R-10507RESOLUTION NUMBER 10507 (CCS)
(City Council Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA MAKING FINDINGS
NECESSARY TO APPROVE THE LAND USE AND CIRCULATION ELEMENT
{LUCE) AND ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS
AND MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN
WHEREAS, the staff of the City of Santa Monica, working with technical
consultants, has prepared a Final Environmental Impact Report {°Final EIR") that
analyzes the potentially significant environmental effects of the Land Use and
Circulation Element (LUCE) Project; and
WHEREAS, the Final EIR was completed in April 2010, incorporating the
23 comment letters that were received and the written responses to each of
these comment letters along with some minor clarifications and corrections; and
WHEREAS, the Final E1R has been prepared in accordance with State
and City CEQA guidelines; and
WHEREAS, on July 6, 2010 the City Council of the City of Santa Monica
{"City Council"), as the City's decision-making body„ certified (i) that the Final EIR
was completed in compliance with CEQA, (ii) that the City Council has reviewed
and considered the information in the. Final EIR, and (iii) that the Final EIR reflects
the independent judgment of the City as Lead Agency,
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA
MONICA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Consistent with Article IV, Section 6 of the City of Santa Monica
CEQA Guidelines and Section 15128 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the Initial
StudyJNotice of Preparation determined that the following environmental impacts
were not considered potentially significant and were not addressed further in the
Final EIR: Agricultural Resources and Mineral Resources.
SECTION 2. Consistent with Article VI, Section 12 of the City of Santa
Monica CEQA Guidelines and Section 15091 and 15092 of the State CEQA
Guidelines, and as
detailed in the Final EIR at Sections 4.1, 4.3, 4.5, 4.6, 4.7, 4.8, 4.10, 4.11, 4.14, and 4.15,
incorporated herein by reference, the City Council finds that there are no significant
impacts for Aesthetics and Visual Quality, Biological Resources, Geology and Soils,
Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality; Land Use, Population
and Housing, Public Services, Global Climate Change, and Energy, and as detailed in the
Final EIR at Section 4.14 there are beneficial impacts for Global Climate Change.
SECTION 3. Consistent with Article VI, Section 12 of the City of Santa Monica
CEQA Guidelines and Sections 15091(a)(1) and 15092 of the State of California CEQA
Guidelines, the City Council finds that most potential impacts resulting from the LUCE can
be avoided through the implementation of policies incorporated into the LUCE which result
in the self-mitigation of potential impacts, or can be reduced to an acceptable level. More
specifically, the significant environmental effects as identified below can feasibly be
avoided, eliminated, or substantially lessened through the adoption of proposed Mitigation
Measures recommended in the Final EIR. The remaining unavoidable significant effects
cannot be fully mitigated but are nevertheless found to be acceptable due to overriding
considerations, as discussed in Section 6.
(a) The Final EIR determined that without mitigation the LUCE could result in
significant adverse impacts on air quality, specifically sensitive receptors being exposed to
diesel particulate matter (DPM) or other Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs), from aproject-
specific and cumulative perspective. Consistent with Article VI, Section 12 of the City
CEQA Guidelines and Section 15091(a)(1) and 15092 of the State of California CEQA
Guidelines and as detailed in the Final EIR at Volume I, Section 4.2, incorporated herein
z
by reference, the City Council finds that the following mitigation measures have been
required for the LUCE which will avoid or substantially lessen (i.e., reduce to less than
significant levels) the potential significant environmehtal effects identified with respect to
Air Quality related to DPM and TAC exposure:
Mitigation Measure 4.2-1: The City shall amend Section 8.108 of the City Municipal
Code to include the following additional. requirements to reduce operational emissions
associated with development:
^ Electrical outlets shall be included in the building design of any loading docks
to allow use by refrigerated delivery trucks. Signage shall also be installed,
instructing commercial vehicles to limit idling times to five minutes or less. If
loading and/or unloading of perishable goods would occur for more than five
minutes, and continual refrigeration is required, all refrigerated delivery trucks
shall use the electrical outlets to continue powering the truck refrigeration
units when the delivery truck engine is turned off.
^ Electrical outlets shall be installed on the exterior of new structures for use
with electrical landscaping equipment. Further, the property owner(s) shall
ensure that the hired landscape companies use electric powered equipment
where available to a minimum of 20% of the equipment used. The City's
existing ban on gas-powered leaf blowing equipment shall count towards the
percentage reduction.
Mitigation Measure 4.2-2: The City shall amend Section 8.108 of the City Municipal
Code to require the minimum distances between potentially incompatible land uses, as
described below, if an evaluation of human health risks has determined that incremental
health risks would exceed applicable standards (e.g., incremental health risk standards
required by South Coast Air Quality Management .District in Rule 1401 or any
subsequent rule pertaining to stationary source toxic air contaminant emissions)
^ Proposed dry cleaners and film processing services that use
Perchloroethylene must be sited at least 500 feet from existing sensitive land
uses including residential, schools, day care facilities, congregate care
facilities, hospitals, or other places of long-term residency for people.
Proposed sensitive land uses as previously listed shall be sited at least 500
feet from existing dry cleaners and film processing services that use
Perchloroethylene.
^ Proposed auto body repair services shall be sited at least 500 feet from
existing sensitive land uses including residential, schools, day care facilities,
congregate care facilities, hospitals, or other places of long-term residency for
people. Proposed sensitive land uses as previously listed shall be sited at
least 500 feet from existing auto body repair services.
^ Proposed gasoline dispensing stations with an annual throughput of less than
3.6 million gallons shall be sited at least 50 feet from existing sensitive land
uses. Proposed gasoline dispensing stations with an annual throughput at or
3
above 3.6 million .gallons shall be sited at least 300 feet from existing
sensitive land uses: Sensitive land uses include residential, schools, day care
facilities, congregate care facilities, hospitals, or other places of long-term
residency for people. Proposed sensitive land uses as previously listed shall
be sited at least 50 feet from existing gasoline dispensing stations with an
annual throughput of less"than 3.6 million gallons and 300 feet from existing
gasoline dispensing stations with an annual throughput at or above 3.6 million
gallons.
^ Other proposed sources of TACs including furniture manufacturing and repair
services that use Methylene Chloride or other solvents identified as a TAC
shall be sited at least 300 feet from existing sensitive land uses including
residential, schools, day care facilities, congregate care facilities, hospitals, or
other places of long-term residency for people. Proposed sensitive land uses
as previously listed shall be sited at least 300 feet from existing land uses that
use Methylene Chloride or other solvents identified as a TAC.
^ Proposed sensitive land uses including residential, schools, day care
facilities, congregate care facilities, hospitals, or other places of long-term
residency for people shall be sited at least 500 feet from existing freeways
with 100,000 vehicles per day or more.
(b) The Final EIR determined that without mitigation the LUCE could result in
significant adverse impacts defined as Neighborhood Effects under CEQA, specifically
sensitive receptors being exposed to DPM or other TACs as a result of project
implementation and in conjunction with cumulative regional development. Consistent with
Article VI, Section 12 of the City CEQA Guidelines and Section 15091(a)(1) and 15092 of
the State of California CEQA Guidelines and as detailed in the Final EIR at Volume I,
Section 4.16, the City Council finds that the following mitigation measures have been
required for the LUCE which will avoid or substantially lessen (i.e., reduce to less than
significant levels) the potential significant envirohmental Neighborhood Effects related to
DPM and TAC exposure:
Mitigation Measure 4.2-1: The City shall amend Section 8.108 of the City Municipal
Code to include the following additional requirements to reduce operational emissions
associated with development:
^ Electrical outlets shall be included in the building design of any loading docks
to allow use by refrigerated delivery trucks. Signage shall also be installed,
instructing commercial vehicles to limit idling times to five minutes or less. If
4
loading and/or unloading of perishable goods would .occur for more than five
minutes, and continual refrigeration is required, all refrigerated delivery trucks
shall use the electrical outlets to continue powering the truck refrigeration
units when the delivery truck engine is turned off.
^ Electrical outlets shall be installed on the exterior of new structures for use
with electrical landscaping equipment. Further, the property owner(s) shall
ensure that the hired landscape companies use electric powered equipment
where available to a minimum of 20% of the equipment used. The City's
existing ban on gas-powered leaf blowing equipment shall count towards the
percentage reduction.
Mitigation Measure 4.2-2: The City shall amend Section 8.108 of the City Municipal
Code to require the minimum distances between potentially incompatible land uses, as
described below, IF an evaluation of human health risks has determined that
incremental health risks would exceed applicable standards (e.g., incremental health
risk standards required by South Coast Air Quality Management District in Rule 1401 or
any subsequent rule pertaining to stationary source toxic air contaminant emissions):.
^ Proposed dry cleaners and film processing services that use
Perchloroethylene must be sited at least 500 feet from existing sensitive land
uses including residential, schools, day care facilities, congregate care
facilities, hospitals, or other places of long-term residency for people.
Proposed sensitive land uses as previously listed shall be sited at least 500
feet from existing dry cleaners and film processing services that use
Perchloroethylene.
^ Proposed auto body repair services shall be sited at least 500 feet from
existing sensitive land uses including residential, schools, day care facilities,
congregate care facilities, hospitals, or other places of long-term residency for
people. Proposed sensitive land uses as previously listed shall be sited at
least 500 feet from existing auto body repair services.
^ Proposed gasoline dispensing stations with an annual throughput of less than
3.6 million gallons shall be sited at least 50 feet from existing sensitive land
uses. Proposed gasoline dispensing stations with an annual throughput at or
above 3.6 million gallons shall be sited at least 300 feet from existing
sensitive land uses. Sensitive land uses include residential, schools, day care
facilities, congregate care facilities, hospitals, or other places of long-term
residency for people. Proposed sensitive land uses as previously listed shall
be sited at least 50 feet from existing gasoline dispensing stations with an
annual throughput of less than 3.6 million gallons and 300 feet from existing
gasoline dispensing stations with an annual throughput at or above 3.6 million
gallons.
^ Other proposed sources of TACs including furniture manufacturing and repair
services that use Methylene Chloride or other solvents identified as a TAC
shall be sited at least 300 feet from existing sensitive land uses including
residential, schools, day care facilities, congregate care facilities, hospitals, or
other places of long-term residency for people. Proposed sensitive land uses
as previously listed shall be sited at least 300 feet from existing land uses that
use Methylene Chloride or other solvents identified as a TAC.
s
^ Proposed sensitive land uses including residential, schools, day care
facilities, congregate care facilities, hospitals, or other places of long-term
residency for people shall be sited at least 500 feet from existing freeways
with 100,000 vehicles per day or more.
SECTION 4. Consistent with Article VI, Section 12 of the City of Santa Monica
CEQA Guidelines and Section 15091, 15092, and 15093 of the State of California CEQA
Guidelines, the City Council finds that significant adverse environmental effects in the
areas of air quality (project-specific and cumulative construction impacts), cultural
resources (project-specific and cumulative demolition or modification of a historic
resources), noise (project-specific and cumulative exposure of persons or structures to
excessive temporary groundborne vibration; project-specific and cumulative temporary or
periodic increases in ambient noise levels), transportation/traffic (project-specific and
cumulative increase in traffic volumes resulting in increased vehicle trips, volume-to-
capacity ratio on roads, and intersection congestion in the City of Santa Monica and the
City of Los Angeles; exceedance of level of service standard established by the county
congestion management agency for designated roads or highways), utilities and service
systems (cumulative increase in solid waste generation), and .construction effects
(temporary air emissions in excess of established regional and localized thresholds during
construction; substantial temporary noise and vibration levels during construction) cannot
feasibly be avoided or mitigated to below a level of significance. Nevertheless, these
impacts are found to be outweighed by overriding considerations as discussed in Section
6.
(a) The Final EIR determined that without mitigation the LUCE could result in
significant adverse impacts on air quality, specifically construction emissions that
6
could contribute substantially to an existing or projected temporary air quality
violation during construction, from aproject-specific and cumulative perspective.
Consistent with Article VI, Section 12 of the City of Santa Monica CEQA Guidelines
and Section. 15091, 15092, and 15093 of the State of California CEQA Guidelines,
and as detailed in Final EIR Volume I, Section 4.2, incorporated herein by reference
the City Council finds that, although adherence to existing City practices would
reduce airborne particulate matter to the extent feasible, and compliance with
SCAQMD rules would reduce construction-related impacts by reducing air pollutant
emissions from construction activities, the potential reductions resulting from
implementation of these actions cannot be quantified because information on
construction scheduling and project size for individual projects is not currently
available. Without such information, it is not possible to conclude that air pollutant
emissions resulting from construction activities would be reduced to below
SCAQMD .significance thresholds. Development of site-specific mitigation
measures is not feasible until project-specific information is known. As a result,
there are no feasible mitigation measures currently available (at the time of LUCE
adoption) and this impact is considered significant and unavoidable.
(b) The Final EIR determined that without mitigation the LUCE could result in
significant adverse impacts to air quality, specifically during construction there could
be a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants for which the
region is in nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard. Consistent with Article VI, Section 12 of the City of Santa Monica CEQA
Guidelines and Section 15091, 15092, and 15093 of the State of California CEQA
Guidelines, and as detailed in Final EIR Volume I, Section 4.2, incorporated herein
by reference, the City Council finds that construction activities generate PM~o,
PM2.5, ROG, and NOX, the lattertwo being ozone precursors. The South Coast Air
Basin is in nonattainment for all of these pollutants. At this time, the magnitude of
project-specific construction emissions that may be generated by projects occurring
under the LUCE are not known. The development of project-specific mitigation
measures is not feasible until project-specific information is known. As a result;
there are no feasible mitigation measures available at this level of planning and. this
impact is considered significant and unavoidable.
(c) The .Final EIR determined that without mitigation the LUCE could result in
significant adverse impacts to air quality, specifically construction activities could
result in exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations in
excess of the established Localized Significance Thresholds, from aproject-specific
and cumulative perspective. Consistent with Article VI, Section 12 of the City of
Santa Monica CEQA Guidelines and Section 15091, 15092, and 15093 of the State
of California CEQA Guidelines, and as detailed in Final EIR Volume I, Section 4.2,
incorporated herein by reference, the City Council finds that development of
project-specific mitigation measures is not feasible until project-specific information
is known. As a result, there are no feasible mitigation measures and this impact is
considered significant and unavoidable.
(d) The Final EIR determined that without mitigation the LUCE could potentially result
in significant adverse impacts to cultural resources, specifically the potential
s
demolition or substantial modification of an historical resource, from aproject-
specific and cumulative perspective. Consistent with Article VI, Section 12 of the
City of Santa Monica CEQA Guidelines and Section 15091, 15092, and 15093 of
the State of California CEQA Guidelines, and as detailed in Final EIR Volume I,
Section 4.4, incorporated herein by reference, the City Council finds that although
there are existing stringent regulatory frameworks and many LUCE policies that
protect historical resources, the possibility still exists that future decisions could be
made to demolish or significantly alter historic resources. If, in the future, the
demolition or alteration of an historical resource were to be approved and were to
occur, there would be no mitigation available to render the impact less than
significant, as CEQA treats the demolition of historical resources as a significant
unavoidable impact. As a result, there are no feasible mitigation measures to
reduce this potential impact to less-than-significant levels, and this impact 'is
considered significant and unavoidable.
(e) The Final EIR determined that without mitigation the LUCE could- result in
significant adverse impacts due to noise during construction, specifically regarding
the generation and exposure of persons or structures to excessive temporary
construction-generated groundborne vibration, from a project-specific and
cumulative perspective. Consistent with Article VI, Section 12 of the City of Santa
Monica CEQA Guidelines and Section 15091, 15092, and 15093 of the State of
California CEQA Guidelines, and as detailed in Final EIR Volume I, Section 4.9,
incorporated herein by reference, the City Council finds that construction activities
could occur adjacent to sensitive receptors (e.g., residents, school children, and
9
hospital patients), potentially resulting in vibration levels that temporarily exceed the
FTA's vibration impact threshold of 85 VdB for human annoyance. Although
adherence with the, existing Noise Element would reduce potential construction
vibration impacts, construction projects could occur within 25 feet of existing
sensitive receptors and result in an exceedance of human annoyance thresholds,
not withstanding legal requirements. Short of precluding construction activities
within 25 feet of existing sensitive receptors within the City, no feasible mitigation
would be available to avoid this temporary construction-generated impact. As a
result, this impact is considered significant and unavoidable.
(f) The Final EIR determined that without mitigation the LUCE could result in
significant adverse impacts on noise, specifically construction-related, temporary or
periodic increases in ambient noise levels, from aproject-specific and cumulative
perspective. Consistent with Article VI, Section 12 of the City of Santa Monica
CEQA Guidelines and Section 15091, 15092, and 15093 of the State of California
CEQA Guidelines, and as detailed in Final EIR Volume I, Section 4.9, incorporated
herein by reference, the City Council finds that construction activities could occur
outside of acceptable time frames and could impose temporary noise increases on
nearby sensitive receptors. These temporary noise increases could be in excess of
the City's 5 dBA threshold. Compliance with the City's Municipal Code with regard
to construction activities would reduce noise impacts; however, construction
activities could continue to occur near sensitive receptors, notwithstanding legal
requirements. As a result, there are no feasible measures to adequately mitigate
the impact, and this impact is considered significant and unavoidable.
io
(g) The Final EIR determined that without mitigation the LUCE could result in
significant adverse impacts to TransportationlTraffic, specifically substantial
increases in congestion at certain .intersections within the City, from aproject-
specific and cumulative perspective. Consistent with Article VI, Section 12 of the
City of Santa Monica CEQA Guidelines and Section 15091, 15092, and 15093 of
the State of California CEQA Guidelines, and as detailed in Final EIR Volume I,
Section 4.12, incorporated herein by reference, the City Council finds that
significant increased regional pass-through traffic and redirected local traffic under
the LUCE would significantly impact five intersections during the AM and/or PM
peak hour: Ocean Avenue and Pico Boulevard, Lincoln Boulevard and Ocean Park
Boulevard, Twenty-Third Street and Ocean Park Boulevard; Cloverfield Boulevard.
and I-10 Westbound Off Ramp, and Twenty-Sixth Street and Montana Avenue. At
two locations (Ocean Avenue at Pico Boulevard and Cloverfield Boulevard at 1-10
Westbound Off Ramp), no feasible mitigations have been identified. These
intersections are completely built-out within the existing right-of--way. At a further
three intersections (Lincoln Boulevard at Ocean Park Boulevard, Twenty-Third
Street at Ocean Park Boulevard, and Twenty-Sixth Street at Montana Avenue),
mitigating the vehicular traffic impacts at these locations would involve adding
additional capacity to these intersections. Adding additional capacity could degrade
the pedestrian environment, potentially interrupt bicycling. facilities, and disturb
existing viable land uses, which would conflict with a number of the City's other
policies promoting alternative modes of transportation and the protection of existing
neighborhoods, and the promotion of sustainability in the City. As a result, there
ii
are no feasible measures to adequately mitigate this impact, and this impact is
considered significant and unavoidable.
(h) The Final EIR determined that without mitigation the LUCE could result in
significant adverse impacts on transportation/traffic, specifically substantial
increases in congestion at certain intersections within the City of Los Angeles, from
a project-specific and cumulative perspective. Consistent with Article VI, Section 12
of the City of Santa Monica CEQA Guidelines and Section 15091, 15092, and
15093 of the State of California CEQA Guidelines, and as detailed in Final EIR
Volume I, Section 4.12, incorporated herein by reference, the City Council finds that
the number of analyzed directional segments in the City of Los Angeles that would
operate under unsatisfactory conditions (LOS E or F) would increase from 8
(baseline conditions) to 11 (plus project conditions), resulting in a significant impact.
Widening roadways to provide additional travel lanes and thus vehicular capacity to
alleviate these impacts is not considered to be feasible due to limited availability of
right-of-way on most streets within the greater West Los Angeles area and
secondary impacts on service and facilities for pedestrian, bicycle, and transit
circulation. Notably, though, pursuant to policy T15.5 of the LUCE, the City of
Santa Monica intends to collaborate with the City of Los Angeles to jointly address
the significant adverse transportation effects of projects approved by each
respective jurisdiction on transportation facilities located in the other jurisdiction.
However, the implementation of this policy cannot guarantee the full mitigation of
effects roadway segments in the City of Los Angeles. Moreover, because these
intersections are controlled by the City of Los Angeles, implementation of these
is
measures are beyond the control of the City of Santa Monica. As a result, there are
no feasible mitigation measures available and this impact is considered significant
and unavoidable.
(i) The Final EIR determined that without mitigation the LUCE could result in
significant adverse impacts on transportation/traffic, specifically exceedance, either
individually or cumulatively, of a level of service standard established by the Los
Angeles County congestion management agency for designated roads or
highways. Consistent with Article VI, Section 12 of the City of Santa Monica CEQA
Guidelines and Section 15091, 15092, and 15093 of the State of California CEQA
Guidelines, and as detailed in Final EIR Volume I, Section 4.12, incorporated herein
by reference, the City Council finds that CMP Intersection Analysis shows one
intersection, 26th Street and Wilshire Boulevard, is currently operating as LOS F
and the proposed LUCE would increase traffic at this intersection by more than 2
percent during the PM peak hour. There is limited availability of right-of-way at that
intersection to add or widen travel lanes. In addition, adding additional capacity
could degrade the pedestrian environment, potentially interrupt bicycling facilities,
and disturb existing, viable land uses, which would conflict with a number of the
City's other polices promoting alternative modes of transportation and the
protection of existing neighborhoods, and the promotion of sustainability in the City.
As a result, there are no feasible mitigation measures and this impact is considered
significant and unavoidable.
13
Q) The Final EIR determined that without mitigation the LUCE could result in
significant adverse impacts on utilities and service systems, specifically the
cumulative increase in solid waste generation resulting from new land uses allowed
under the LUCE and other development in the service areas of the available
regional landfills. Consistent with Article VI, Section 12 of the City of Santa Monica
CEQA Guidelines and Section 15091, 15092, and 15093 of the State of California
CEQA Guidelines, .and as detailed in Final EIR Volume I, Section 4.13,
incorporated herein by reference, the City Council finds that without approved plans
for substantial expansion of the landfill facilities that serve the County, solid waste
generation from. approved- and foreseeable future growth in the region would
exacerbate regional landfill capacity issues in the future, resulting in a significant
cumulative impact. Although the County is in the process of increasing the capacity
to accommodate future increases in solid waste, there is presently insufficient
permitted disposal capacity within the existing system serving Los Angeles County
to accommodate future demands, including the demands expected from new land
uses implemented under the LUCE. As a result, there are no feasible mitigation
measures available, and this impact is considered significant and unavoidable.
(k) The Final EIR determined that without mitigation the LUCE could result in
significant adverse impacts associated with .construction activities, including the
generation of temporary construction-related air emissions in excess of established
regional and localized thresholds resulting. Consistent with Article VI, Section 12 of
the City of Santa Monica CEQA Guidelines and Section 15091, 15092, and 15093
of the State of California CEQA Guidelines, and as detailed in Final EIR Volume I,
14-
Section 4.17, incorporated herein by reference, the City Council finds that it is
expected that, during the years covered by the LUCE, a number of construction
projects could occur simultaneously. It is not possible to quantify the peak
emissions related to construction activities under the LUCE with any precision as
the amount and timing of each construction event is not known at this time.
Because the thresholds are established for individual development projects and as
certain development projects implemented under the LUCE could individually
exceed the SCAQMD thresholds, the total amount of construction under the
proposed LUCE could also exceed the SCAQMD's recommended thresholds of
significance. Mitigation measure MM4.2-1 will be implemented to help reduce
construction-related air pollutant emissions, but the potential reductions resulting
from implementation of these actions cannot be quantified as information on
construction scheduling and project size for individual projects is not currently
available and no specific development projects are identified in the LUCE.
Therefore, air pollutant emissions resulting from construction activities may not be
reduced to below SCAQMD significance thresholds. As a result, there are no
feasible measures available to adequately mitigate the potential impact, and this
impact is considered significant and unavoidable.
(I) The Final EIR determined that without mitigation the LUCE could result in
significant adverse impacts associated with construction activities, including the
generation of substantial temporary construction-related noise and vibration levels.
Consistent with Article VI, Section 12 of the City of Santa Monica CEQA Guidelines
and Section 15091, .15092, and 15093 of the State of California CEQA Guidelines,
15
and as detailed in Final EIR Volume I, Section 4.17, incorporated herein by
reference, the City Council finds that construction activities could occur outside of
the times permitted in the Noise Ordinance, potentially resulting in construction
activities occurring during typical sleep hours. Even with compliance of the
Municipal Code, a residence located near a construction site could experience
elevated noise and vibration levels, especially if pile driving or similarly noisy
activities occur, notwithstanding legal requirements. As a result, there are no
feasible measures available to adequate mitigate this potential impact, and this
impact is considered significant and unavoidable.
SECTION. 5. Consistent with Article VI, Section 12 of the City of Santa Monica CEQA
Guidelines and Section 15091, 15092, and 15093 of the State of California CEQA
Guidelines, and as detailed in Final EIR Section 7.0, incorporated herein by reference, the
City Council finds that, based on the impacts of the proposed project and other project
alternatives:
(a) Alternative 3, Condensed Nodal Development,. would be considered the
Environmentally Superior Alternative. It should be noted that other than Alternative
3, the LUCE would be considered environmentally superior to the remaining
alternatives. Alternative 3 would tend to allow generally more retail, general office,
and medical office uses than under the LUCE; with a commensurate decrease in
hotel and post-production/creative office space. It would guide the land use change
to fewer locations and near transit, resulting in a greater ability to implement more
aggressive TDM strategies thereby reducing, but not eliminating, the few traffic
16
impacts of the LUCE. Alternative 3 would result in slightly greater overall new
development than the LUCE. However, because Alternative 3 would concentrate
new land uses at very limited activity nodes, localized impacts would occur in fewer.
areas of the City, but to a greater extent within those areas. Regionally assessed
impacts, such as criteria air pollutant emissions during construction, would also be
slightly greater than under the LUCE due to the higher level of overall new land
use. The environmental impacts associated with this alternative would be less than
the impacts of the LUCE in certain areas, including Cultural Resources and
Transportation/Traffic due to lesser land area affected by future land use change.
However, it is only in the areas of Air. Quality (construction-related), Cultural
Resources (historic resources), Noise (construction-related), Transportation/Traffic,
Utilities (cumulative solid waste), and Construction Effects (air quality and noise)
that the LUCE impacts cannot be adequately mitigated. Alternative 3, while
comparatively reducing the level of impact associated with the LUCE in certain
issue areas, would not result in less than significant impacts where the LUCE is
considered significant. In addition, Alternative 3 would result in certain increases in
the severity of impacts, compared to the LUCE with respect to construction-related
localized air quality and noise impacts.
Moreover, as discussed in Chapter 3.4 (Diversified and Sustainable Economy) of
the LUCE, hotels are considered to play a critical role in the economic future of the
City because they generate local revenues through transient occupancy taxes.
Similarly, the creative arts sector was also identified as an important sector
because according to Creative Capital an estimated 43% of Santa Monica
i~
residents make their living in the creative arts. The LUCE Fiscal Impact Analysis
showed that, at the 2030 planning horizon, less hotel and post-production/creative
office space under Alternative 3 would result in a lesser net positive fiscal impact to
the general fund of $2.9M -which is less than the $4.8M projected under the
LUCE. Therefore, Alternative 3 would be less effective than the LUCE at achieving
the objective of creating a vibrant, sustainable economy, and would be less able to
support investments in transit, open space, street improvements, and high quality
community services such as recreation programs, emergency response, and public
utilities and maintenance.
Furthermore, the fundamental purpose of the LUCE is to integrate land use and
transportation by strategically locating housing and daily needs on the transit
corridors, within walking distance of neighborhoods and most residents, and
maximizing the effectiveness of trip reduction strategies by concentrating
employment on the Expo corridor. The aim is to create a balanced land use pattern
that respects the existing community character and achieves a range of housing
types and employment opportunities that can serve the local residents and labor
force. The LUCE considers the jobs/housing ratio u sing a variety of metrics
including jobs/population, jobs/housing units, jobs/households, and jobs/resident
workers along the Expo corridor. A jobs/housing analysis showed that by any
measure, the LUCE performs better than Alternative 3 by introducing a greater
amount of housing relative to jobs as measured by each metric -jobs/population
(0.83 to 0.88), jobs/households (1.59 to 1.68), jobs/housing units (1.48 to 1.57), or
jobs/resident workers (1.37 to 1.45).
is
Another one of the primary objectives of the LUCE is to encourage the creation of
"complete neighborhoods" with local serving uses, creative employment, cultural
arts, small .businesses, hospitals, schools, and neighborhood retail in walking
distance of existing and future housing. Alternative 3 would require the City to
approve new land use policies that would effectively force all new development to
be concentrated in only the five activity center overlay areas, the industrial area on
Olympic Boulevard east of 26th Street, the Downtown and Civic Center, and transit
node at Pico and Lincoln Boulevards.. Such a restrictive land use policy would limit
the natural evolution of the boulevards making it difficult to implement goals and
policies that are intended to transform vehicle-dominated boulevards, such as
Wilshire Boulevard, into livable pedestrian open spaces with improved transit, wider
sidewalks, distinctive architecture, landscaping and neighborhood-friendly services.
Alternative 3-would also assume the full buildout of limited activity nodes resulting in
greater localized impacts. By further condensing -land use change into fewer
nodes, in many cases future land use change would be located farther from existing
residential uses in the City and would not be supportive of complete neighborhoods
to the extent of the LUCE. For these reasons, the City Council rejects this
alternative as infeasible.
(b) Alternative 2, Existing City Development, would reduce certain significant
unavoidable impacts associated with the LUCE while increasing others. Alternative
2 would limit and deter nearly all new development in the City, whictr would avoid
most of the local environmental effects of the project. However, by diverting the
future new land uses that would otherwise occur in Santa Monica to locations that
19
are further from the regional core, this alternative would create much greater
environmental impacts than the same level of new land use under the LUCE. With
the type of regional perspective that is encouraged by recent laws such as AB32
and SB375, it is unreasonable to conclude that an alternative is environmentally
superior if that alternative simply shifts environmental impacts to another part of the
region and potentially exacerbates the nature and magnitude of those
environmental impacts. Further, Alternative 2 would not provide any of the essential
benefits of the LUCE nor meet any of the project objectives. This. alternative would
not include any new policies designed to create a sustainable and integrated
system of land use and transportation in the City within the context of the greater
Los Angeles metropolitan area nor would it include policies to create a complete,
multimodal transportation system or to further the goals of the Sustainable City
Plan. For these reasons, the City Council rejects this alternative as infeasible.
(c) Alternative 4, Reduced Height and Development, would also reduce certain
significant unavoidable impacts associated with the LUCE while increasing others.
Alternative 4 would carry forward most of the policies of the LUCE but would limit
new land uses across the City to a maximum height of 35 feet and a maximum
base FAR of 1.5, resulting in the elimination of concentrated land uses in activity
centers and around transit stations and corridors. Alternative 4 would result in
slightly lesser overall new land use than the LUCE. However, because Alternative 4
would spread new land uses over a greater area, localized impacts would occur in
a greater number of areas within the City including a greater amount of change in
the neighborhoods, but to a lesser extent within those areas. The environmental
zo
impacts associated with this alternative would be less than the significant impacts of
the LUCE in certain areas, including Air Quality (regional impacts during
construction), Noise (construction impact duration), and Utilities (cumulative solid
waste) due to the lesser overall level of development, but those impacts would
remain significant and unavoidable. Further, in the other CEQA issue areas in
which the LUCE would result. in significant and unavoidable impacts, such as Air
Quality (number of receptors impacted during construction), Cultural Resources
(historic resources), Noise (number of receptors impacted during construction), and
Transportationrrraffic, the impacts of this alternative would be considered greater
than the impacts of the LUCE. It should be noted that it is only in the areas of Air
Quality (construction-related), Cultural Resources (historic resources), Noise
(construction-related), Transportationlfraffic, Utilities (cumulative solid waste), and
Construction Effects (air quality and noise) that the LUCE i mpacts cannot be
adequately mitigated. Alternative 4, while comparatively reducing the level of
impact associated with the LUCE in certain issue areas, would not result in less
than significant impacts where the LUCE is considered significant. Alternative 4
would also not achieve several of the project objectives. For example, Alternative 4
would not achieve the City's goal of Neighborhood Conservation, as it would fail to
redirect development pressure -away from the neighborhoods and onto the
commercial boulevards therefore resulting in greater change in the neighborhoods.
In addition, Alternative 4 would not achieve the City's goal of "No Net New Evening
Peak Period Trips." In addition, this alternative would. not establish complete,
multimodal transportation system that would be interwoven with future land use
development, nor would it achieve as effectively as the LUCE the goal of facilitating
zl
development that is consistent with attainment of statewide legislative policy to
achieve 1990 levels of GHG emissions by 2020. This alternative, by lowering the
allowable height and FAR, would fail to support a community benefits program that
would provide additional transportation demand management, affordable and
workforce housing, open spaces, social programs, creative arts space, tools for
historic preservation, and infrastructure including connecting green streets. Lacking
such a program, this alternative would not enhance the level of green space within
the City nor would it afford the same additional protections for historic resources.
Finally, under this alternative, vehicle trips and VMT would increase when
compared to the LUCE. For these reasons, the City Council rejects this alternative
as infeasible.
SECTION 6. The preceding Findings, although based primarily on conclusions in
the Final EIR, have not attempted to describe the full analysis of each environmental
impact contained in the Final EIR. Instead, the Findings incorporate by reference the
discussions and analyses in the Final EIR and supporting reference documents
supporting the Final EIR's determinations regarding the nature and severity of the
impacts of the LUCE and mitigation measures designed to address those impacts. In
making these findings, the City Council. ratifies, adopts, and incorporates into these
findings the ahalysis and explanation in the Final EIR and ratifies, adopts, and
incorporates in these findings the determinations and conclusions of the Final EIR.
SECTION 7. The Final EIR found that the project would result in significant
unavoidable adverse impacts in the areas of air quality (construction-related), cultural
zz
resources (historic resources), noise (construction-related), transportation/circulation, and
construction effects. Consistent with Article VI, Section 13 of the City CEQA Guidelines
and Section 15093 of the State of California CEQA Guidelines, the City Council hereby
makes a Statement of Overriding Considerations and finds that the benefits of the project,
as outlined below, outweigh its unavoidable environmental impacts and thus render those
impacts acceptable. Any one of these reasons is sufficient to justify approval of the
LUCE. Thus, even if a court were to conclude that not every reason is supported by
substantial evidence, the City Council would stand by its determination that each
individual reason is sufficient. The substantial evidence supporting the various benefits
can be found in the preceding findings, which are incorporated by reference into this
section, and in the documents found in the Record of Proceedings. The benefits of the
project outweigh its unavoidable environmental impacts because the LUCE would:
(a) Reduce the overall potential for land use change within the City, especially
within the City's existing residential neighborhoods, that currently exists
under the City's General Plan and, in so doing, would protect and conserve
the scale and character of the City's residential neighborhoods, .the Beach
and Oceanfront District, and neighborhood commercial areas;
(b) Achieve a sustainable and integrated system of land use and transportation
in the City of Santa Monica within the larger context of the greater Los
Angeles metropolitan area;
(c) Focus land use change along existing or proposed transit corridors to create
a more sustainable land use pattern that further integrates land use and
transportation and to meet a citywide target of "No Net New Evening Peak
Period Trips;"
23
(d) Create a complete, multimodal transportation system, with improved transit,
pedestrian and bicycle facilities designed to encourage people to choose
non-automobile means for as many trips as possible;
(e) Manage circulation and require participation in Transportation Demand
Management programs designed to reduce the rate of automobile trips
generated citywide;
(f) Incentivize new housing opportunities and local-serving uses, in place of
regional-serving commercial, in areas adjacent to existing/planned transit
.along the boulevards;
(g) Establish maximum base height and floor-area ratios and only allow for
height and floor area above the base in exchange for clearly defined
community benefits such as affordable housing, open space, and historic
preservation;
(h) Site new jobs in a manner that minimizes environmental impacts by locating
job centers near transit opportunities and housing;
(i) Encourage the establishment of "complete neighborhoods" with local-serving
uses, creative employment, cultural arts, small businesses, hospitals,
schools, and neighborhood retail in walking distance of existinglplanned
housing;
Q) Enhance existing, and create additional, green spaces, including
improvements to pedestrian and bicycle connections, freeway capping,
beach greening, and ground floor open space as part of new development;
(k) Create a vibrant, sustainable City economy with an estimated net positive
fiscal impact of $4.8M that can support high quality public services;
24
(I) Integrate long-term City programs and policies with the City's Sustainable
City Plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the City's per capita Vehicle
Miles Traveled (VMT) and carbon footprint, and overall impacts to the
environment;
(m) Provide additional tools/incentives for the preservation of the City's historic
resources;
(n) Monitor and measure the success of LUCE policies to ensure that the pace,
type, and amount of change is commensurate with the community's
expectations;
(o) Adaptively manage future development within the City to reduce temporary
construction and long-term environmental impacts on any one particular
area of the City;
(p) Require that activity centers are initiated in partnership with property owners
and planned through a comprehensive public process that addresses
community goals;
(q) Manage and develop parking resources in a manner that meets demand
while being consistent with the other goals and policies of the LUCE, and
maximize the efficient use of land devoted to parking and other uses;
(r) Facilitate development that is consistent with, or does not thwart, attainment
of statewide legislative policy to achieve 1990 levels of greenhouse gas
emissions by the year 2020; and
(s) Achieve a sustainable and integrated system of land use and transportation
in the City of Santa Monica in a manner that is consistent with the guiding
principles of the City's Sustainability Plan.
zs
SECTION 8. Consistent with Section 21081.6(a) of the California Environmental
Quality Act, the documents which constitute the record of proceedings for approving this
project are located in the Planning and Community Development Department, 1685 Main
Street, Room 212, Santa Monica, California. The custodian of these documents is Ms.
Francie Stefan, Community and Strategic Planning Manager.
SECTION 9. Consistent with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, the City.
Council adopts the Mitigation Monitoring Plan, which is included as Table 11.2 of Chapter
11 of the FEIR, to mitigate or avoid significant effects of the Project on the environment, as
detailed in Section 3 of this resolution, and to ensure compliance during project
implementation.
SECTION 10. The City Clerk shall ceitify to the adoption of this Resolution, and
thenceforth and thereafter the same shall be in full force and effect.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
' ~
M H ONES IvaOUTRIE
Ci tt rn y ~/
26
Adopted and approved this 6t" day of July,
Bobby S}~river, Mayor
I, Maria M. Stewart, City Clerk of the City of Santa Monica, do hereby certify that
the foregoing Resolution No. 10507 (CCS) was duly adopted at a meeting of the Santa
Monica City Council held on the 6t" day of July, 2010, by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmembers: Bloom, Davis, Holbrook, McKeown, O'Day
Mayor Pro Tem O'Connor, Mayor Shriver
Noes:
Abstain:
Absent:
Councilmembers: None
Councilmembers: None
Councilmembers: None
ATTEST:
Maria M. Stewart, Gi Clerk