Loading...
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