay 301 1990
Page 6
;
~itigation neasu~e, public agencies, fearlng del~Ys In
projec~ app~oval I~om endless rounds of recirculat~c~, ~ould
have little lncentive to mcke O~ accept such changes. Eee
Sta~e of Callforni2 v, Bleck (9th Cir. 1982) 690 :F.2d 753,
171 (lnte=?reting NEPA): 1TIf an agency nust Ille ia
suppleDer.~al dra=t ErR eve~y time any toditicaticns occur,
cgencies as a ~ractical ~atter ~ay become hostilE to
nodifyi~g the alternatives tD be respansiv~ ~o e~~li~r
publ1.c cOlI'21Ients.1I P2~sons lJishJ..;).g to S:UqC'~s't tnat Uey
cisagree WiLh th~ ~~tiC'ation~ trorosed i~Jth~ flnal E!~ may,
... ... r:- 1-
of course, testify to that QffQct at thQ publ~c ~~ar~ngs O~
the proJect and/or ~ay send in t~eir furthQr ~r~tten
CC~E~nt5 to t~e Plannln~ co~~issicn O~ thG city Counc~l.
~ - !
Ur-oar ~h6bB c~~cun6t~nces, l~ ~s cu= cpinion th~t
rGcirculation of tr.e Fin~l EIR and/o~ ^cdend~ is not
~QcuJ..rQd (lUG to the CirCU:i.5ta~ce~ alleo:::ed. l1":. ~3. !Bror..c,"-",l'sk.:.' s
latter 9 - ~
,
or:rI: te
[FSEO.;S5}
3 .
Use of Develorme~Agreements
.
In correspondence submitted by th attorney for The Palisades
Beach Property Owners Association, a contention was wade
that the City is violating its 0\\.'11 Zoning Code by giving
various land use approvals through the Development Agreement
instead of th~ough standard procedures outlined in the Code.
Contrary to this contention, Development Agreements are
authorized by the Santa Honica Municipal Code Section 9800
et. seq., and California Government Code Section 65864 et.
seq. Development Agreements adopted by ordinance are
effective to vary the procedures or requirements for
otherwise applicable land use permits, and the scope of
subsequent discretionary review by the Landmarks COI:"Wlissicn
and Architectural Review Board (see California Government
Code Sections 65865.2, 65866).
The Environ~ental Impact Report and the Development Agreement
fully describe the proposed land use and building
requirements for the proj ect. Contrary to the contention
that the public is not being adequately info~ed concerning
these approvals, the procedure for adoption of a Development
Agree~ent provides for even greater public input and
protection that the standard procedures for the granting of
variances, conditional use permits, or similar development
approvals.
A public hearing concerning the intention to enter into a
Development Agreement is duly notlced pursuant to Sec'tlon
9810 of the Zoning Code. Public Hearings are held before the
Planning co~mission and before the city Council. The
Developnent Agreement is approved through the adoption of an
ordinance. Variances and conditional use permits, by
contrast, may be approved by the Zoning Adminlstrator or
Planning Commission and are never heard by the City Council
other than approvals, if appealed. The adoption of a
Development Agreement by the City council is subj ect to
referendum by the public, whereas the City Council's actlon
uphOlding an appeal would not be. Thus the scope of public
review and corr~ent has not been limlted through the
Development Agreement approval process.
~. Additional Conditions of Approval
In response to pUblic testimony, staff reco~~ends the
consideration of three additional conditions of apprcval.
1. A precise signal coordination plan shall be prepared and
implemented at the tlme of design and installation of
the proposed signal. This plan shall include
synchronlzing the FCR signals at
Channel/Entrada/Chautau~Ja, the project driveway and the
Callfornia Incline. The plan shall be based on and
tailored to the actual traffic volumes existing at that
time. All costs of the plan preparation and
i~plementation shall be borne by the developer.
- 4 -