R11060City Council Meeting July 25, 2017
RESOLUTION NO. !'"v (CCS)
(City Council Series)
Santa Monica, California
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA MAKING FINDINGS
NECESSARY TO APPROVE THE DOWNTOWN COMMUNITY PLAN PROJECT,
ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS,
AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN
WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 65300 et seq. requires that each
city adopt a comprehensive, long term general plan for the physical development of the
city, a plan which is considered the constitution governing land use; and
WHEREAS, the general plan must include a land use element and a circulation
element; and
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Monica's Land Use and Circulation Element
("LUCE") was adopted by the City Council on July 6, 2010; and
WHEREAS, the LUCE designates the proposed general distribution, location, and
extent of land uses within the City; and
WHEREAS, the LUCE was adopted after an extensive planning process, and
addresses neighborhood
conservation
and enhancement; integrated land use
and
transportation; proactive
congestion
management; complete neighborhoods
with
1
increased open space; community benefits; quality urban character and form;
preservation of historic resources; and growth management; and
WHEREAS, the goals and policies of the LUCE set the future direction of the City,
including the City's Downtown area, which is generally bounded by Wilshire Boulevard
along its northern edge, Lincoln Boulevard along its eastern edge, the 1-10 Freeway to
the south, and Ocean Avenue and Palisades Park to the west (collectively referenced
herein as the "Downtown Area"); and
WHEREAS, the LUCE contemplates the Downtown Core designation of the
Downtown Area as a thriving, mixed-use urban environment in which people can live,
work, be entertained and culturally enriched; and
WHEREAS, the LUCE contemplates that the Downtown Core designation allows
for the broadest mix of uses and highest intensity development because it comprises the
City's major regional and employment district, with a human -scale and pedestrian
orientation at the street level with development intensities lower on the northern and
eastern edges in order to transition to the lower -density character of adjacent
neighborhoods; and
WHEREAS, the LUCE contemplates that specific uses within the Downtown Core
as well as development parameters, including height, floor area ratio, setbacks and step
backs, will be established by a specific plan; and
WHEREAS, the draft Downtown Community Plan ("DCP") is the proposed specific
plan for the Downtown Area; and
4
WHEREAS, a Notice of Preparation of a Program Environmental Impact Report
for the Downtown Community Plan ("Draft EIR") was issued on September 19, 2013; and
WHEREAS, a public scoping hearing for the Draft EIR was held on October 3,
2013, and public comments were received until October 21, 2013; and
WHEREAS, a Notice of Completion of the Draft EIR was published on February 3,
2016; and
WHEREAS, the Draft EIR was circulated for a 90 -day public review period from
February 3, 2016 to May 3, 2016; and
WHEREAS, a Recirculated Draft EIR was circulated for a 47 -day public review
period from February 1, 2017 to March 20, 2017; and
WHEREAS, the Final Environmental Impact Report ("Final EIR") that includes
responses to written comments on the Draft EIR, was published in April 2017; and
WHEREAS, the Final EIR analyzes the effect of potential land use changes that
could occur within the Downtown area through 2030 as a result of the implementation of
the DCP, including a review of the range of impacts between Scenario A (development
with a cap of 4.73 million square feet of net new floor area) and Scenario B (development
with a cap of 3.22 million square feet of net new floor area) plus five alternatives, including
the No Project alternative (Alternative #1), the Reduced Project alternative (Alternative
#2), the 4th/5th Streets One -Way Streets Circulation Plan (Alternative #3), the Expanded
One -Way Street Circulation Plan (Alternative #4), and the Hotel/Tourism-focused
alternative (Alternative #5); and
i1
WHEREAS, the Final EIR (page 5.0-140) determined that the implementation of
Scenario B would be the environmentally superior alternative because it would
incrementally reduce potential environmental impacts relative to Scenario A, but
implementation of Scenario B would also still achieve all of the goals of the DCP; and
WHEREAS, since initiating the planning process for the DCP in 2012, four
iterations of the DCP have been introduced; and
WHEREAS, the final public hearing draft of the DCP was released to the public at
an open house event on April 12, 2017; and
WHEREAS, all of the drafts, including the April 12, 2017 draft, represent Scenario
B (development with a cap of 3.22 million square feet of net new floor area); and
WHEREAS, at the public hearings regarding the DCP, commencing on April 26
and continuing on May 10, 11, 17, 18 and 31, 2017, the Planning Commission received
extensive public testimony and written submittals, reviewed and considered City staff
presentations and reports, including the Final EIR, and engaged in a lengthy deliberative
process; and
WHEREAS, after considering all such oral and written testimony at the public
hearings on April 26, May 10, 11, 17, 18 and 31, 2017, the Planning Commission adopted
Resolution No. 17-006 (PCS) to recommend that the City Council approve the April 12,
2017 draft of the DCP, as modified by certain changes in the Addenda Sheet attached
thereto as Exhibit B; and
112
WHEREAS, at the public hearings regarding the DCP on July 10, 11, and 25, 2017,
the City Council received extensive public testimony and written submittals, including,
without limitation, Planning Commission Resolution No. 17-006 (PCS), and reviewed and
considered City staff presentations and reports, including the Final EIR and Errata, dated
July 19, 2017 (collectively referenced herein as "the Final EIR"), and engaged in a lengthy
deliberative process; and
WHEREAS, after considering all such oral and written testimony at the public
hearings on July 10, 11, and 25, 2017, the City Council desires to consider approval of
the April 12, 2017 draft of the DCP, as modified by certain changes that are reflected in
the Errata, dated July 19, 2017 (collectively referenced herein as "the Final Draft DCP");
FV
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the contents of the
Final EIR in its decision-making process, and independently determined that the Final
EIR has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act
("CEQA")(Public Resources Code sections 21000 et seq.) and CEQA guidelines; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has certified that:
(1) The Final EIR for the Downtown Community Plan ("DCP") has been completed
in full compliance with CEQA and CEQA Guidelines;
(2) The Final EIR was presented to the City Council as the decision-making body
of the lead agency and that the City Council reviewed and considered the information
contained in the Final EIR prior to approving the DCP; and
5
(3) The Final EIR reflects the City Council's independent judgment and analysis;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Impacts That Are Less Than Significant Without Mitigation.
Consistent with Article VI, Section 12 of the City of Santa Monica CEQA Guidelines and
Section 15091 and 15092 of the State CEQA Guidelines, and as discussed in the Final
EIR (and summarized in Table ES -1 of Volume I of the Final EIR), the City Council finds
that impacts of the Downtown Community Plan ("DCP") related to aesthetics/shade &
shadow (Final EIR Section 3.3, Errata Attachment B, pages 16-19), geology/soils (Final
EIR Section 3.9), greenhouse gas emissions (Final EIR Section 3.8), hydrology/water
quality (Final EIR Section 3.9), land use/planning (Final EIR Section 3.12 and Errata,
Attachment B, page 20), neighborhood effects (Final EIR Section 3.13), noise
(operational)(Final EIR Section 3.14), and population/housing/employment (Final EIR
Section 3.15) would be less than significant without mitigation.
SECTION 2. Impacts That Are Less Than Significant With Mitigation.
Consistent with Article VI, Section 12 of the City of Santa Monica CEQA Guidelines and
Sections 15091 and 15092 of the State of California CEQA Guidelines, the City Council
finds that most impacts resulting from the DCP can be reduced to less than significant
levels. More specifically, significant environmental effects as identified below can feasibly
be avoided and have been eliminated or substantially lessened to less than significant
levels with the mitigation measures as discussed in the Final EIR (and summarized in
Table ES -1 of Volume I of the Final EIR), as set forth, below:
0
(a) Air Quality — Impacts AQ -5, Mitigation Measures AQ -5a, 5b (Final EIR
Section 3.4, pages 46-47)
(b) Biological Resources — Impacts BIO -1, Mitigation Measure MM BIO -1 (Final
EIR Section 3.5, pages 19-21)
(c) Cultural Resources —Impacts CR -3, Mitigation Measures MM CR -3a, 3b
(Final EIR Section 3.7, pages 43-45)
(d) Cultural Resources — Impacts CR -4, Mitigation Measures MM CR -4a, 4b
(Final EIR Section 3.7, pages 45-47)
(e) Hazardous and Hazardous Materials — Impacts HAZ-2, Mitigation Measures
MM HAZ-2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e (Final EIR Section 3.10, pages 21-23 )
(f) Public Services — Impacts PS -1, Mitigation Measure MM PS -1 (Final EIR
Section 3.16, pages 13-23, Errata Attachment B, pages 21-22)
(g) Public Services — Impacts PS -2, Mitigation Measure MM PS -2 (Final EIR
Section 3.16, pages 24-32)
(h) Utilities — Impacts U-1, Mitigation Measures MM U-1 (Final EIR Section
3.17, pages 19-24)
(i) Utilities - Impacts U-4, Mitigation Measures MM U-1 and MM U-4 (Final EIR
Section 3.17, pages 35-39)
0) Transportation and Circulation, Mitigation Measures MM T-1 (Final EIR
Section 3.18, pages 46-50)
7
SECTION 3. Significant and Unavoidable Impacts. Consistent with Article IV,
Section 12 of the City of Santa Monica CEQA Guidelines and Section 15091, 15092, and
15093 of the State of California CEQA Guidelines, the City Council finds that significant
adverse environmental effects identified in the Final EIR (and summarized in Table ES -1
of Volume I of the Final EIR), in the areas of air quality (AQ -2, AQ -3), construction effects
(CE -1), cultural resources (CR -1), noise (N-2), and traffic (T-3), as setforth, below, cannot
feasibly be avoided or mitigated to below a level of significance, however, these impacts
are considered to be acceptable when balanced against the economic, legal, social,
technological, and other benefits of the DCP as specified in Section 6 of this Resolution:
(a) Impacts AQ -2, Mitigation Measures MM HAZ-2, AQ -2 (Final EIR Section
3.4, pages 34-40)
40-43)
(b) Impacts AQ -3, Mitigation Measures MM AQ -2 (Final EIR Section 3.4, pages
(c) Impacts CE -1, Mitigation Measures MM AQ -2 and MM T-1 (Final EIR
Section 3.6, pages 4-7)
36-41)
56-69)
(d) Impacts CR -1, Mitigation Measures MM CR -1 (Final EIR Section 3.7, pages
(e) Impacts N-2, no feasible mitigation (Final EIR Section 3.14, pages 23-24)
(f) Impacts T-3, Mitigation Measures MM T-3 (Final EIR Section 3.18, pages
E
SECTION 4. Alternatives. Consistent with Sections 15126.6(a) of the CEQA
Guidelines, the Final EIR includes a discussion and evaluation of "a reasonable range of
alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly obtain
most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of
the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the
alternatives." The Final EIR provides a robust analysis of alternatives that includes the
No Project Alternative (Alternative #1) as well as four additional alternatives (Alternatives
# 2, 3, 4, and 5).
(a) The No Project Alternative (Alternative #1) considers environmental
impacts if the DCP is not adopted and the goals, standards, policies, and actions of the
plan are not implemented. The significant and unavoidable impacts related to air quality,
construction noise, and cultural resources would be similar to the DCP. Under this
alternative, none of the DCP's objectives and LUCE goals for the Downtown would be
achieved. The No Project Alternative would not implement the DCP's strategies and
standards to promote a sustainable and multimodal Downtown. Additionally, this
Alternative would not result in the achievement of the City's No Net New P.M. Peak Hour
Trips goal. For these reasons, the City Council finds the No Project Alternative will not
obtain most of the basic objectives of the project and rejects this alternative. (Final EIR
Section 5.0, pages 11-46)
(b) The Reduced Project Alternative (Alternative #2) would eliminate Tier 3
development standards for the Downtown. New land uses in the Downtown would be
limited to the DCP's Tier 1 and Tier 2 standards, which provide maximum allowable
building heights of 50 to 60 feet and FARs of generally 2.25 to 3.5 depending on the
io
subarea. The significant and unavoidable impacts related to air quality, construction
noise, and cultural resources would be similar to the DCP. As a result of reduced
development potential in Downtown, development pressure could push new land uses
out to more parcels in the Downtown and other areas of the City (e.g., along the
boulevards). Opportunities for new housing near housing would be reduced. With future
land uses, including housing, being potentially pushed out to other areas of the City that
are less accessible to transit, the number of P.M. peak hour trips, daily VMT and VMT per
capita could be potentially greater on a citywide basis relative to the DCP. Further, without
the Tier 3 height and land use potential, it is anticipated that there would be less
opportunity for significant community benefits. As such, it is unlikely that the major
transportation investments identified in the DCP (e.g., the east -west connectors through
the Big Blue Bus Yards large site and the Olympic Cross-over) would come to fruition. In
addition, the program to expand public parking around the periphery of Downtown to
reduce trips into the core may also become infeasible or be only partially implemented,
due to the loss of development agreement projects. Such transportation would be costly
and involves substantial amounts of private property acquisition; it is unclear if these could
be achieved absent the level of community benefits that could be provided under the
DCP. For these reasons, the City Council rejects this alternative as infeasible. (Final EIR
Section 5.0, pages 47-83)
(c)
The
4th/5th Streets One -Way Streets Circulation Plan
Alternative
(Alternative
#3)
would carry forward the same policies, development
standards,
programs, and design guidelines as the DCP. Additionally, this alternative would convert
two existing streets in the Downtown (i.e., 4th Street and 5th Street) to new one-way
10
streets with dedicated contraflow bus transit facilities. The significant and unavoidable
impacts related to air quality, construction noise, and historic resources would be similar
to the DCP. With respect to circulation and LOS in the Downtown grid, this one-way street
operation would require a greater level of intervention on the City's street system and
could result in more wayfinding issues, round -the -block travel, and motorist confusion.
The increased trip distance resulting from out of direction travel on one-way streets would
increase VMT and the number of intersections that a motorist must use to reach their
destination. The potential roadway speed advantages of one-way streets is offset by
increased intersection demand and distance resulting in similar LOS impacts.
Additionally, one-way streets are designed to move vehicles through the network faster —
which can result in increased vehicle speeds that create potential safety concerns and
uninviting conditions for people walking and biking. For these reasons, the City Council
rejects this alternative as infeasible. (Final EIR Section 5.0, pages 84-95)
(d) The Expanded One-way Streets Circulation Plan Alternative (Alternative
#4) would carry forward the same policies, standards, and program/actions proposed
under the DCP. However, the Expanded One -Way Streets Circulation Plan Alternative
would convert six existing streets in the Downtown to new one-way streets with additional
bus transit enhancements, and bicycle lanes. The significant and unavoidable impacts
related to air quality, construction noise, and historic resources would be similar to the
DCP. With respect to circulation and LOS in the Downtown grid, this one-way street
operation would require a greater level of intervention on the City's street system and
could result in more wayfinding issues, round -the -block travel, and motorist confusion.
The increased trip distance resulting from out of direction travel on one-way streets would
11
increase VMT and the number of intersections that a motorist must use to reach their
destination. The potential roadway speed advantages of one-way streets is offset by
increased intersection demand and distance resulting in similar LOS impacts.
Additionally, one-way streets are designed to move vehicles through the network faster —
which can result in increased vehicle speeds that create potential safety concerns and
uninviting conditions for people walking and biking. For these reasons, the City Council
rejects this alternative as infeasible. (Final EIR Section 5.0, pages 95-109)
(e) The HoteUTourism-focused Land Use Mix Alternative (Alternative #5) would
not include the DCP's policies and standards that promote housing (e.g., housing density
bonus) in the Downtown. As a result, future land use changes would shift toward
commercial rather than mixed-use housing as emphasized in the DCP. Under the
Hotel Tourism -focused Land Use Mix Alternative, the significant and unavoidable impacts
related to construction air quality, construction noise, and cultural resources would be
similar to the DCP. Hotel uses typically generate fewer peak hour trips than other land
use types, reducing VMT. However, this would be balanced by the fact that fewer housing
opportunities would be located in the vicinity of the job locations which could result in
potential incremental increases in citywide P.M. Peak Hour vehicle trips and VMT from
commuting workforces. Furthermore, this alternative would not achieve some of the
DCP's project objectives, including the objective to ensure that the Downtown includes
incentives to provide an array of housing opportunities. For these reasons, the City
Council rejects this alternative as infeasible. (Final EIR Section 5.0, pages 109-138)
(f)
The City Council finds that
Scenario B
is
the environmentally superior
alternative
because the implementation
of Scenario
B
would incrementally reduce
12
potential environmental impacts relative to Scenario A, but implementation of Scenario B
would also still achieve all the goals and objectives of the DCP. (Final EIR Section 5.0,
pages 138-141)
SECTION 5. Findings. The preceding Findings, although based primarily on
conclusions in the Final EIR, have not attempted to describe the full analysis of each
environmental impact contained in the Final EIR. Instead, the Findings incorporate by
reference the discussions and analyses in the Final EIR and supporting reference
documents supporting the Final EIR's determinations regarding the nature and severity
of the impacts of the DCP and mitigation measures designed to address those impacts.
In making these findings, the City Council ratifies, adopts, and incorporates into these
findings the analysis and explanation in the Final EIR and ratifies, adopts, and
incorporates in these findings the determinations and conclusions of the Final EIR.
SECTION 6. Statement of Overriding Considerations. The Final EIR found that
the DCP would result in significant unavoidable adverse impacts in the areas of air quality,
cultural resources, construction effects, noise, and traffic/transportation, as more
specifically referenced in Section 3 of this Resolution. Consistent with Article VI, Section
13 of the City CEQA Guidelines and Section 15093 of the State of California CEQA
Guidelines, the City Council hereby finds that the remaining significant and unavoidable
impacts of the DCP are acceptable in light of the long-term social, environmental, land
use, and other considerations set .forth herein. Specifically, the significant and
unavoidable impacts are outweighed by the following benefits:
13
The DCP provides development incentives to increase much needed
housing in the Downtown, including 100% affordable housing at range of
sizes and affordability levels
The DCP provides a substantial amount of deed -restricted affordable
housing, reducing the amount of public investment necessary to achieve
both Proposition R and Housing Element Regional Housing Needs
Assessment obligations
The DCP requires enhanced impact fees in the Downtown, including an
enhanced Transportation Impact Fee, an enhanced Parks and Recreation
Impact Fee, and an enhanced Affordable Housing Commercial Linkage Fee
The DCP protects adjacent residential neighborhoods by encouraging the
highest intensity of development near the Expo station with reduced
development potential at the periphery
The DCP provides flexibility for innovation and creativity in architecture and
design while enhancing the ground floor pedestrian experience by requiring
ground floor building setbacks for outdoor dining and strategically locating
both active and neighborhood -serving commercial uses
The DCP increases opportunities for historic preservation and adaptive
reuse by providing incentives and protections for older buildings that
showcase Santa Monica's past
The DCP supports Downtown as the City's economic base by removing
barriers for change of use and encouraging a broad mix of job opportunities
in new and expanding industries such as creative office and co -working
spaces, retail, dining, entertainment, and hospitality.
The DCP maintains the City's Downtown as an entertainment, cultural, and
retail destination and includes policies that support locating a new museum
Downtown and encouragement for events, major artworks, live
performances, and nighttime venues and activity.
The DCP provides avenues for the creation of additional Downtown public
and open spaces for community gathering through development standards
for private development, negotiated projects, development incentives and
management of existing underutilized spaces, and public investments in
streets and sidewalks
The DCP seeks to improve the wellbeing of the Downtown community by
tying performance metrics to data from the City's Wellbeing Project as a
means to prioritize youth and senior services, public open space, affordable
housing, and many other areas
The DCP includes multi -modal strategies to improve mobility in the
Downtown and to make transportation options attractive, convenient,
affordable and safer, including:
o Bicycle improvements including new protected bicycle facilities
15
o Expanded pedestrian network and improvements including widened
"signature sidewalks" on Wilshire Boulevard, Ocean Avenue, and
Lincoln Boulevard
o Investments in public transit for increased convenience
o Transportation allowance requirements for all new development
o Active participation in the evolving technology influence on
transportation including micro -transit, on -demand transit,
autonomous vehicles, and regional transportation efforts
SECTION 7. Consistent with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, the City
Council adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, which is included as
Table 11-1 of the Final EIR, to mitigate or avoid significant effects of implementing the
DCP on the environment, as detailed in Sections 2 and 3 of this Resolution, and to ensure
compliance during implementation of the DCP.
SECTION 8. The documents which constitute the record of proceedings for
approving the DCP are located in the Planning and Community Development
Department, 1685 Main Street, Room 212, Santa Monica, California. The custodian of
these documents is Rachel Kwok, Environmental Planner.
ift
SECTION 9. 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:
JOSEPH LAWRENCE
Interim City Attorney
17
1
Adopted and approved this 25th day of July, 2017.
Ted Winterer, Mayor
I, Denise Anderson -Warren, City Clerk of the City of Santa Monica, do hereby
certify that Resolution No. 11060 (CCS) was duly adopted at a meeting of the Santa
Monica City Council held on the 25th day of July, 2017, by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers McKeown, Nimmelrich, O'Connor, O'Day, Vazquez,
Mayor Pro Tem Davis, Mayor Winterer
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ATTEST:
Denise Anderson -Warren, City Clerk