SR 06-12-2018 8A
City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: May 22, 2018
Agenda Item: 8.A
1 of 10
To: Mayor and City Council
From: David Martin, Director, City Planning
Subject: Resolution of the City Council making minor amendments to the Civic Center
Specific Plan that are consistent with Council’s direction to develop the Civic
Center Multipurpose Sports Field and the City’s emphasis on managing and
sharing existing parking resources as a whole system.
Recommended Action
1. Consider the 7th Addendum to the Civic Center Specific Plan EIR for proposed
amendments to the Civic Center Specific Plan (CCSP) in support of the Civic
Center Multipurpose Sports Field; and
2. Approve amendments to the CCSP, per Attachment A of this report.
Executive Summary
The Civic Center is the historic heart of an array of public institutions and public spaces
serving the Santa Monica community. After extensive public participation and review,
the Civic Center Specific Plan (CCSP) was adopted in 2005 and included four special
use districts: Auditorium, Palisades Garden Walk, Civic Core, and the Village. Since
Plan adoption, the City has diligently and successfully pursued and implemented each
component of the CCSP. A playfield area, which has become the Civic Center
Multipurpose Sports Field project, located in the Auditorium Special Use District, has
been a component of the Civic Center Specific Plan since it was adopted in 2005. The
field is shown near the intersection of 4th Street and Pico Boulevard and adjacent to the
Early Childhood Lab School with construction to begin in June, and the Civic
Auditorium. The CCSP contains numerous references to the “Civic Auditorium Park”
and includes illustrations depicting the field with a 100’ setback from Pico Boulevard.
City Council has taken a series of actions to implement the sports field including
authorizing full funding for its design and construction on February 13, 2018. In order to
ensure that this important component of the CCSP is implemented per Council’s
2 of 10
direction, minor text clarifications are proposed to the CCSP to explicitly reference the
Civic Center Multipurpose Sports Field. Minor amendments to illustrations showing the
sports field are also proposed to allow flexibility in its design. Further, a minor text
amendment to Parking Policy C-5 is proposed to clarify that parking in the Civic Center
area is shared among Civic Center uses and can be accommodated in the Civic Center
Parking Structure and surrounding public parking facilities.
The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed amendments at a public hearing on
April 18, 2018 and voted 6-0 to recommend that the City Council approve the
amendments subject to adding a new policy to the Phasing Program on Page 82 of the
CCSP that would ensure that the implementation of the sports field does not preclude
the possibility of any underground facilities that may be required for re-activation of the
Civic Auditorium. As discussed more fully in this report, staff does not recommend
inclusion of this new policy because staff does not believe that it is necessary to specify
how the future activation of the Civic Auditorium might proceed. The major components
of the CCSP have been implemented over time without the level of specificity
recommended in the new policy.
Background
On February 9, 2016, in conjunction with City staff’s presentation of the Civic Working
Group’s Final Report and proposed next steps for the Civic Auditorium, Council directed
staff to explore the possibility of placing a synthetic turf sports field including restroom
facilities at the corner of 4th Street and Pico Boulevard, to work with partners such as
the Santa Monica Malibu Unified School District (SMMUSD) and Santa Monica College
(SMC) on funding options, and to return to Council with cost estimates for design and
construction of the field. Since that time, staff have been diligently working to prepare
the design and receive the necessary permits for this project, and have returned to
Council several more times in the process.
June 27, 2017 - Following completion of the site analysis and conceptual design
study by the City’s consultant RJM, staff presented an economic study, design
feasibility analysis and two concept design options for a multipurpose sports field
3 of 10
at the Civic Center. Council directed staff to advance plans for a field with no
added parking and continue discussions with SMMUSD to determine if softball
accommodations should be included in the final project program. Subsequently
SMMUSD informed the City that it was not interested in pursuing a softball field
overlay as part of the project.
September 26, 2017 - Council authorized an amendment to the contract with
RJM Design Group, Inc. for the development of schematic and design
development services required for future submission of the project to the
California Coastal Commission.
November 28, 2017 - Council selected Walker Parking Consultants/Engineers
Inc. to prepare a Parking Study for development of the Civic Center Multipurpose
Sports Field.
January 23, 2018 - Council authorized a second modification to the contract with
RJM Design Group, Inc. for the preparation of construction documents, bidding
and negotiation, and construction administration services for the Civic Center
Multipurpose Sports Field Project in order to keep the project on schedule to
open the sports field by (or before) spring 2021.
February 13, 2018 - Council approved setting aside an additional $1 million to
fully-fund construction of the Civic Center Multipurpose Sports Field, increasing
the funding set aside for design and construction to $8.15 million, the anticipated
total project budget.
Civic Center Multipurpose Sports Field Design
The design development phase of the Civic Field is nearing completion (See Figure 1).
The synthetic turf field is planned to be approximately 225’ x 360’ in size with a 15-foot
buffer on all sides, and permanently lined for soccer, lacrosse, and rugby. Standard
athletic field LED lighting is designed to be installed on the east and west sides of the
field at an estimated height of 60-feet. Pedestrian safety/wayfinding lighting would also
be installed.
4 of 10
Figure 1: Civic Center Multipurpose Sports Field Site Plan
An 8-foot galvanized steel chain link fence with an additional 16 feet of containment
netting (a total of 24 feet in height) is planned around the perimeter of the Civic Field.
The netting will help ensure containment of soccer balls while being more visually
neutral than chain link. To screen views of the fence and netting, a landscape buffer
with new plantings and decomposed granite pedestrian pathways would surround the
field (Figure 2).
5 of 10
Figure 2: Civic Center Multipurpose Sports Field View from Fourth Street (top) and View from the Civic
Auditorium East Wing (bottom).
Within the interior of the fenced field area, a restroom and maintenance storage building
would be constructed at an approximate height of 12’4” (see Figure 3). The pre-
fabricated structure is to be located on the east side of the field and composed of
concrete masonry unit (CMU) blocks with a (stainless steel) roof. The building’s design
will accommodate natural lighting and passive ventilation and will feature four all-gender
stalls, including two ADA accessible stalls, and a common handwashing station. The
building’s color palette will consist of neutral earth tones. The building's design is
scheduled to go before the Architectural Review Board on May 21, 2018.
6 of 10
Figure 3: Civic Center Multipurpose Sports Field Restroom/Storage Building
Discussion
Civic Center Specific Plan Amendments
The Civic Center Specific Plan (CCSP) was adopted by Council in June 2005 to
establish planning policies, land use and development regulations, and circulation
improvements related to the Civic Center Specific Plan area (bounded by Pico
Boulevard on the south, Fourth Street on the east, Ocean Avenue on the west, and the
south side of the I-10 Freeway on the north). The CCSP area is further delineated by
four Special Use Districts: the Auditorium Special Use District, Civic Core Special Use
District, Palisades Garden Walk (Tongva Park) Special Use District, and the Village
Special Use District.
The CCSP establishes policies and standards for open space via the “Civic Center
Open Space System” that includes features in the Auditorium Special Use District
subarea. Specifically, the CCSP currently provides text references and conceptual
graphics in support of a “playfield” within the Auditorium Special Use District. The
7 of 10
proposed CCSP amendments outlined in Attachment B consist of minor revisions that
would clarify and unify these references; revise design standards for open space in the
Civic Center; and revise one Civic Center parking policy. These proposed amendments
reflect Council’s direction outlined in the Background section of this report to develop
the Civic Center Multipurpose Sports Field and the City’s emphasis on managing and
sharing existing parking resources as a whole system.
More specifically, the proposed amendments to the Civic Center Specific Plan, provided
with the draft Council Resolution (Attachment B), are necessary to accomplish the
following:
1. Create a naming convention to rename “Civic Auditorium Park” as “Civic
Auditorium Park and Multipurpose Sports Field” throughout the document for
continuity and clarity.
2. Revise the category “Parks” as “Parks and Recreation” as a subset of the Civic
Center Open Space System throughout the document for continuity and clarity.
3. Revise various annotations to graphics and exhibits to delete references to a
main entrance and 100’ setback for the sports field from corner of Pico Boulevard
and 4th Street.
4. Revise Parking Policy C-5 to ensure consistency with the City’s overall emphasis
on managing and sharing existing parking resources in the Civic Center and
adjacent districts as part of a whole system.
In addition, the proposed amendments include deletion of one reference to development
of the former Sears site which is no longer located in the CCSP area. This reference
was inadvertently omitted during the July 2017 amendment to CCSP to modify
boundaries consistent with Downtown Community Plan adoption. There are also
numerous CCSP illustrative plans and text references to open space within the Civic
Auditorium Special Use District and one parking policy that would need to be amended.
8 of 10
Planning Commission Action
On April 4, 2018, the Planning Commission adopted the required Resolution of Intention
to initiate the process to consider recommending that City Council adopt Civic Center
Specific Plan amendments to ensure consistency with the Council’s earlier direction to
develop the Civic Center Multipurpose Sports Field, as outlined in this report.
On April 18, 2018, the Planning Commission voted 6-0 to recommend that City Council
approve the proposed amendments with the addition of the following new policy to be
added to the Phasing Program on Page 82 of the CCSP:
I-24. The establishment of the Multipurpose Sports Field
should not preclude the possibility of any underground
facilities that may be required for re-establishment of the
Civic Auditorium.
As part of its deliberations on the proposed amendments, the Planning Commission
expressed a preference that there be a holistic approach to planning for re-activation of
the Civic Auditorium. The Commission’s recommendation is intended to signal that
there be future flexibility for actions to support reactivation of the Auditorium, if feasible.
Staff Analysis of Planning Commission Recommendation
Although the Planning Commission voted to add a new Policy I-24, staff does not
believe that such an amendment is necessary since components of the CCSP have
been successfully implemented since the Plan’s adoption without specificity on how the
components are implemented. This has provided flexibility in adjusting resources and
facilities as necessary to accommodate each component of the Plan. Therefore, while
the Planning Commission’s formal recommendation is presented for Council’s
consideration in Attachment A, staff recommends that Council approve the proposed
amendments without new Policy I-24. Staff’s recommendation is included as a revised
Exhibit 1 to the draft Council resolution (Attachment B).
9 of 10
Environmental Review
In compliance with CEQA, an addendum to the CCSP Environmental Impact Report
(CCSP EIR) has been prepared (Attachment C). An addendum is appropriate because
there would be no new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the
severity of previously identified significant environmental effects identified in the certified
CCSP EIR.
An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for the Civic Center Specific Plan
(CCSP) project in accordance with Section 15087 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The
CCSP EIR, certified on June 28, 2005, analyzed the development of a mix of future land
uses as well as circulation improvements in the Civic Center Specific Plan area.
Subsequent to certification of the EIR, six addenda were prepared and published to
address changes in the Civic Center Specific Plan, including the inclusion of a sports
field as part of the Civic Center Open Space System.
Per Section 15164 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines, an
Addendum to a certified EIR is required if minor technical changes or minor
modifications to the proposed project occur. Preparation of an addendum is appropriate
unless subsequent changes proposed in the project or changed circumstances will
result in new significant impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of previously
identified significant impacts will occur.
To determine whether the proposed text amendments would create new or more severe
significant environmental impacts that were not previously analyzed in the CCSP EIR
and the six addenda, a Seventh Addendum to the CCSP EIR (Attachment C) has been
prepared for the proposed text amendment. As analyzed in the Addendum, the
proposed text amendments to make minor changes to naming conventions and
setbacks associated with the Civic Center Multipurpose Sports Field would not generate
new significant environmental impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of
previously significant impacts identified in the 2005 Civic Center Specific Plan EIR.
Therefore, pursuant to CEQA, preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR is not
required.
10 of 10
Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
There is no immediate financial impact or budget action necessary as a result of the
recommended action.
Prepared By: Roxanne Tanemori, Principal Planner
Approved
Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. Planning Commission Recommended Council Resolution for 7th CCSP
Amendment
B. Staff Recommended Council Resolution for 7th CCSP Amendment
C. CCSP EIR addendum for 7th CCSP Amendments
D. Supplemental Staff Report
E. Written Comments
1
City Council Meeting May 22, 2018 Santa Monica, California
RESOLUTION NUMBER _________ (CCS)
(City Council Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA ADOPTING A SEVENTH AMENDMENT TO THE
CIVIC CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN THAT WOULD RENAME “CIVIC AUDITORIUM
PARK” TO “CIVIC AUDITORIUM PARK AND MULTIPURPOSE SPORTS FIELD”;
MAKE MINOR REVISIONS TO DESIGN STANDARDS TO ACCOMMODATE THE
MULTIPURPOSE SPORTS FIELD; AND AMEND PARKING POLICY C-5 TO
FACILITATE MANAGEMENT AND SHARING OF EXISTING PARKING RESOURCES
AS A WHOLE SYSTEM
WHEREAS, the Civic Center Specific Plan (CCSP) was adopted in 2005 and
included four special use districts: Auditorium, Palisades Garden Walk, Civic Core, and
the Village; and
WHEREAS, since adoption of the CCSP, the City has diligently pursued and
implemented each component of the CCSP; and
WHEREAS, the Civic Center Multipurpose Sports Field project (“the Field”),
located in the Auditorium Special Use District, has been a component of the CCSP
since the CCSP was adopted in 2005; and
WHEREAS, the Field is shown near the intersection of 4th Street and Pico
Boulevard and adjacent to the Early Childhood Lab School, now under construction,
and the Civic Auditorium; and
2
WHEREAS, the CCSP contains numerous references to the “Civic Auditorium
Park” and includes illustrations depicting the field with a 100’ setback from Pico
Boulevard; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has taken a series of actions to develop the Field
including by authorizing full funding for its design and construction on February 13,
2018; and
WHEREAS, in order to ensure that the Field is developed per Council’s direction,
minor text clarifications are now proposed to (i) explicitly reference the Field in the
CCSP; (ii) modify the illustrations in the CCSP to allow for flexibility of the Field design
without further amendments to the CCSP; and (iii) clarify text in Parking Policy C-5 of
the CCSP to ensure consistency with Council direction to facilitate shared parking uses
in the Civic Center Parking Structure and surrounding public parking facilities; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendments to the CCSP ("Proposed CCSP
Amendments") are attached hereto as Exhibit 1 and incorporated herein by this reference;
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on April 18, 2018, to
consider the Proposed CCSP Amendments and found that they are consistent with the
General Plan as required by Santa Monica Municipal Code section 9.45.130; and
WHEREAS, a Seventh Addendum to the Civic Center Specific Plan Final EIR
("Seventh Addendum") has been prepared to analyze the impacts of the Proposed CCSP
Amendments; and
WHEREAS, because the Proposed CCSP Amendments do not significantly alter the
program envisioned in the previously adopted CCSP, the Seventh Addendum concludes
3
that the Proposed CCSP Amendments would not generate significant environmental effects
or increase the severity of impacts identified in the 2005 Civic Center Specific Plan EIR.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council has reviewed and considered the Proposed CCSP
Amendments, attached hereto as Exhibit 1 and incorporated herein by this reference, and
Seventh Addendum to the Civic Center Specific Plan Final EIR, and hereby adopts the
Proposed CCSP Amendments.
SECTION 2. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution, and
thenceforth and thereafter the same shall be in full force and effect.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________
LANE DILG
City Attorney
4
Adopted and approved this 22nd day of May, 2018.
____________________________
Chairperson
I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. ______ was duly and regularly
introduced and approved at a meeting of the City Council on the 22nd day of May, 2018
by the following vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Abstain:
Absent:
5
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE
CIVIC CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN (CCSP)
ASSOCIATED WITH THE CIVIC CENTER
MULTIPURPOSE SPORTS FIELD PROJECT, MAY 2018
PAGE(S) PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
TO THE CIVIC CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN
Various
Summary of Purpose:
Amend Civic Center Specific Plan to rename “Civic Auditorium Park” as “Civic
Auditorium Park and Multipurpose Sports Field”; make minor revisions to
design standards to accommodate the multipurpose sports field; amend
parking policy C-5 to reflect Council’s direction to develop the Civic Center
Multipurpose Sports Field and the City’s emphasis on managing and sharing
existing parking resources as a whole system.
i Revise Table of Contents to include “Parks and Recreation” as a subset
of the identified elements of the Civic Center Open Space System.
4 Provide summary of purpose for 2018 CCSP amendment for the Civic
Center Multipurpose Sports Field Project: “May 22, 2018: Minor
amendments that are consistent with Council’s direction to develop the
Civic Center Multipurpose Sports Field and the City’s emphasis on
managing and sharing existing parking resources as a whole system.”
7 Revise Public Open Space Program Illustrative Plan graphic to rename
Item 1 “Civic Auditorium Park and Multipurpose Sports Field” and
include label on map.
10 Revise Open Space Plan graphic to rename Item 1 “Civic Auditorium
Park” as “Civic Auditorium Park and Multipurpose Sports Field”.
13 Delete clause in 4th bullet “rather than specialized and single purpose”.
15 Delete clause in first paragraph “rather than specialized and single
purpose”.
16 Rename “Civic Auditorium Park” as “Civic Auditorium Park and
Multipurpose Sports Field” in first full paragraph.
17 Add term “Recreation” to subheading “Parks”.
Rename “Civic Auditorium Park” as “Civic Auditorium Park and
Multipurpose Sports Field” in second paragraph.
20 Rename OS-4 heading “Civic Auditorium Park” as “Civic Auditorium
Park and Multipurpose Sports Field”.
Delete annotation for graphic regarding setback.
Delete “and a generous entrance into the park” in annotation regarding
bike and pedestrian paths.
Delete clause “in order to create a generous entry from the south” in
OS-4.
6
PAGE(S) PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
TO THE CIVIC CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN
25 Rename “Civic Auditorium Park” as “Civic Auditorium Park and
Multipurpose Sports Field” in OS-11.
32 Revise Parking Policy C-5 to reflect the City’s emphasis on managing
and sharing existing parking resources in the Civic Center and adjacent
districts as part of a whole system:
“C-5. Provide sufficient parking to serve the needs of Civic Center
activities. Parking within the Civic Center should be programmed to
serve the needs and requirements of Civic Center activities. The Civic
Center should not be a satellite parking area for other districts, except
on a temporary basis (e.g., during the seismic retrofit of the downtown
garages). Conversely, the Civic Center should not rely on other parts of
the City to meet its parking needs. New commercial and residential
development will provide below grade or encapsulated parking on site.
Efforts should be made to maximize the effectiveness of public parking
facilities through shared use between activities that have differing
demands throughout the day (e.g., City Hall, Civic Center Multipurpose
Sports Field, and Civic Auditorium).”
35 Rename “Civic Auditorium Park” as “Civic Auditorium Park and
Multipurpose Sports Field” in C-11.
36 Rename “Civic Auditorium Park” as “Civic Auditorium Park and
Multipurpose Sports Field” in C-14.
41 Rename “Civic Auditorium Park” as “Civic Auditorium Park and
Multipurpose Sports Field”.
44 Revise description of Fourth Street to rename “Civic Auditorium Park”
as “Civic Auditorium Park and Multipurpose Sports Field”.
48 Revise first sentence in first paragraph to delete the phrase “major new
park” and replace it with the phrase “new park and multipurpose sports
field”.
Rename “Civic Auditorium Park” as “Civic Auditorium Park and
Multipurpose Sports Field” in second paragraph.
Delete two references to “the Park” and replace both with “the Park and
Multipurpose Sports Field” in second paragraph.
49
Revise Special Use Districts Illustrative Plan to include label “Civic
Auditorium Park and Multipurpose Sports Field”.
51 Revise Auditorium Special Use District graphic to delete annotation
regarding setback
Revise Auditorium Special Use District graphic to delete the term
“playfield” and replace it with “Multipurpose Sports Field”.
53 Rename “Civic Auditorium Park” as “Civic Auditorium Park and
Multipurpose Sports Field” under heading Early Childhood Center.
7
PAGE(S) PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
TO THE CIVIC CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN
70 Rename “Civic Auditorium Park” as “Civic Auditorium Park and
Multipurpose Sports Field” in OS-12 and OS-13.
Delete period after “on both” in OS-14.
Revise OS-14 to delete the term “playfield” and replace it with
“Multipurpose Sports Field”.
81 Rename “Civic Auditorium Park” as “Civic Auditorium Park and
Multipurpose Sports Field” in first bullet point under “Parks and Open
Spaces” heading.
82 Delete I-23 as it references development of Sears site which is no
longer located in the CCSP area [this reference was not deleted during
July 2017 amendment to CCSP to modify boundaries consistent with
Downtown Community Plan adoption.]
Rename “Civic Auditorium Park” as “Civic Auditorium Park and
Multipurpose Sports Field” in I-22 and I-24.
Renumber I-24 as I-23.
85 Rename “Civic Auditorium Park” as “Civic Auditorium Park and
Multipurpose Sports Field” in first paragraph.
ADDENDUM TO THE CIVIC CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN EIR
Addendum to the Civic Center Specific Plan EIR
April 2018
Page 1 of 32
SEVENTH ADDENDUM TO THE CIVIC CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN EIR
APRIL 2018
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
1685 MAIN STREET
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401
ADDENDUM TO THE CIVIC CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN EIR
Addendum to the Civic Center Specific Plan EIR
April 2018
Page 2 of 32
INTRODUCTION
This document is the Seventh Addendum to the City of Santa Monica Civic Center Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) [SCH #2003011074]. This Addendum has been prepared in
accordance with the relevant provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of
1970 (as amended) and the State CEQA Guidelines as implemented by the City of Santa Monica.
According to Section 15164(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines, an addendum to a previously
certified EIR is the appropriate environmental document in instances when project changes and
additions are necessary, but there would be no new or substantially more severe significant
environmental effects beyond those identified in the EIR.
As discussed below, the City proposes minor text clarifications to the Civic Center Specific Plan
associated with the Civic Center Multipurpose Sports Field, which is included as an element of the
Civic Center Specific Plan. Specifically, text references to the Civic Center Multipurpose Sports
Field are proposed in addition to eliminating annotations on illustrations for a field setback of 100
feet from Pico Boulevard. Minor clarifications to Parking Policy C-5 are proposed for consistency
with the City’s overall parking approach to emphasize that parking for Civic Center uses is shared
and managed as part of a whole system. Additionally other minor changes to the Sports Field
include relocation of the field entry to the northeast corner of the field, use of synthetic turf for the
field, and addition of bleacher seating. As supported by the analysis in this addendum, with the
implementation of applicable mitigation measures, the proposed revisions associated with the
Civic Center Multipurpose Sports Field (“Sports Field”) would not result in new or substantially more
severe significant environmental effects. As such, the addendum is the appropriate environmental
document under CEQA. All mitigation measures identified in the previously certified CCSP EIR shall
also apply to the Sports Field. In addition, the adopted Mitigation Monitoring Plan from the
previous CCSP EIR shall remain effective for the proposed Sports Field.
This Addendum includes a description of the Sports Field as it is currently proposed and a
comparison of its impacts to those identified in the CCSP EIR previously certified/adopted by the
City of Santa Monica on June 28, 2005, and as amended in 2008, 2010, 2011, and 2016.
BACKGROUND
PROJECT LOCATION
The proposed project would be located on the existing Civic Center surface parking lot near the
corner of Fourth Street and Pico Boulevard in the Civic Center Specific Plan area of the City of
Santa Monica (see Figure 1). The Civic Center Specific Plan area consists of approximately 67
acres in downtown Santa Monica. The Civic Center Specific Plan Area is bound by Fourth Street
to the east, Ocean Avenue to the west, Pico Boulevard to the south and Colorado Avenue to the
north. Main Street bisects the Plan Area in a north to south direction (see Figure 2).
CIVIC CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT AND EIR
An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for the Civic Center Specific Plan (CCSP)
project in accordance with Section 15087 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The CCSP EIR, certified
on June 28, 2005, analyzed the development of a mix of future land uses as well as circulation
improvements in the Civic Center Specific Plan area (see Figure 3). The various components of
the CCSP project that were analyzed in the CCSP EIR are listed in Table 1.
ADDENDUM TO THE CIVIC CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN EIR
Addendum to the Civic Center Specific Plan EIR
April 2018
Page 3 of 32
ADDENDUM TO THE CIVIC CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN EIR
Addendum to the Civic Center Specific Plan EIR
April 2018
Page 4 of 32
FIGURE 1 - PROJECT LOCATION
Field Location
ADDENDUM TO THE CIVIC CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN EIR
Addendum to the Civic Center Specific Plan EIR
April 2018
Page 5 of 32
FIGURE 2 - CIVIC CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN AREA
ADDENDUM TO THE CIVIC CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN EIR
Addendum to the Civic Center Specific Plan EIR
April 2018
Page 6 of 32
FIGURE 3 - CIVIC CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN (AS AMENDED)
Sports Field
ADDENDUM TO THE CIVIC CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN EIR
Addendum to the Civic Center Specific Plan EIR
April 2018
Page 7 of 32
FIGURE 4 – OPEN SPACE PLAN IN THE CCSP
ADDENDUM TO THE CIVIC CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN EIR
Addendum to the Civic Center Specific Plan EIR
April 2018
Page 8 of 32
TABLE 1 - CIVIC CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN COMPONENTS ANALYZED IN CCSP EIR
CCSP Improvement Program Details
Public Open Space 5.6 acre Civic Auditorium Park, with playfield
of suitable size for soccer and other sports
Improvement of Courthouse Lawn and
creation of 0.8 acre plaza along Main Street
2.5 acre Town Square in front of City Hall
4 acre Palisades Garden Walk north of
Olympic Drive
0.7 acre Village Green south of Olympic Drive
Housing 325 units of housing within the Village across
three sites (sites A, B, C)
450 units of housing on parking garage sites
within Santa Monica Place
Community Facilities Restoration of City Hall
Development of a City Services Building up to
100,000 square feet and a height of 56 feet
Replacement of existing East wing of Civic
Auditorium with up to 20,000 net new square
feet of community uses,
Development of Early Childhood Center of up
to 12,500 square feet with adjoining play area
Public Parking Facilities Replacement of the existing Santa Monica
Place garages (Parking Structures 7 and 8)
with subterranean parking
Replacement of surface parking lots within
the Civic Center with subterranean parking
beneath the City Services Building, and
beneath the auditorium expansion
Street Improvements Extension of Olympic Drive to Ocean Avenue
Extension of 2nd Street to Olympic Drive
Closure of Main Street between Colorado
Avenue and Olympic Drive
Extension of Civic Center Drive to Main Street
Creation of a traffic circle at the intersection
of Main Street with the extended Civic Center
Drive
Commercial Redevelopment at
Santa Monica Place
560,000 square feet of reconfigured or
reconstructed commercial retail, 85,000
square feet of new office space, and 450
multifamily dwelling units (as listed above) on
the Santa Monica Place site
The CCSP EIR addressed the potential environmental effects of the CCSP for the following impact
areas:
Aesthetics
Air Quality
Construction Effects
Cultural Resources
ADDENDUM TO THE CIVIC CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN EIR
Addendum to the Civic Center Specific Plan EIR
April 2018
Page 9 of 32
Geology and Soils
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Hydrology and Water Quality
Land Use and Planning
Noise
Population and Housing
Public Services
Shadow Effects
Transportation and Circulation
Utilities
Neighborhood Effects
The CCSP EIR analyzed the issues referenced above and identified potentially significant
environmental impacts, including site-specific and cumulative effects of the CCSP in accordance
with the provisions set forth in the State CEQA Guidelines. The CCSP EIR also recommended
feasible mitigation measures, where possible. Less than significant impacts or less than significant
mitigable impacts were found in the areas of Aesthetics, Geology and Soils, Hazards and
Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and Planning, Noise, and Utilities.
Significant and unavoidable impacts that could not be mitigated were identified in the CCSP EIR
and addressed in the adopted CEQA findings and statement of overriding considerations as
follows:
• Cultural Resources –significant and unavoidable impacts to cultural resources if a large
Moreton Bay Fig is removed or unsuccessfully relocated;
• Traffic/Circulation –significant and unavoidable traffic impacts to nine intersections
including PCH / California Incline, Ocean Avenue / Colorado Avenue , Fourth Street /
Broadway, Fourth Street / Colorado Avenue, Fourth Street / I-10 Off-ramp, Fourth Street
/ I-10 On-ramp, Lincoln Boulevard / I-10 Off-ramp, Lincoln Boulevard/ Pico Boulevard,
and Fifth Street / Colorado Avenue; unmitigable significant traffic impacts at one CMP
arterial monitoring intersection, Lincoln Boulevard / Pico Boulevard; unmitigable
significant neighborhood traffic impacts on Fourth Street between Pico Boulevard and
Ocean Park Boulevard and between Ocean Park Boulevard and the southern City
limits;
• Air Quality –significant and unavoidable air quality impacts related to ROG, NOx and
CO emissions from vehicle trips, natural gas use, and landscape maintenance
equipment;
ADDENDUM TO THE CIVIC CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN EIR
Addendum to the Civic Center Specific Plan EIR
April 2018
Page 10 of 32
• Construction Effects –significant and unavoidable impacts to air quality from NOx
emissions during demolition and construction and ROC emissions during application of
architectural coatings; and
• Neighborhood Effects –significant and unavoidable impacts identified above related
to Air Quality, Construction Effects and Transportation and Circulation.
The Final EIR for the Civic Center Specific Plan project was completed in October of 2004. The
CCSP, CCSP EIR and related actions were reviewed by the Civic Center Working Group on May
3, 2005 and by the Planning Commission on May 18, 2005. On June 28, 2005, the City Council
certified the CCSP EIR, adopted CEQA findings and a statement of overriding considerations, and
adopted the Specific Plan amendments which ultimately excluded Santa Monica Place.
SUBSEQUENT ADDENDUMS
Subsequent to the CCSP EIR, addendums to the original CCSP EIR were prepared in April 2008,
July 2008, May 2010, May 2011, June 2011, and October 2016. The addendums addressed
modifications to the CCSP as follows:
First Addendum (April 2008): An addendum was prepared to address changes to the Village
development envisioned under the CCSP that included:
Modifying the allocation of the proposed uses across the three residential sites (Sites A, B,
and C);
Reducing setbacks, including building separations;
Modifying building heights of between approximately 67 feet and 110 feet on Site C,
generally becoming taller from west to east, as well as increasing maximum building
heights on sites A and B, from 56 feet/five stories to six stories with varying heights with
approximately 65 feet maximum height;
Reducing the amount of private open space provided per unit on Site B from 80 square
feet per unit to 48 square feet. Common open space would be increased on Site B to
300 square feet per unit, from 100 square feet per unit as called for in the CCSP;
Changing vehicular circulation for all vehicles accessing residential Sites A and B to enter
and exit the proposed parking garage beneath the residential site via First Court Alley to
Ocean Avenue.
The addendum concluded that the above changes to the CCSP would not would not generate
new significant environmental impacts or substantially increase impacts identified in the CCSP EIR.
Second Addendum (July 2008): An addendum was prepared to address modifications to the
parking garages at Santa Monica Place (Parking Structures 7 and 8) that were analyzed in the
CCSP EIR which included:
Restriping and circulation adjustments;
Converting the 4th Street driveway to Parking Structure 7 to right turn outbound only,
Installing an attendant parking program;
Installing ground level pedestrian oriented improvements including retail and bicycle
parking facilities; and
Implementing façade improvements including solar photovoltaic panels.
The addendum concluded that the above changes to the CCSP would not would not generate
new significant environmental impacts or substantially increase impacts identified in the CCSP EIR.
ADDENDUM TO THE CIVIC CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN EIR
Addendum to the Civic Center Specific Plan EIR
April 2018
Page 11 of 32
Third Addendum (May 2010): An addendum was prepared to allow the City to temporarily use a
2.5 acre portion of the CCSP land (site of the future Palisades Garden Walk park) on an interim
basis to absorb overflow parking for intermittent cultural and minor temporary events to be held
in the nearby beach parking lot and/or the Santa Monica Pier deck. The interim parking use would
cease prior to construction of the park. The addendum concluded that the interim parking use
would not generate new significant environmental impacts or exacerbate impacts identified in
the 2005 Civic Center Specific Plan Final EIR.
Fourth Addendum (May 2011)
In 2011, a Fourth Addendum to the CCSP EIR was prepared to remove the Main Street traffic circle
as part of the CCSP project and to modify the building location of the City Services Building from
the originally analyzed configuration and to increase the size of the City Services Building to 16,000
square feet, with no changes to childcare enrollment (remains at 100 children). The Addendum
reviewed development of the ECEC along Civic Center Drive directly across from the Civic Center
Parking Structure with the front entrance of the building to be oriented on Civic Center Drive.
The addendum concluded that the proposed removal of the Main Street traffic circle from the
CCSP and the proposed changes to the ECEC are minor adjustments which would not generate
new significant environmental impacts or increase the severity of impacts identified in the CCSP
EIR.
Fifth Addendum (April 2015)
In 2015, a Fifth Addendum to the CCSP EIR was prepared increase the size of the ECEC from 16,000
square feet to a size of 20,000 square feet and a height of 40 feet to accommodate a mini mal
increase in the number of children to be licensed from up to 100 to up to 110 along with increased
teaching space for Santa Monica College’s early childhood education program.
The addendum concluded that the proposed revisions to the ECEC from the CCSP are minor
adjustments to the previously approved ECEC which would not generate new significant
environmental impacts or increase the severity of impacts identified in the CCSP EIR.
Sixth Addendum (October 2016)
In 2016, a Sixth Addendum to the CCSP EIR was prepared to make minor revisions to the proposed
City Services Building that was included as an element of the Civic Center Specific Plan project.
Specifically, the City Services Building within the Civic Center Specific Plan area was proposed to
be relocated from its original contemplated location north of the existing Landmark City Hall
building (on Fujinomiya Douri) to east of City Hall (over a portion of Avenida Mazatlan).
Furthermore, the building was proposed to be up to 55,000 sf maximum and 45 feet as compared
to the 100,000 sf and 56 feet analyzed in the CCSP EIR.
The addendum concluded that the proposed revisions to the CSB from the CCSP are minor
adjustments to the previously approved ECEC which would not generate new significant
environmental impacts or increase the severity of impacts identified in the CCSP EIR.
APPROVED CIVIC CENTER MULTIPURPOSE SPORTS FIELD
The CCSP EIR analyzed the development of a 5.6 acre Civic Auditorium Park situated between
the Civic auditorium and proposed Early Childhood Education Center (see Figure 4). As described
in the CCSP EIR, the Civic Auditorium Park would include “flexible recreational areas and a
ADDENDUM TO THE CIVIC CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN EIR
Addendum to the Civic Center Specific Plan EIR
April 2018
Page 12 of 32
playfield suitable for organized and informal field sports, special events, festivals, and
programmed activities associated with the Civic Auditorium. The playfield would be of a size
suitable for competitive soccer and other field sports.” As shown in the CCSP EIR, the field would
be located on the existing Civic surface parking lot near the corner of Fourth Street and Pico
Boulevard. The CCSP originally contemplated that the Sports Field would be set back 100 feet
from Pico Boulevard.1 As further described in the CCSP EIR, this field would have safety fencing,
particularly along 4th Street. Additionally, night lighting was envisioned to be installed to extend
the field’s usability into nighttime hours. However, sports activities would not occur after 11 PM. The
CCSP. Lastly, the CCSP called for the replacement of the surface parking lots within the Civic
Center with below-grade parking beneath the Civic Auditorium expansion.
CURRENTLY PROPOSED CIVIC CENTER MULTIPURPOSE SPORTS FIELD
In general, the currently proposed Sports Field would be consistent with what was analyzed in the
CCSP EIR. The Sports Field would be located in the same general location of the Civic Center
surface parking lot as contemplated. However, the City proposes to eliminate annotations on
illustrations showing a setback of 100 feet from Pico Boulevard (see Figure 5).
Additionally, consistent with what was analyzed in the CCSP EIR, night time lighting would be
installed for the field. Specifically, approximately 60 foot high LED athletic field lights would be
installed on the sides of the field. Pedestrian safety/wayfinding lighting would also be installed.
Furthermore, safety fencing consisting of a 8 foot tall chainlink fence with 16 foot high ball
containment netting would be constructed around the perimeter of the Sports Field. To further
screen views of the fence and netting, a landscape buffer with new plantings (including shrubs,
trees) and pedestrian pathways (constructed with decomposed granite) would surround the
Sports Field. An approximately 12’-4” foot tall restroom building would be constructed to serve
users of the field.
It is anticipated that parking for Civic Center visitors would continue be provided in the Civic
Center Parking Structure and other surrounding public parking facilities. Bike parking would be
provided for the Sports Field.
1 The CCSP EIR did not specifically mention the original setback of 100 feet.
ADDENDUM TO THE CIVIC CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN EIR
Addendum to the Civic Center Specific Plan EIR
April 2018
Page 13 of 32
TABLE 2: PROPOSED CHANGES TO CIVIC CENTER MULTIPURPOSE SPORTS FIELD
CCSP EIR Assumptions Current Proposal (2018)
Location North of existing Civic Auditorium; set
back 100 feet from Pico Boulevard
North of existing Civic Auditorium;
eliminate setback from Pico Boulevard
Entry Primary pedestrian entry located at 4th
and Pico Boulevard at the southeast
corner of the field.
Primary pedestrian entry located mid-
block on 4th Street at the northeast
corner of the field.
Design materials Natural turf (grass) Synthetic turf
Size “a size suitable for competitive soccer
and other field sports”
Consistent with CCSP EIR, the field will
be FIFA regulation size to allow for
soccer and other activities
Parking Replace existing surface parking spaces
with subterranean parking beneath
Civic Auditorium. Parking in Civic
Center is shared and accommodated in
existing Civic Center Parking Structure
and surrounding public parking facilities.
Consistent with CCSP EIR, possibility for
subterranean parking beneath Civic
Auditorium remains unchanged.
Parking in Civic Center is shared and will
continue to be accommodated in
existing Civic Center Parking Structure
and surrounding public parking facilities.
Perimeter Fencing
and Hedge
Safety fencing along 4th Street with
landscaping and pedestrian pathways
around the field.
Consistent with CCSP EIR, 8 foot tall
chain link fencing with netting above it
will be provided along 4th Street.
Landscape buffer with pedestrian
pathways will be provided around the
field.
Hours Operational Hours – Sports activities shall
not occur after 11:00 PM
Consistent with CCSP EIR, sports
activities will not occur after 11:00 PM
Programming The Civic Auditorium Park would include
flexible recreational areas and a
playfield suitable for organized and
informal field sports, special events,
festivals, and programmed activities
associated with the Civic Auditorium
Due to site constraints and the need for
fire lanes, no flexible/passive recreation
area will be provided. Special
events/festivals will not be
accommodated. The field will be used
exclusively for field sports such as
soccer, lacrosse, and rugby and by
permit only.
Other Attributes No bleachers Bleachers would be provided.
ADDENDUM TO THE CIVIC CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN EIR
Addendum to the Civic Center Specific Plan EIR
April 2018
Page 14 of 32
FIGURE 5 –PROPOSED CIVIC CENTER MULTIPURPOSE SPORTS FIELD
ADDENDUM TO THE CIVIC CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN EIR
Addendum to the Civic Center Specific Plan EIR
April 2018
Page 15 of 32
REGULATORY AUTHORITY FOR ADDENDUM
CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines establish the type of environmental documentation which is
required when changes to a project occur after an EIR is certified. Section 15164(a) states that:
“The lead agency or a responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously
certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions
described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred”.
Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines requires a Subsequent EIR where an EIR has already been
prepared under the following circumstances:
1. Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the
previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a
substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;
2. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is
undertaken, which will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement
of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of
previously identified significant effects;
3. New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have
been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was
certified as complete shows any of the following:
a. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous
EIR or negative declaration,
b. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than
shown in the previous EIR,
c. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in
fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of
the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure
or alternative, or
d. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those
analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant
effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the
mitigation measure or alternative.
The purpose of this Seventh Addendum is to address whether the proposed changes to the Sports
Field of the original Civic Center Specific Plan could result in any new significant environmental
impacts which were not identified in the CCSP EIR or whether previously identified significant
impacts would be substantially more severe. As indicated in the analysis provided herein, the
currently proposed Sports Field would not constitute a substantial change in the CCSP project that
will involve “new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of
previously identified significant effects”. The environmental impacts associated with the Sports
Field would be within the envelope of impacts analyzed in the CCSP EIR and/or do not constitute
a new or greater significant impact.
ADDENDUM TO THE CIVIC CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN EIR
Addendum to the Civic Center Specific Plan EIR
April 2018
Page 16 of 32
On the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, the City has determined that
an Addendum is the appropriate form of CEQA documentation to address the proposed Sports
Field.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS OF THE REVISED CIVIC CENTER MULTIPURPOSE
SPORTS FIELD
The following discussion analyzes the environmental impacts of the proposed changes to the
Sports Field (text clarifications, eliminate setback from Pico Boulevard for sports field, and
clarification to parking policy regarding parking approach) from what was analyzed in the CCSP
EIR:
AESTHETICS
The CCSP EIR analyzed potential aesthetic impacts related to the CCSP project, including
construction of the Sports Field, and determined that such impacts would be less than significant
with mitigation. With regard to impacts on visual character and scale, page 4.1-24 of the CCSP
EIR states the following:
“The [Civic Center Specific] Plan proposes low walls and fencing along Fourth Street for
the athletic field. Chain link fencing along Fourth Street adjacent to the athletic field could
create a visual eyesore. Mitigation is recommended below to reduce this impact.”
Eliminating the 100 foot setback annotations on the CCSP illustrations and associated change in
setback of the Sports Field would not result in visual character effects that would be greater than
what was originally analyzed in the CCSP EIR. The setback was originally contemplated to
accommodate the pedestrian entry of the field at the southeast corner near 4th Street and Pico
Boulevard. However, the pedestrian entry is now proposed to be mid-block at 4th Street near the
northeast corner of the field. Changing the setback of the Sports Field from Pico Boulevard would
not have a material effect on the visual character of the area. Additionally, clarifications to
Parking Policy C-5 to emphasize that parking for Civic Center uses will be shared and managed
as part of a whole system would not result in visual character effects that would be substantially
different from what was originally analyzed in the CCSP EIR.
Mitigation measure AES-(e) of the CCSP EIR requires that the chain link fencing be screened with
landscaping, which could include trailing vines or alternative fencing. Under the current proposal,
the chain link fencing would not include vines. However, a landscape buffer with new plantings
(including shrubs, tall trees) and pedestrian pathways (constructed with decomposed granite)
would be provided and as such, would be consistent with the intent of this mitigation measure.
Furthermore, as compared to the existing expansive surface parking lot, the aesthetic
appearance of a sports field with green landscaped buffer would be considered an
improvement. Visual character impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, Mitigation
measure AES-1(e) is no longer required.
With regard to light/glare impacts, page 4.1-28 of the CCSP EIR states the following:
“Ball field night lighting can be particularly intense, depending upon the design of the
night lighting. Stadium type filed lighting can create a nightglow in the sky and could
potentially disturb guests of the Doubletree Hotel. Therefore, because the proposed
athletic field could potentially generate excessive nighttime lighting that is out of
character with the land uses surrounding the project site, this impact is considered
potentially significant.”
ADDENDUM TO THE CIVIC CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN EIR
Addendum to the Civic Center Specific Plan EIR
April 2018
Page 17 of 32
The Sports Field would not add new sources of light/glare that were not previously contemplated
in the original project. The CCSP EIR had contemplated the installation of nighttime field lighting
and analyzed light and glare effects associated with the proposed lighting. As currently
proposed, approximately 60 foot high LED athletic field lights would be installed on the sides of
the field. Field lighting would be turned off at the cessation of the sports event at the field.
Safety/wayfinding lighting and lighting for the restroom would comply with applicable
requirements of Section 9.21.080 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code. As such, lighting fixtures
would be shielded so as not to produce obtrusive glare onto the public right -of-way or adjacent
properties, and lighting would not be permitted to illuminate other properties in excess of a
measurement of 0.5-foot candles of light. The proposed changes to the Sports Field would not
result in light/glare effects that would be substantially different than what was analyzed in the
CCSP EIR.
Overall, the changes to the Sports Field would not significantly visual character or quality of the
area nor affect views or increase light/glare. Modified mitigation measure AES-1(d) as shown
below, as well as mitigation measures AES-1(d), AES-3(b), and AES-3(c) adopted for the CCSP
would apply. Mitigation measure AES-1(e) is recommended for deletion since the proposed
landscape buffer along the field’s street frontages would ensure that impacts to visual character
would be less than significant. Aesthetic impacts associated with the Sports Field would be less
than significant with the mitigation measures and would be within the envelope of impacts
analyzed in the CCSP EIR.
Applicable CCSP EIR Mitigation Measure(s):
Modified AES-1(c) All notable trees that must be removed from the project site shall be
transplanted on-site or to a suitable nearby location unless approved by the City’s
Community and Cultural Services Department Urban Forester as unsuitable for relocation.
Any trees deemed unsuitable for relocation and removed shall be replaced on site or at
a nearby location on a three to one basis, as approved by the City’s CCS Public Works
Department. Tree transplantation shall be performed by a qualified arborist, landscape
architecture, or tree expect, as approved by the CCS Public Works Department. All tree
that are to be reused on-site shall be boxed in appropriately sized containers and
temporarily relocated to protect them from physical injury. If tree relocation and
replacement is not feasible, then fees shall be paid into the City’s Urban Forest Fund.
AES-1(d) A landscaping plan shall be prepared, including a street tree plan, by a licensed
California landscape architect. All landscape areas shall be maintained in a first-class
condition at all times. Any plants that die shall be replaced immediately on a one-to one
basis
AES-1(e) Component 4. Any chain link fencing adjacent to the proposed athletic field,
shall be screened with landscaping, which could include training vines or alternative
fencing shall be designed by an architect or artist as a creative and visually appealing
element of the park.
AES 3(b) Shielded Landscape Illumination. Landscape illumination and exterior sign lighting
shall be accomplished with low-level, unobtrusive fixtures. Such lighting shall be creatively
shielded to direct light pools away from off-site viewers.
AES 3(c) Lighting for the athletic field shall only be the intensity of lighting necessary to
adequately perform night sport-related activities on the field. Sports activities on the field
ADDENDUM TO THE CIVIC CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN EIR
Addendum to the Civic Center Specific Plan EIR
April 2018
Page 18 of 32
shall not occur after 11:00 PM and the field lighting shall be turned off at 11:15 PM. Security
lighting for pedestrian pathways and parking areas may remain on after this time.
AIR QUALITY
The CCSP EIR analyzed potential air quality (operational) impacts related to the CCSP , including
construction of a Sports Field, and determined that significant and unavoidable air quality impacts
related to ROG, NOx, and CO emissions would occur. The proposed changes to the Sports Field
would not generate operational emissions over what was analyzed in the CCSP EIR. The proposed
changes to the Sports Field would not generate increased vehicle trips or associated air quality
emissions that would be substantially different than what was analyzed in the CCSP EIR. Therefore,
the proposed changes to the Sports Field would not result in air pollutant, carbon dioxide, or odor
impacts that would be greater than that analyzed in the CCSP EIR. Air quality impacts associated
with the Sports Field would be within the envelope of impacts analyzed in the CCSP EIR.
CONSTRUCTION EFFECTS
The CCSP EIR analyzed potential construction impacts related to the CCSP, including construction
of a Sports Field, and determined that construction traffic, noise, solid waste, and water quality
would be less than significant with mitigation. However, construction air quality impacts would be
significant and unavoidable for NOx and ROC emissions.
Construction activities for the proposed Sports Field would entail removal of the existing surface
parking lot, grading/excavation of fill and dirt, and construction of the field. As analyzed in the
CCSP EIR, these activities would result in construction effects related to air, noise, and construction
waste. The proposed changes to the Sports Field would not have greater construction effects (air,
noise, and construction waste) than what was analyzed in the CCSP EIR. The size of the field and
construction activities for the field would remain consistent with that analyzed in the CCSP EIR.
Therefore, construction effects would be similar to what was analyzed in the CCSP EIR.
The proposed changes to the Sports Field would not result in construction effects that would be
greater than that analyzed in the CCSP EIR. Construction mitigation measures CON-1 through
CON-4 adopted for the CCSP would apply. Construction impacts associated with the Sports Field
would be within the envelope of impacts analyzed in the CCSP EIR.
Applicable CCSP EIR Mitigation Measure(s):
CON-1 Construction Impact Mitigation Plan. The applicant shall prepare and implement
a Construction Impact Mitigation Plan to provide for traffic and parking capacity
management during construction. This plan shall be subject to review and approval by
the City and, at a minimum, shall include the following:
• Phasing of construction activities for each project component to minimize
disruption to the roadway network;
• A public information program to advise motorists of impending construction
activities (e.g., media coverage, portable message signs, and information signs at
the construction site);
• Approval from the City, or Caltrans if required, for any construction detours or
construction work requiring encroachment into public rights-of-way, or any other
street use activity (e.g., haul routes);
ADDENDUM TO THE CIVIC CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN EIR
Addendum to the Civic Center Specific Plan EIR
April 2018
Page 19 of 32
• Timely notification of construction schedules to all affected agencies (e.g., Police
Department, Fire Department, Department of Public Works, Department of
Planning and Community Development, Los Angeles County Superior Court, Los
Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, and transit agencies);
• Coordination of construction work with affected agencies five to ten days prior
to start of work;
• A traffic control plan for the streets surrounding the work area, which includes
specific information regarding the project’s construction and activities that will
disrupt normal traffic flow;
• Minimizing dirt and demolition material hauling and construction material
delivery during the morning and afternoon peak traffic periods and cleaning of
streets and equipment as necessary;
• Scheduling and expediting of work to cause the least amount of disruption and
interference to the adjacent vehicular and pedestrian traffic flow.
Weekday daytime work on City streets shall primarily be performed between the hours of
9:00 AM and 3:00 PM;
• Limiting of queuing of trucks to on-site and prohibition of truck queuing on area
roadways;
• Scheduling of preconstruction meetings with affected agencies to properly plan
methods of controlling traffic through work areas;
• Designation of off-site construction staging areas;
• Storage of construction material and equipment within the designated work area
and limitation of equipment and material visibility to the public;
• Provision of off-street parking for construction workers, which may include the use
of a remote location and shuttle transport to the site, if determined necessary by
the City of Santa Monica; and,
• Provision of off-street parking for employees of the Civic Center Specific Plan
area, which may include the use of a remote location with shuttle transport to the
site, if determined necessary by the City of Santa Monica
CON-2(a) Dust Minimization. Dust generated by the development activities shall be kept
to a minimum with a goal of retaining dust on the site through implementation of the
following:
• During clearing, grading, earthmoving, excavation, or transportation of cut or fill
materials, water trucks or sprinkler systems are to be used to the extent necessary
to prevent dust from leaving the site and to create a crust after each day's
activities cease.
ADDENDUM TO THE CIVIC CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN EIR
Addendum to the Civic Center Specific Plan EIR
April 2018
Page 20 of 32
• During clearing, grading, earthmoving, excavation, or transportation of cut or fill
materials, streets and sidewalks within 150 feet of the site perimeter shall be swept
and cleaned a minimum of twice weekly.
• During construction, water trucks or sprinkler systems shall be used to keep all
areas of vehicle movement damp enough to prevent dust from leaving the site. At
a minimum, this would include wetting down such areas in the later morning and
after work is completed for the day and whenever wind exceeds 15 miles per hour.
• Soil stockpiled for more than two days shall be covered, kept moist, or treated
with soil binders to prevent dust generation.
CON-2(b) Construction Equipment Conditions. Construction equipment used on the site
shall meet the following conditions in order to reduce NOx and ROC emissions:
• The number of pieces of equipment operating simultaneously must be minimized
through efficient management practices;
• Construction equipment must be maintained in tune per manufacturer's
specifications;
• Equipment shall be equipped with 2 to 4-degree engine timing retard or
precombustion chamber engines;
• Catalytic converters shall be installed, to the extent feasible;
• Diesel-powered equipment such as booster pumps or generators should be
replaced by electric equipment, the extent feasible; and,
• The operation of heavy duty construction equipment shall be limited to no more
than 5 pieces of equipment at any one time.
CON-2(c) Low-VOC Coatings. Low VOC architectural coatings shall be used in
construction whenever feasible and shall coordinate with the SCAQMD to determine
which coatings would reduce VOC emissions to the maximum degree feasible.
CON-3(a) Diesel Equipment Mufflers. All diesel equipment shall be operated with closed
engine doors and shall be equipped with factory recommended mufflers.
CON-3(b) Electrically-Powered Tools. Electrical power shall be used to run air compressors
and similar power tools.
CON-3(c) Additional Noise Attenuation Techniques. For all noise generating construction
activity on the project site, additional noise attenuation techniques shall be employed to
reduce noise levels to City of Santa Monica noise standards. Such techniques may include,
but are not limited to, the use of sound blankets on noise generating equipment and the
construction of temporary sound barriers between construction sites and nearby sensitive
receptors.
CON-3(d) Construction Sign Posting. In accordance with Municipal Code Section 4.12.210,
the project applicant shall be required to post a sign informing all workers and
subcontractors of the time restrictions for construction activities. The sign shall also include
ADDENDUM TO THE CIVIC CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN EIR
Addendum to the Civic Center Specific Plan EIR
April 2018
Page 21 of 32
the City telephone numbers where violations can be reported and complaints associated
with construction noise can be submitted.
CON-3(e) Construction Noise Hotline. Project applicants shall provide a telephone number
for local residents to call to submit complaints associated with construction noise. The
number shall be posted on the project site and shall be easily viewed from adjacent public
areas.
CON-4(a) Demolition Plan. The applicant shall prepare and submit a demolition plan for
review and approval by the City. The plan shall include methods to maximize salvage and
recycling of building and landscape materials. The plan shall include a recovery rate for
each material type in the demolition contract. The plan shall also include strategies for the
salvage of reusable historic materials and reusable materials in good conditions.
CON-4(b) Separation of Recyclable of Construction Waste. During construction and
demolition activities, the applicant shall separate for recycling all materials that are
accepted for recycling in the Los Angeles region, including, but not limited to, metals,
wood waste, and clean fill.
CON-4(c) Removal of Recyclable Materials. The applicant shall schedule the removal of
reusable and recyclable materials prior to demolition to maximize recovery rate.
CON-4(d) Bins for Recyclable Construction Waste. The applicant shall provide separate
bins for all recyclables on-site. Such bins shall be labeled clearly in several languages or
with universal symbols. The applicant shall also provide orientation prior to the start of
construction for workers to train them to use the recycle bins provided. If there is insufficient
space on-site, the applicant shall contract with a recycling company to receive mixed
loads for separation and recycling.
CON-4(e) The applicant shall use preengineered or factory cut material to the extent
feasible. Examples of this type of material include, but are not limited to, factory trusses,
laminated and other engineered wood products, sheet metal cladding and roofing, 9 foot
gypsum board, pre-cut headers, and pre-assembled joist bridging. The applicant shall also
use reusable and recyclable forming materials, such as steel forms or standard wood
systems, where feasible.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
The CCSP EIR analyzed potential cultural resources impacts related to the CCSP and determined
that impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. With regard to impacts on historic
resources, page 4.4-28 of the CCSP EIR analyzed potential impacts to the historic Civic Auditorium
as a result of the Civic Auditorium Park including the Sports Field. Specifically, page 4.4-28 of the
CCSP EIR states the following:
“The CCSP calls for the creation of a Civic Auditorium Park on 5.6 acres on the majority of
the parking lot area….The general concept of the park would be focused on an active
playfield for soccer and other field sports. Potential removal of character-defining
landscape elements would result in a significant adverse impact to this historic resource.”
The proposed changes to the Sports Field would not result in historic impacts that would be greater
than what was analyzed in the CCSP EIR. The currently proposed Sports Field would not remove
ADDENDUM TO THE CIVIC CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN EIR
Addendum to the Civic Center Specific Plan EIR
April 2018
Page 22 of 32
any landscape elements of the Civic Auditorium. Therefore, no impacts to historic resources would
occur and, impacts on historic resource would be less than what was analyzed in the CCSP EIR.
With regard to impacts on archaeological and paleontological resources, the proposed changes
to the Sports Field would not result in greater excavation than previously analyzed. . As such, the
likelihood of encountering archaeological and paleontological resources would be similar to that
analyzed in the CCSP EIR. Overall, the proposed changes to the Sports Field would not result in
impacts on cultural resources that would be greater than that analyzed in the CCSP EIR.
CR-10(a) At the commencement of project construction, all workers associated with earth
disturbing procedures shall be given an orientation regarding the possibility of exposing
unexpected cultural remains by an archaeologist and directed as to what steps are to be
taken if such a find is encountered.
CR-10(b) In the event that archaeological resources are unearthed during project
construction, all earth disturbing work within the vicinity of the find must be temporarily
suspended or redirected until an archaeologist has evaluated the nature and significance
of the find. After the find has been appropriately mitigated, work in the area may resume.
If human remains are unearthed, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5requires
that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary
findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. If
the remains are determined to be of Native American descent, the coroner has 24 hours
to notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The NAHC will then identify
the person(s) thought to be the Most Likely Descendent (MLD) of the deceased Native
American, who will then help determine what course of action should be taken in dealing
with the remains.
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
The CCSP EIR analyzed potential geology/soils impacts related to the CCSP, including
construction of a Sports Field, and determined that impacts would be less than significant with
mitigation.
Geological/soils impacts are typically site-specific, and are determined partly by the specific
characteristics of the underlying soils. Consistent with what was envisioned in the CCSP EIR, the
proposed Sports Field would be located at the Civic Center surface parking lot near the corner of
4th Street and Pico Boulevard. The proposed changes to the Sports Field would not result in
geological/soil impacts that would be substantially different than what was analyzed in the CCSP
EIR. The proposed field is not located in an Alqiuist-Priolo Fault Zone and as such, would not be
susceptible to fault rupture (California Geological Survey, Beverly Hills Quadrangle Map, 2018).
Earthquake risks would be similar to other developments in the region, as indicated in the CCSP
EIR. Furthermore, given the absence of slopes and large bodies of water nearby, the proposed
field would not expose people or structures to landslides, tsunamis, or flooding. Furthermore, based
on geotechnical reports prepared for the nearby Civic Center Parking Structure, it is anticipated
that the underlying soils are prone to liquefaction. However, since a site-specific geotechnical
analysis for the field has not yet been prepared, the following mitigation measures adopted for
the CCSP would apply to the Sports Field. Geology/soils impacts associated with the Sports Field
would be less than significant with mitigation and would be within the envelope of impacts
analyzed in the CCSP EIR.
Applicable CCSP EIR Mitigation Measure(s):
ADDENDUM TO THE CIVIC CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN EIR
Addendum to the Civic Center Specific Plan EIR
April 2018
Page 23 of 32
GEO-1(a) Design and construction of the buildings proposed in the Civic Center Specific
Plan shall be engineered to withstand the expected ground acceleration that
may occur at this site. The calculated design base ground motion for the site
shall take into consideration the soil type, potential for liquefaction, and the
most current and applicable seismic attenuation methods that are available.
For any buildings considered essential facilities, as defined in the Uniform or
California building codes, the buildings shall be designed to withstand the upper
bound earthquake ground motion. All on-site structures shall comply with
applicable provisions of the most current building code.1997 Uniform Building
Code and the1998 California Building Code
GEO-2 Additional Geotechnical Study. Prior to issuance of a building permit for any new
structures proposed in the Civic Center Specific Plan, a geotechnical study shall
be completed to adequately assess the liquefaction potential and compaction
design of the soils underlying the proposed bottom grade of any structure built
within the Civic Center complex. The borings shall be completed to at least 50
feet below the lowest proposed finished grade of the structure or 20 feet below
the lowest caisson or footing (whichever is deeper). If these soils are confirmed
to be prone to seismically-induced liquefaction, appropriate techniques to
minimize liquefaction potential shall be prescribed and implemented. All on-site
structures, including the proposed truck tunnel, shall comply with applicable
methods of the Uniform Building Code and California Building Code. Suitable
measures to reduce liquefaction impacts could include specialized design of
foundations by a structural engineer, removal or treatment of liquefiable soils to
reduce the potential for liquefaction, drainage to lower the groundwater table
to below the level of liquefiable soils, in-situ densification of soils, or other
alterations to the ground characteristics.
GEO-3(a) All artificial fill material or unsuitable native soil identified in the Geotechnical
Report(s) that is located below the footprint of proposed structures shall be
removed and hauled off site or processed into a suitable building material. GEO-
3(b) All fill material used for construction shall be approved by a geotechnical
or civil engineer, and all backfill and foundation sub-grade shall be certified by
a geotechnical or civil engineer for proper compaction. GEO-3(c) All fill material
used for backfill after abandonment of any below-grade levels within the
project area shall be approved by a geotechnical or civil engineer. In addition,
the backfill shall be certified by a geotechnical or civil engineer for proper
compaction.
GEO-4(a) Appropriate geotechnical investigations, as mandated by the building codes,
shall be performed prior to the design of any structure. These geotechnical
studies shall be used to design the excavations and shoring to prevent
destabilization of the sidewalls. A civil or geotechnical professional shall field test
the excavations to determine proper sloping of the excavations. Where proper
slopes cannot be used, shoring must be used. This shoring shall be designed to
the satisfaction of the project civil engineer and take into account all lateral
load parameters and the possible presence of groundwater at the bottom
grade of the excavations or the base of the shoring soldier piles (if used). A
monitoring system shall be implemented to evaluate the shoring system. GEO-
4(b) All excavations for parking structures, buildings, the tunnel, or future possible
water tank shall comply with all applicable regulations of the California
ADDENDUM TO THE CIVIC CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN EIR
Addendum to the Civic Center Specific Plan EIR
April 2018
Page 24 of 32
Occupational Safety and Hazard Administration guidelines as they pertain to
excavations.
GEO-4(c) Before construction begins, a groundwater study shall be completed to predict
the groundwater levels expected during excavation activities. The study shall
include the installation of at least one on site groundwater monitoring well and
a historical evaluation of groundwater levels in the site area. If it is discovered
that the groundwater levels will pose a problem, then appropriate measures
shall be taken to de-water the excavation before grading and construction of
the subterranean structures begins. In addition, subterranean structures that
have the potential to accumulate groundwater or percolating surface water
shall include a mechanism of removing groundwater or percolating surface
water, which may collect in the structures. The removal system shall be designed
to prevent the structure from flooding.
GEO-4(d) To mitigate impacts associated with the potential presence of contaminated
groundwater which may be pumped during construction, the applicant shall
obtain the proper discharge permits (such as a National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System- NPDES permit) or sanitary sewer discharge permit from the
Regional Water Quality Control Board or the Sanitary District, respectively.
Sampling of the discharge shall be performed, as required by the permit
conditions.
GEO-4(e) If groundwater or percolating surface water removal is to be continuously
performed to maintain the usability of any subterranean structure, then the
proper groundwater discharge permits (a NPDES permit from the Regional
Water Quality Control Board for the discharge of groundwater into the storm
drain system) shall be obtained by the applicant. The permit conditions
generally require periodic monitoring for contaminants and the calculation of
discharge volume. If such a system is to be installed at this site, then the
appropriate permits shall be obtained, the permit conditions followed, and the
groundwater removal system shall be maintained in proper order to ensure its
proper operation.
GEO-5 Soil Expansion Analysis. Prior to issuance of a building permit, soil samples of final
sub-grade areas and excavation sidewalls shall be collected and analyzed for
their expansion index. For areas where the expansion index is found to be
greater than 20, the appropriate grading and foundation designs shall be
engineered to withstand the existing conditions. The expansion testing may be
omitted if the grading and foundations are engineered to withstand the
presence of highly expansive soils.
GEO-6(a) Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. The applicant shall require the building
contractor to prepare and institute a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP) during construction. A SWPPP for site construction shall be developed
and approved prior to the initiation of grading and implemented for all
construction activity on the project site in excess of five acres. The SWPPP shall
include specific Best Management Practices (BMPs) to minimize the loss of soil
from the site during construction activities. BMP methods may include, but would
not be limited to, the use of temporary retention basins, straw bales, sand
bagging, mulching, erosion control blankets, soil stabilizers and dust control
using the minimum amount of water without adding to runoff. Additional BMPs
ADDENDUM TO THE CIVIC CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN EIR
Addendum to the Civic Center Specific Plan EIR
April 2018
Page 25 of 32
shall be implemented for any fuel storage or fuel handling that could occu ron-
site during construction and the temporary storage of all heavy equipment shall
be confined to one localized area. The SWPPP must be prepared in accordance
with the guidelines adopted by the State Water Resources Control Board.
GEO-6(b) Covering and Removal of Stockpiles. All stockpiles of excavated material shall
be covered with an impervious material during storage and shall be removed
from the site within 3 weeks of being excavated or they shall be used for grading
or backfill if the material fulfills the requirements of measures GEO-3(b and c)
above. GEO-6(c) Standard erosion control practices shall be implemented per
the requirements of the City’s Urban Runoff Pollution Control Ordinance.
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
The CCSP EIR analyzed potential hazards/hazardous materials impacts related to the CCSP,
including construction of a Sports Field, and determined that impacts would be less than
significant with mitigation. Specifically, page 4.4-28 of the CCSP EIR states the following:
“Contaminants in soils underlying area other than buildings, such as alethic fields and open
space could have health risk implications. Where contaminants are below concrete or
asphalt, there is a low likelihood that these contaminants would have a pathway which
would be able to affect the public or the environment. However, where contaminants are
present in surface soils use of the contaminated area could result in exposure the people
using the facility. Such an exposure is considered a significant but mitigated impact.”
The proposed changes to the Sports Field would not result in hazardous impacts that would be
greater than what was analyzed in the CCSP EIR. Rather, it is anticipated that the proposed
change from natural turf to synthetic turf would result in fewer hazardous materials impacts since
synthetic turf would not require the use of fertilizer, pesticides, and herbicides. Mitigation measures
HHS-4(a) through HHS-6 adopted for the CCSP would apply to the Sports Field. Hazards/hazardous
materials impacts associated with the Sports Field would be less than significant with mitigation
and would be within the envelope of impacts analyzed in the CCSP EIR.
Applicable CCSP EIR Mitigation Measure(s):
HHS-4(a) Prior to development of specific projects, including structures, athletic fields,
parks and open space, on sites for which a Phase I environmental assessment
has not been completed, Phase I environmental site assessments shall be
performed to determine the likelihood of contaminants in areas beyond what
has already been assessed. The Phase I ESA shall follow the current ASTM
standard (as of this writing, the current ASTM standard is ASTM E 1527-00).
HHS-4(b) If contaminated soil is suspected to be present within any building excavation
footprint, athletic field, park, or open space area, the applicant shall perform soil
sampling and analysis to determine the vertical and lateral extent of
contamination.
HHS-4(c) If contaminants are detected in soil at levels that exceed suggested cleanup
goals, such as the levels established by the RWQCB (May 1996 guidebook), US
EPA’s Preliminary Remediation Goals, one in one million cancer risk, or a health
risk index above 1, then the results of the soil sampling shall be forwarded to the
local regulatory agency (City of Santa Monica Environmental Program Division,
ADDENDUM TO THE CIVIC CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN EIR
Addendum to the Civic Center Specific Plan EIR
April 2018
Page 26 of 32
and/or the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board, and/or the State
of California Environmental Protection Agency Department of Toxic Substances
Control). The agency(s) shall review the data and either sign off on the property
or determine if any additional investigation or remedial activities are deemed
necessary.
HHS-4(d) If concentrations of contaminants warrant site remediation, contaminated
materials shall be remediated either prior to construction of structures, athletic
fields, parks, or other areas where asphalt or concrete will not cover the ground
surface, or concurrent with construction. The contaminated materials shall be
remediated under supervision of an environmental consultant licensed to
oversee such remediation. The remediation program shall also be approved by
a regulatory oversight agency, such as the City of Santa Monica Environmental
Program Division, Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board, or the State
of California Environmental Protection Agency Department of Toxic Substances
Control. All proper waste handling and disposal procedures shall be followed.
Upon completion of the remediation, the environmental consultant shall prepare
a report summarizing the project, the remediation approach implemented, and
the analytical results after completion of the remediation, including all waste
disposal or treatment manifests.
HHS-5(a) If, during the implementation of mitigation measure HHS-3 or HHS-4, groundwater
contamination is suspected, or if soil contamination is detected at depths at or
greater than 30 feet below grade, then the applicant shall perform a
groundwater sampling assessment. If contaminants are detected in
groundwater at levels that exceed maximum contaminant levels for those
constituents in drinking water, or if the contaminants exceed health risk standards
such as Preliminary Remediation Goals, one in one million cancer risk, or a health
risk index above 1, then the results of the groundwater sampling shall be
forwarded to the appropriate regulatory agency (City of Santa Monica
Environmental Program Division, Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control
Board, or the State of California Environmental Protection Agency Department
of Toxic Substances Control). The agency shall review the data and sign off on
the property or determine if any additional investigation or remedial activities are
deemed necessary.
HHS-5(b) If concentrations of contaminants warrant site remediation, contaminated
materials are to be removed or properly mitigated. The contaminated materials
are to be removed or mitigated under supervision of an environmental
consultant licensed to oversee such remediation. The remediation program shall
also be approved by a regulatory oversight agency, such as the City of Santa
Monica Environmental Program Division, Los Angeles Regional Water Quality
Control Board, or the State of California Environmental Protection Agency
Department of Toxic Substances Control. All proper waste handling and disposal
procedures shall be followed. Upon completion of the remediation, the
environmental consultant shall prepare a report summarizing the project,
including all waste disposal or treatment manifests
HHS-6 All excavation and demolition projects conducted within the Civic Center
Specific Plan area shall have a contingency plan to be implemented in the event
that contaminants or structural features that could be associated with
contaminants or hazardous materials are suspected or discovered. The
ADDENDUM TO THE CIVIC CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN EIR
Addendum to the Civic Center Specific Plan EIR
April 2018
Page 27 of 32
contingency plan shall identify appropriate measures to be followed if
contaminants are found or suspected. The appropriate measures shall identify
personnel to be notified, emergency contacts, and a sampling protocol to be
implemented. The excavation and demolition contractors shall be made aware
of the possibility of encountering unknown hazardous materials, and shall be
provided with appropriate contact and notification information. The
contingency plan shall include a provision stating at what point it is safe to
continue with the excavation or demolition, and identify the person authorized
to make that determination.
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
The CCSP EIR analyzed potential hydrology and water quality impacts related to the CCSP,
including demolition of the surface parking lot and subsequent construction of a Sports Field made
of turf (natural grass). The CCSP EIR determined that impacts would be less than significant with
mitigation.
With regard to construction-related runoff, page 4.7.5 of the CCSP EIR states the following:
“During grading and soil storage, there is potential for soil migration off-site via wind and/or
water erosion. In addition, concrete residue from demolition of surface parking lots could
potentially migrate offsite.”
With regard to quality of runoff, page 4.7-8 of the CCSP EIR states the following:
“In addition the large sports field proposed in the Civic Auditorium SUD could potentially
increase the amount of fertilizers and herbicides in runoff that could potentially enter the
Santa Monica Bay through the storm drain system. The addition of fertilizers, pesticides and
other chemicals to the recreational field has the potential to include higher than natural
concentrations of trace metals, biodegradable wastes (which affect dissolved oxygen
levels), and excessive major nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus.”
Because of the potential impacts due to runoff from the originally proposed field, Mitigation
Measures HWQ-4(b) and HWQ-4(c) were recommended to reduce impacts to less than
significant.
Mitigation Measure HWQ(b) recommends the design and construction of biofilters, bioswales, or
biofilters for the field. The rest of the site would include planters with low water use shrubs and
shade trees located among predominately decomposed granite accessible walkways with runoff
directed to the planter areas. Use of bioswales and bioretention areas is prohibitive, as the field
and walkways are required to have minimal slope. Stormwater treatment beneath the field would
dramatically increase the cost of field construction. Further, the City will be developing a new
Sustainable Water Infrastructure Project (SWIP) water treatment facility in the Civic Center Parking
Lot. The SWIP will include the installation of an underground, recycled water treatment facility
beneath the existing Civic Center parking lot (beneath the current solar collectors in the Civic
Parking Lot to the south of the County courthouse)and an adjacent 1.5-million gallon stormwater
harvest tank. When completed, the recycled water facility will be capable of advance treatment
of up to 1.0 MGD of municipal wastewater and stormnwater. Once the SWIP is constructe d,
stormwater runoff from the field site would instead be directed to the SWIP for treatment.
Therefore, Mitigation measure HWA-4(b) is no longer required.
ADDENDUM TO THE CIVIC CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN EIR
Addendum to the Civic Center Specific Plan EIR
April 2018
Page 28 of 32
Mitigation measure HWQ-4(c) of the CCSP EIR requires a recreation field maintenance plan for
the use of herbicides and fertilizers. Under the current proposal, the field would be constructed of
synthetic turf and would not require the use of fertilizers, pesticides, or herbicides. As such, the
potential for polluted runoff would be substantially reduced from that analyzed in the CCSP EIR.
Additionally, the City of Santa Monica parks maintenance staff follows strict protocols and
regulations that address the safe use of hazardous materials in public areas. Therefore, Mitigation
measure HWQ-4(c) is no longer required.
In general, the proposed changes to the Sports Field would result in hydrology and water quality
impacts that would be less than what was analyzed in the CCSP EIR. Adopted mitigation measures
HWQ-4(b) and HWQ-4(c) are recommended for deletion for the reasons previously stated.
Hydrology/water quality impacts associated with the Sports Field would be less than significant
with the mitigation measures and would be within the envelope of impacts analyzed in the CCSP
EIR.
HWQ-4(b) Where feasible, a biofilter, bioswale or bioretention area shall be designed and
constructed for the athletic field and new surface parking lots to allow for treatment of
stormwater runoff from the site. Such system shall be designed by a registered civil
engineer specializing in water quality or other qualified professional to ensure that
retention is adequate to reduce concentrations of targeted pollutants. The biofilter,
bioswale, or bioretention area shall be depicted on grading and drainage plans and shall
include a maintenance plan.
HWQ-4(c) The applicant shall submit a recreational field maintenance plan to the City that
limits the use of herbicides and inorganic fertilizers applied to the field to those quantities
necessary to treat specific problems. The recreational field maintenance plan shall
include, but not be limited to: provisions for mechanical weed control to be used wherever
and whenever possible as the first choice; determination of the probable cause of a
disease problem and correction as necessary (i.e.: soil nutrient problems, irrigation, water
quality, plant type, etc.) prior to chemical use; provisions that herbicides are to be used
only when necessary to cure a problem and not as a preventative measure or as a regular,
periodic application, and guidelines for use of chemical forms that have a low potential
for leaching from the site
LAND USE AND PLANNING
The CCSP EIR analyzed potential land use impacts related to the CCSP, including construction of
a Sports Field, and determined that impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
The proposed changes to the Sports Field would not represent a significant change in existing land
use patterns. Revising the field entry from the corner of 4th Street/Pico Boulevard to mid-block on
4th Street would not affect existing land use relationships in the Civic Center.
The proposed project would make changes to the text references to the Civic Center
Multipurpose Sports Field and eliminate the setback annotations in the CCSP illustrations. Minor
clarifications to Parking Policy C-5 are proposed for consistency with the City’s overall parking
approach to emphasize that parking for Civic Center uses is shared and managed as part of a
whole system. These text amendments would require a specific plan amendment to the Civic
Center Specific Plan. The proposed changes to the Sports Field would not result in physical land
use impacts that would be greater than that analyzed in the CCSP EIR. There are no mitigation
measures from the approved CCSP that would apply. Land use impacts associated with the Sports
ADDENDUM TO THE CIVIC CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN EIR
Addendum to the Civic Center Specific Plan EIR
April 2018
Page 29 of 32
Field would be less than significant and would be within the envelope of impacts analyzed in the
CCSP EIR.
NOISE
The CCSP EIR analyzed potential noise (operational) impacts related to the CCSP, including
construction of a Sports Field, and determined that impacts would be less than significant after
mitigation.
With regard to noise, page 4.10.7 of the CCSP EIR states the following:
“In addition, the athletic field, and to a much lesser extent, the proposed play area for the
Childhood Education Center, could result in nuisance noise for adjacent uses…. However,
the proposed athletic field, and to a much lesser extent, the proposed play area for the
Childhood Education Center, could result in nuisance noise related to cheering, whistles,
yelling, etc. This could result in potential for night lighting on the field. Noise levels from
athletic fields and courts typically range from 60 to 65 dBA Leq at 100 feet for non -
amplified sounds (e.g., cheering). A minimum attenuation level of 6 dB would be expected
for every doubling of distance, with no structural interference or landscape buffering. T he
effects of these additional sources of attenuation would increase the overall attenuation
to approximately 9 to 12 dB. Athletic field noise levels are usually highly random in
distribution and frequency, and are generally classified as compatible with residential and
other noise sensitive users. The project does not include bleacher seating or amplified
public address systems, thereby minimizing noise impacts. At its closest point, the proposed
athletic field would be approximately 300 feet form the Courthouse 325 feet from the
Doubletree Hotel and 200 feet from the Civic Auditorium. The proposed Childhood
Education Center would provide a structural interference between the athletic field and
Courthouse, resulting in noise levels of approximately 55 dBA at the Courthouse. Noise
levels due to the athletic field would be expected to be approximately 59 dBA at the Civic
Auditorium, and approximately 56 dBA at the Doubletree Hotel. Therefore, activities at the
athletic field would not be expected to generate significant noise impacts. However,
nuisance noise levels during the late evening house, when noise sensitivity is greatest is
considered potentially significant.”
The proposed changes to the Sports Field would not result in noise impacts that would be greater
than that analyzed in the CCSP EIR. A reduction in setback and the inclusion of bleacher seating
would result in noise levels that would be closer to the existing sensitive residential uses on Fourth
Street to the south. However, a landscape buffer along Fourth Street and Pico Boulevard would
provide for noise attenuation, reducing noise levels by approximately 9 to 12 db. Additionally,
consistent with the CCSP EIR, evening activities at the proposed athletic field would not occur
past 11:00 PM.
The changes to the Sports Field would not result in increased noise impacts from what were
analyzed in the CCSP EIR. The proposed changes to the Sports Field would not result in noise
impacts that would be greater than what was analyzed in the CCSP EIR. Rather, the proposed
changes to the Sports Field would result in less noise impacts. Mitigation measures N-2(b) through
N-2(c) adopted for the CCSP would apply. Noise impacts associated with the Sports Field would
be less than significant with mitigation and would be within the envelope of impacts analyzed in
the CCSP EIR.
Applicable CCSP EIR Mitigation Measure(s):
ADDENDUM TO THE CIVIC CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN EIR
Addendum to the Civic Center Specific Plan EIR
April 2018
Page 30 of 32
N-2(b) Trash Pickup. All trash pickups shall be restricted to operating hours of 7:00 am to
9:00 pm Monday through Friday, and 8:00 pm to 9:00 pm weekends
N-2(c) Athletic Field. Evening activities at the proposed athletic field shall not occur past
11:00 PM
POPULATION AND HOUSING
The CCSP EIR analyzed potential population and housing impacts related to the CCSP and
determined that impacts would be less than significant. The proposed changes to the Sports Field
would not result in population/housing impacts, consistent with the CCSP EIR. The proposed Sports
Field would be developed on the existing Civic Center surface parking lot and would not displace
people or housing. Furthermore, the Sports Field would not generate new population/housing.
The proposed changes to the Sports Field would not result in population/housing impacts that
would be greater than that analyzed in the CCSP EIR. There are no mitigation measures from the
approved CCSP that would apply. Population and housing impacts associated with the Sports
Field would not occur and would be within the envelope of impacts analyzed in the CCSP EIR.
PUBLIC SERVICES
The CCSP EIR analyzed potential public services impacts related to the CCSP, including
construction of a Sports Field, and determined that impacts would be less than significant. The
proposed changes to the Sports Field would not result in additional residential or daytime
population that would generate increased demand for public services. Therefore, the proposed
changes to the Sports Field would not result in public services impacts that would be greater than
that analyzed in the CCSP EIR. There are no mitigation measures from the approved CCSP that
would apply. Public services impacts associated with the Sports Field would be less than significant
and would be within the envelope of impacts analyzed in the CCSP EIR.
SHADOWS
The CCSP EIR analyzed potential shadow impacts related to the CCSP, including construction of
a Sports Field, and determined that impacts would be less than significant. The proposed changes
to the Sports Field would not result in additional shadow effects greater than what was analyzed
in the CCSP EIR. The field would not generate any shadows. Consistent with what was analyzed
in the CCSP EIR, a landscape buffer with tall trees would be provided around the perimeter of the
field. An approximately 12 foot tall restroom building would be located, which would cast minimal
shadows due to its height. These are no sensitive receptors that would shaded by the trees. The
closest residential uses are to the south across Pico Boulevard – these uses would not be shaded
since shadows in the area are cast from a east to northwest, and west direction. Therefore,
shadows would not be different or greater than analyzed in the CCSP EIR.
The proposed changes to the Sports Field would not result in shadow impacts that would be
greater than that analyzed in the CCSP EIR. Shadow impacts associated with the Sports Field
would be less than significant and would be within the envelope of impacts analyzed in the CCSP
EIR.
ADDENDUM TO THE CIVIC CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN EIR
Addendum to the Civic Center Specific Plan EIR
April 2018
Page 31 of 32
TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
The CCSP EIR analyzed potential transportation/traffic related to the CCSP, including construction
of a Sports Field, and determined that impacts would be significant and unavoidable even with
mitigation. The proposed changes to the Sports Field would not affect the trip generation that was
analyzed in the CCSP EIR since there is no proposed increased in intensity of use. It is anticipated
that visitors arriving by vehicles to the proposed field and Civic Center would park in other nearby
public parking facilities, including the Civic Center Parking Structure.
Since certification of the CCSP EIR in 2005, the issue of parking has been removed from CEQA.
While parking may be an important urban planning issue that is of interest to the public and the
decision makers, parking availability (in and of itself) is not treated as a direct impact to the
physical environment requiring evaluation under CEQA. In 2010, the state revised the CEQA
Guidelines and determined that parking adequacy should be deleted from CEQA analysis in part
as a result of the decision in San Franciscans Upholding the Downtown Plan v. City and County of
San Francisco (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 656. In that case, the court distinguished the social impact
of inadequate parking from actual adverse environmental impacts. In particular, that court
explained:
[T]here is no statutory or case authority requiring an EIR to identify specific measures to
provide additional parking spaces in order to meet an anticipated shortfall in parking
availability. The social inconvenience of having to hunt for scarce parking spaces is not an
environmental impact; the secondary effect of scarce parking on traffic and air quality is.
Under CEQA, a project's social impacts need not be treated as significant impacts on the
environment. An EIR need only address the secondary physical impacts that could be triggered
by a social impact. Secondary physical impacts that can occur as a result of parking inadequacy
are attributed to vehicles driving around (or “cruising”) to look for parking, thus contributing
additional vehicle trips to intersections and increasing air pollution. No secondary physical
impacts are anticipated with the field’s proposed removal of the existing parking lot. Parking
would be accommodated in other nearby parking facilities including the Civic Center Parking
Structure. With the existing and future wayfinding signage for parking facilities, secondary effects
such as “cruising” are not anticipated.
Furthermore, since adoption of the CCSP EIR, the Expo Light Rail began operation between
Downtown Los Angeles and Downtown Santa Monica.2 The introduction of this regional transit
system offers Civic Center users the opportunity to take light rail transit and reduce vehicle trips in
and around the Civic Center. Other technological developments in mobility options, such as
transportation network companies (TNCs) including Uber and Lyft, have further reduced the need
for parking in the City.
Overall, based on the above, the proposed Sports Field would not generate significant new trips
or substantially worsen traffic impacts. Traffic impacts associated with the Sports Field would be
within the envelope of impacts analyzed in the CCSP EIR.
2 The CCSP EIR did not account for trip reduction benefits of the Metro Expo Light Rail line (which has a station at 4 th
Street/Colorado Blvd). Therefore, trips associated with the Sports Field are anticipated to be lower than analyzed in the
CCSP EIR
ADDENDUM TO THE CIVIC CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN EIR
Addendum to the Civic Center Specific Plan EIR
April 2018
Page 32 of 32
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
The CCSP EIR analyzed potential utilities and infrastructure impacts related to the CCSP, including
construction of a Sports Field, and determined that impacts would be less than significant and/or
less than significant with mitigation. The proposed changes to the Sports Field would not result in
additional water use, wastewater generation, solid waste generation, or energy use greater than
analyzed in the CCSP EIR.
Under the current proposal, the field would be constructed of synthetic turf and would not require
irrigation. The rest of the site would include planters with low water use shrubs and shade trees
located among predominately decomposed granite accessible walkways with runoff directed to
the planter areas. Furthermore, under the current proposal, water efficient irrigation systems (such
as drip tubing, tree bubblers) would be installed for the new landscaping. As such, water use
would be substantially reduced from that analyzed in the CCSP EIR.
Wastewater generation would not be greater than analyzed in the CCSP EIR. Rather, wastewater
generated may be less than analyzed in the CCSP EIR since wastewater from the restroom could
potentially be treated at the pending SWIP for reuse (once the SWIP is completed).
Additionally, energy use would not be greater than analyzed in the CCSP EIR. Energy use would
be primarily from the operation of field lighting which would be turned off after completion of
sports events. Safety/wayfinding lighting and lighting for the restroom would comply with
applicable requirements of CALGreen and the City of Santa Monica’s Green Building Code.
Therefore, the proposed field would not result in wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary
consumption of energy.
There are no mitigation measures from the approved CCSP that would apply. Utilities impacts
associated with the Sports Field would be less than significant and would be within the envelope
of impacts analyzed in the CCSP EIR.
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The currently proposed Sports Field would not substantially change the analysis presented in the
CCSP EIR or mandatory findings of significance that were adopted for the approved CCSP.
CONCLUSION
As demonstrated in this Addendum, the proposed changes to the Sports Field would not generate
new significant environmental impacts or increase the severity of impacts identified in the 2005
CCSP EIR.
To:
Santa
Monica
City
Council
From:
Nina
Fresco
Re:
Civic
Multipurpose
Sports
Field
Fence
and
Restroom
Design
May
22,
2018
Please
choose
high
quality
materials
instead
of
chain
link
for
the
fence
and
cinder
block
for
the
restroom
at
the
Civic
Multipurpose
Sports
Field.
Materials
need
to
be
compatible
with
the
adjacent
Civic
Auditorium
to
prevent
unsightly
elements
that
could
be
a
liability
in
the
auditorium
rehabilitation
and
reuse,
and
to
comply
with
the
city’s
adopted
plans.
The
streetscapes
along
Pico
and
4th
Street
will
be
vastly
improved
with
an
attractive
fence
that
does
not
itself
require
screening,
while
maintaining
views
of
the
Civic
Auditorium.
• Chain
link
=
blight.
Cities
all
over
the
country
have
programs
for
removal
of
chain
link
fencing
from
residential
neighborhoods
and
are
starting
to
look
at
its
replacement
in
more
urban
areas
as
well
for
the
same
reason:
they
discourage
investment
in
adjacent
improvements
because
they
represent
the
lowest
cost,
least
thoughtful
approach
to
barriers.
Chain
link
brings
down
the
quality
of
design
of
the
auditorium
site,
making
efforts
to
upgrade
the
auditorium
harder
to
envision
and
putting
it
at
risk
for
a
very
long
wait,
and
falling
into
irreversible
disrepair.
• On
4th
Street
there
will
be
chain
link
and
cinder
block
on
both
sides
of
the
street
creating/perpetuating
an
unpleasant
pedestrian
experience
for
the
primary
pedestrian
route
from
Ocean
Park
to
downtown
and
the
light
rail
station.
This
is
not
consistent
with
our
pedestrian
improvement
policies.
The
LUCE
states
on
page
4.0-‐
26,
“The
success
of
the
transit
system
is
dependent
upon
high
quality
walking
routes
to
and
from
transit
stops.”
• LUCE
policy
D16.1
“Develop
and
improve
the
visual
and
physical
connections
between
the
Civic
Center
and
Downtown,
Beach,
and
Oceanfront
and
Main
Street
Districts,
and
the
Ocean
Park
neighborhood.”
The
chain
link
frontages,
and
rear
view
of
the
cinder
block
restroom
adjacent
to
4th
Street
contradict
this
policy.
• LUCE
policy
D15.3
“Strengthen
the
connection
between
the
Civic
Center
and
Santa
Monica
High
School
by
improving
access
and
permeability
of
the
high
school’s
campus,
and
opening
views
on
both
sides
of
the
street.”
The
dense
grove
of
trees
proposed
in
an
attempt
to
hide
the
chain
link
fence,
prevents
exposure
to
the
openness
of
the
field,
which
has
always
been
envisioned
as
a
streetscape
asset.
A
fence
attractive
enough
that
it
would
not
need
to
be
screened
should
be
used.
• Attempts
to
screen
the
chain
link
are
ineffective
because
if
they
are
opaque
enough
to
screen
the
fence,
they
close
off
the
open
space
and
eliminate
views
of
the
Civic
Auditorium.
If
the
screen
doesn’t
close
off
the
open
space
and
conceal
the
Civic
Auditorium,
then
its
not
screening
the
unsightly
chain
link
fence.
• The
drawings
for
the
proposed
field
released
so
far
do
not
reflect
how
close
the
field
Item 8-A
05/22/18
1 of 13 Item 8-A
05/22/18
will
come
to
the
Civic
Auditorium
itself.
It
is
very
close.
Particularly
on
this
critical
elevation
that
directly
impacts
the
historic
context
of
the
landmark,
there
is
no
room
for
trees
or
any
other
kind
of
screening
of
chain
link
fencing.
Thus
the
edge
of
the
field
closest
to
the
auditorium,
which
should
be
approached
with
the
most
sensitivity,
will
have
the
most
significant
negative
impact
on
the
historic
integrity
of
the
Civic
Auditorium.
• The
Civic
Center
Specific
Plan
states
on
page
20
in
regard
to
the
Civic
Auditorium
park:
“Safety
fencing
for
the
field
has
been
carefully
designed
with
high-‐quality
materials
to
integrate
the
field
with
the
adjacent
park
and
community
uses.”
There
it
is.
The
plan
directs
us
to
take
the
design
of
the
fence
seriously.
Chain
link
is
not
invisible;
it
is
an
assertive
detriment.
• The
CCSP
points
out
on
page
17
that
the
field
corner
at
4th
Street
and
Pico
Boulevard
is
a
gateway
to
the
Civic
Center
from
the
Ocean
Park
Neighborhood,
so
it
should
have
a
presence
that
reflects
that
significance.
• The
CCSP,
page
14,
says
that
open
space
should
be
developed
"in
conjunction
with
adjacent
land
uses
so
that
they
are
mutually
supportive.”
The
development
of
the
field
is
moving
ahead
of
the
Civic
Auditorium,
but
we
should
still
honor
the
responsibility
of
developing
them
compatibly.
• The
CCSP,
page
9,
says
that
the
Civic
Center
should
"no
longer
be
seen
as
a
number
of
disparate
elements,
but
as
a
multifaceted
urban
district
with
many
layers
of
activity…”
which
supports
compatible
design
of
the
field
fencing
with
the
adjacent
Civic
Auditorium,
and
with
the
quality
of
design
of
the
entire
area
from
Tongva
Park,
to
RAND,
to
the
new
City
Services
Building
addition
planned
for
the
landmarked
City
Hall.
Let’s
not
“cheap
out”
on
this
comparatively
easy
piece
of
the
Civic
Center
Plan.
The
ball
field
restroom
goes
to
the
ARB
in
a
month.
There
is
time
to
come
up
with
an
appropriate
fence
and
restroom
design
before
then
without
delaying
the
project.
ARB
should
look
at
the
fence
too
because
in
this
case
it
is
not
just
an
accessory
to
the
site.
In
this
case
the
fence
defines
the
site.
Many
people
who
live
in
Santa
Monica
will
probably
never
set
foot
on
this
field,
but
nearly
every
one,
to
a
person,
will
walk
or
drive
by
it
as
part
of
their
life
in
the
city.
Please,
let’s
get
it
right.
Item 8-A
05/22/18
2 of 13 Item 8-A
05/22/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Ann Hoover <annkbowman@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, May 21, 2018 4:16 PM
To:Ted Winterer; Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Clerk Mailbox; Gleam Davis; Pam
OConnor; Sue Himmelrich; Tony Vazquez; Terry O’Day; Councilmember Kevin
McKeown
Cc:Zina Josephs; Jaleh MIRHASHEMI; Maryanne LaGuardia; John Cyrus Smith; Andrew
Browning; Joan Krenik; Ruth Fragoso; Danica Jamieson; Rick Cole; Katie E. Lichtig; David
Martin; Jing Yeo; Karen Ginsberg; Ben Drati; Richard Tahvildaran-Jesswein
Subject:May 22, 2018 City Council Meeting - Item 8.A.b. - CCSP Amendments
Dear Mayor Winterer and Esteemed City Council Members -
With respect to Item 8.A. -- Resolution regarding CCSP amendments to further reflect the Multipurpose Sports
Field and the City's emphasis on managing and sharing existing parking resources as a whole system -- we
encourage you to move forward with Item 8.A.b. -- "Staff's Recommended Council Resolution for 7th CCSP
Amendment".
While the Planning Commission (per the Staff Report and Item 8.A.a.) did recommend one additional suggested
policy addition to the amendments, we concur with Staff's conclusion that the addition is not necessary. The
CCSP will continue unchanged to contemplate the possibility of building underground parking. And per Staff -
components of the CCSP have been successfully implemented since the CCSP’s adoption without specificity on
how the components are implemented. This has provided flexibility in adjusting resources and facilities as
necessary to accommodate each component of the CCSP. We are confident that whenever there exists a fully-
baked proposal to revitalize the Auditorium that is both financially feasible and community-serving, that such
plan also will be successfully implemented.
Moreover, as a point of equity -- Council has allowed all the other elements of the CCSP to proceed - most
recently, the CSB and the ECLS - without regard to parking considerations and the Multipurpose Sport Field
should not be unfairly subjected to a different standard than these previously-approved elements.
Again, Staff recommends that Council approve the proposed CCSP amendments without suggested new Policy
I-24, as it is not necessary, and we concur with Staff.
Accordingly, please approve the proposed CCSP amendments using the Staff-recommended resolution in
Attachment B to the Staff Report (8.A.b.).
Many thanks for your continued strong support of the Civic Center Multipurpose Sport Field and we look
forward to its imminent submission to the California Coastal Commission for approval.
Best,
Ann Hoover and Jaleh Mamita
Co-Chairs, SAMOHI PTSA Civic Center Task Force
City Clerk – Please include this letter in the Public Record for Agenda Item 8.A., City
Council meeting of May 22, 2018. Thank you!
Item 8-A
05/22/18
3 of 13 Item 8-A
05/22/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Ann Hoover <annkbowman@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, May 22, 2018 8:47 AM
To:David Martin; Jing Yeo; Rick Cole; Katie E. Lichtig; Karen Ginsberg; Lane Dilg
Cc:Jaleh MIRHASHEMI; Zina Josephs; Maryanne LaGuardia; John Cyrus Smith; Andrew
Browning; Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox; Clerk Mailbox;
Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Ted Winterer; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis; Pam
OConnor; Sue Himmelrich; Terry O’Day
Subject:May 22, 2018 Council Meeting - ERROR ON THE AGENDA - Item 8.A.
Attachments:IMG_2374.JPG
Hi David and Jing --
See the attached photo of tonight's agenda, below.
I am writing to call your attention to an error on the agenda due to an inconsistency between your recommended
action in the Staff Report and the Recommended Action you list on the Agenda. In the Staff Report, you
recommend that Council approve a resolution in the form of Attachment B (without the Planning Commission's
suggested addition) but on the agenda you recommend that Council approve a Resolution in the form of
Attachment A, which does include the Planning Commission's suggested addition.
Hoping this is a simple error and ask that you correct the agenda immediately to reflect your recommendation
that Council approve a Resolution in the form of ATTACHMENT B (or Item 8.A.b.)
I look forward to a response from you on this. It is these important details and little goofs (and also big goofs
like leaving the field out of the LCP entirely) that really set our teeth on edge.
Thank you -
Best, Ann
City Clerk – Please include this letter in the Public Record for Agenda Item 8.A., City
Council meeting of May 22, 2018.
Item 8-A
05/22/18
4 of 13 Item 8-A
05/22/18
Item 8-A
05/22/18
5 of 13 Item 8-A
05/22/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Nikki Kolhoff <nhkolhoff@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, May 22, 2018 2:35 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox
Cc:Rick Cole
Subject:City Council May 22, 2018 - Item 8A - Sabotage of Civic Center Sports Field
Attachments:2018-02-15 SantaMonica.CivicCenterParking.Letter.R.Cole. from Coastal.pdf;
2018-02-20 Coastal Email Response No Study (redacted).PDF
Dear City Council -
I am concerned about the CCSP Amendment and EIR Amendment before you tonight. This is just one more
delay tactic placed in the way of the Civic Center Sports Field. The following procedural choices made by Staff
have left the Sports Field vulnerable.
1. Lack of Community Meetings Regarding Field Location and Design.
a. The field community was told several years ago that there would be a public process regarding
the field design and yet there has never been a public presentation of the field design in a
community meeting.
b. Private meetings have been held with a few field supporters, but that doesn’t count.
c. Staff presentations at Rec & Parks Commission meetings likewise do not count because those
meetings are limited by the Brown Act and residents cannot ask questions directly of Staff.
d. Almost all Sports Field items that have come before City Council have been consent items with
no public hearings.
2. As a result, many questions remain unanswered about the location and design of the Sports Field that
could put it at risk with our community and the Coastal Commission.
. Why is the Sports Field set so far in from 4th Street? We don’t need 45’ of buffer plus 30’ of
landscaping on the 4th Street side. This makes the field project bigger than it has to be and
leaves less space for the Auditorium.
a. Why is the Sports Field set so far in from Pico? This makes the field project bigger than it has
to be as well.
b. Why is there a buffer on 4th Street instead of on the Auditorium side? Wouldn’t you want to be
able to see both fields at the same time from the high school while it is being used by the high
school?
c. Why aren’t the restrooms at the corner of 4th and Pico so field can move to edge and reduce
parking displacement?
3. Why can’t the Sports Field be a flexible space? The field community NEVER asked for the field to be
single-purpose. We have always wanted to work with the Auditorium for flexible programming for
festivals and concerts. There are no issues relating to the field that prevent this from being flexible
space.
4. Why are the fire lanes appearing now?
. Aren’t they required for the SMC Lab School because it is a preschool and this is a code
requirement? Why have we never heard about them before? This has nothing to do with the
Sports Field and should not be part of the field project.
a. Why does the Sports Field footprint include the entrances to the fire lanes that are not required
for the field?
b. Who is paying for the fire lanes?
5. How can the CCSP be amended without providing scaled drawings with measurements in staff report
and all measurements in the CCSP drawing?
. The Sports Field is NOT 5.6 acres. It is 275’ x 400’ and the rest of the size is inflated by Staff.
Item 8-A
05/22/18
6 of 13 Item 8-A
05/22/18
2
a. Where are the CCSP amended drawings? With no scale or measurements, how do we know
what it looks like? How can you amend graphics in your master plan without showing the
graphic?
b. Why is this being added under the Lab School heading? The Sports Field should be its own
component of the CCSP and not a subfeature of the SMC Lab School.
6. The Civic Center should not be made part of a parking system until the Sports Field is approved by the
Coastal Commission.
. Staff claimed this change was necessary at the initial Planning Commission meeting but still
hasn’t answered basic questions as to why. If the field fits (which we know it does) there is no
need to create a system, other than to allow the City to push parking to the Civic Center under
the City’s new parking rates for the Promenade area.
a. Rick Cole has refused to say how many spaces staff is counting for the field footprint, how many
parking spaces of demand staff believes the field creates at each of these times and based on
what use, how many spaces staff believes are left in the civic center structure and surface lot
after accounting for ONLY the CSB, ECLS and Field? Not any other project.
b. Why wouldn’t the parking spaces be included in this plan to show exactly how many spaces are
left in the lot?
c. We know the City is withholding data from the Coastal Commission that benefits the Sports
Field and shows this system change is not required. In our attached article
(https://www.surfsantamonica.com/ssm_site/the_lookout/letters/Letters-
2018/04_02_2018_OPINION_City_Should_Submit_Santa_Monica_Civic_Center_Field_to_Coa
stal_Commission_Now.html), we show that the City has data demonstrating there are enough
parking spots available now for field.
d. Did Staff have that data at time of the Chula Vista meeting given that meeting was over three
months after the date period?
7. Staff continues to use misleading information with the Coastal Commission and the public, showing
fewer parking spots at the Civic and a larger Sports Field than really exist.
. You can see that in the attached letter we received from the Coastal Commission where they
say the City told them the field takes up 700 spaces, when it really is 400 at most. In addition,
the City continues to let the Coastal Commission believe that there are only a few hundred
spaces left in the lot instead of closer to 450. Even with the misleading information from the City,
the Coastal Commission does not say that the City’s parking study is required. “Commission
staff believes that a comprehensive evaluation of all the uses and parking within the Civic
Center area is critical to evaluate the effect of any new proposed development in this specific
location. A city-wide parking analysis is not being suggested.”
a. Also attached is the letter from the Coastal Commission to the City. You can see that it too is
based on flawed assumptions, “result[ing] in a potential parking supply deficit of approximately
500 spaces within the subject area,” which we know is not true. Even so, it says, “The
application should also include an evaluation as to whether the remaining on-site parking is
adequate to support existing uses that are dependent on the existing parking, and adequate to
support the parking demand created by the new development.”
b. Don’t you think the Coastal Commission would have responded differently if the City had
provided data showing there was no parking deficit, just like the Lab School and the CSB?
8. SUBMIT THE SPORTS FIELD TO THE COASTAL COMMISSION NOW.
Thank you for consideration.
Regards,
Nikki Kolhoff
Santa Monica Resident and SMMUSD Parent
Item 8-A
05/22/18
7 of 13 Item 8-A
05/22/18
Item 8-A
05/22/18
8 of 13 Item 8-A
05/22/18
Item 8-A
05/22/18
9 of 13 Item 8-A
05/22/18
Item 8-A
05/22/18
10 of 13 Item 8-A
05/22/18
2/4
Commission staff believes that a comprehensive evaluation of all the uses and parking within the Civic Center area is
critical to evaluate the effect of any new proposed development in this specific location. A city-wide parking analysis is
not being suggested.
3.
How could the Coastal Commission know the scope required of a study prior to an initial submission
of a CDP application with a description of the sports field project?
City staff has informed Commission staff that the new Multi-purpose sports field project would result in an expected
parking demand/impact of approximately 700 parking spaces (including both the number of existing parking spaces to
be removed as well as parking demand generated by the new field).
4. To ensure the public can verify that the project description is accurate, and given the 30day
streamlining requirement for the Coastal Commission to respond to an application, isn’t the most
efficient and transparent approach for the City to submit a CDP application for the sports field with the
existing utilization data (the very same utilization data accepted by the Coastal Commission for the
CSB and ECLS) and let the Coastal Commission ask for more information if needed?
The most efficient approach is to submit all the relevant information as early as possible.
5. If an applicant has not submitted an initial CDP application, is there any legal basis for the Coastal
Commission to require a parking study or for the City to state there is a legal requirement to spend
public funds prior to obtaining an official response from the Coastal Commission at end of the 30day
response period?
There is no 30-day response period ( Streamlining Act filing deadline) if no CDP application has been submitted.
6. Is there any reason for the Coastal Commission not to use same civic center parking utilization data
provided for CSB and ECLS to determine whether the sports field is adequately parked?
Commission staff will also take into consideration all recent utilization data including that provided for CSB and ECLS.
7. The utilization data submitted by the City for the ECLS and CSB and accepted by the Coastal
Commission in October showed 217 spaces remaining in the civic center parking lots after taking into
account the usage of the ECLS and CSB. The City says the field footprint is 350 spaces, which
appears to result in a shortfall of 133 spaces. Please confirm that the applicant need only show that
there is mitigation for these 133 spaces to show the sports field is adequately parked.
City staff has informed Commission staff that the new Multi-purpose sports field project would result in an expected
parking demand/impact of approximately 700 parking spaces (including both the number of existing parking spaces to
be removed as well as parking demand generated by the new field).
8. We see no requirement that parking actually must be studied anew, but rather that the project be
adequately parked. So, please confirm that the following would be satisfactory alternatives to spending
public funds collecting new parking data over a long period:
1. Removal of staff parking passes in excess of 133 and plan for those staff to take alternate
transportation, especially to demonstrate the City’s commitment to the environment for its
employees who will be working in one of the greenest buildings on the planet.
2. Use of historic utilization data from surrounding parking structures to show where there are 133
parking spaces near civic center that are adequate alternatives for civic center uses that do not
impact coastal access.
To understand which alternatives would be acceptable, an evaluation of the Civic Center parking is still necessary. We
cannot determine which alternatives are feasible until we have the entire project before us.
If off-site parking spaces are relied upon, the assessment needs to address and include information/data
regarding the supply and demand (parking space availability) of these public parking structures/lots adjacent
Item 8-A
05/22/18
11 of 13 Item 8-A
05/22/18
3/4
to the Civic Center area. In some situation historic utilization data can be considered but not in lieu of current
data.
1. Is there any reason why parking availability should be studied only north of the project as opposed to
other directions closer to the project?
Please clarify this question.
We would like to bring to your attention several concerns we have with collecting new data at the Civic Center lot, as
opposed to using the same historic data you accepted for the ECLS and CSB.
1. We are aware of the City’s need to perform a study of similar scope for both the Local Coastal Plan
before you and a Gateway Area Master Plan (GAMP). The GAMP proposes rerouting the 10 Freeway
offramp(s) to the south side of the freeway, landing at the edge of the Coastal Zone at 4th Street &
Olympic Drive. It appears the City is using sports field funds to conduct the parking studies for this
project and possibly the LCP as well. This would explain why the Walker Study Contract contains two
years of renewal options that would, effectively delay the field.
2. If this parking study were truly for the sports field, it would look at parking both north and south of
Civic Center Lot. The city is only studying north and downtown because it serves the needs of other
plans.
3. The City altered pricing to make the Civic Center Lot & Structure the cheapest all day weekend lot for
the beach and downtown. Since the data was delivered for the ECLS and CSB we've become
concerned about coordinated attempts to drive parking traffic to the Civic. We are monitoring traffic
signage, event promotions and online app partnerships used more recently to create behavioral shifts to
drive beachgoers to the Civic Center Parking. We don't need an imagination to interpret how such
actions would alter the outcomes of this expensive and inappropriately allocated parking study.
4. We understand the City has parking partnerships with both older and recently built hotels within our
Coastal Zone. These partnerships increase the number of accessible public parking spaces and we
wonder if the City has presented this parking space data to the Coastal Commission? Not at this time
We're confident the combined actions to remove duplicated and other staff parking passes and add the Coastal
Zone hotel parking spaces from city/hotel partnerships will amply make up for the removal of 133 spaces in the
Civic Center Lot for the field.
We understand the City has submitted its own questions to you. However, we, as members of the public, would
appreciate answers to our questions to ensure that the sports field so desperately needed by our community moves
forward with as much speed and transparency as possible.
Thank you for your time.
Regards,
Item 8-A
05/22/18
12 of 13 Item 8-A
05/22/18
4/4
Item 8-A
05/22/18
13 of 13 Item 8-A
05/22/18