Loading...
R112911 EIR SOC MMRP Resolution City Council Meeting: September 29, 2020 Santa Monica, California RESOLUTION NO. 11291 (CCS) (City Council Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA MAKING FINDINGS NECESSARY TO APPROVE THE MIRAMAR HOTEL PROJECT, ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (Section 21000 et seq, of the Public Resources Code, hereinafter “CEQA”) requires that cities consider the environmental consequences of their actions before approving a project; and WHEREAS, State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14) Section 15182 exempts a residential or mixed-use project, or a project with a floor area ratio of at least 0.75 on commercially-zoned property, from CEQA if it is located within a transit priority area as defined in CEQA Section 21099(a)(7); is consistent with a specific plan for which an environmental impact report (“EIR”) was certified; and is consistent with the general use designation, density, building intensity, and applicable policies specified for the project area in either a sustainable communities strategy or an alternative planning strategy for which the State Air Resources Board has accepted the determination that the sustainable communities strategy or the alternative planning strategy would achieve the applicable greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets; and WHEREAS, the Miramar Hotel Project is (a) located within a transit priority area as it is within 0.5 mile of a major transit stop, including those stops provided by Santa Monica Big Blue Bus Route 2 and Los Angeles County Metro Rapid Route 720, both of which travel DocuSign Envelope ID: A8DD4581-F7B8-4F01-9FDA-F0E075F62E1F 2 the length of Wilshire Boulevard between the City of Santa Monica and downtown Los Angeles, as well as the Exposition Light Rail Line Downtown Santa Monica station, which is located at the intersection of Colorado Avenue and 4th Street, (b) consistent with the Downtown Community Plan (“DCP”), for which an EIR was certified (State Clearinghouse No. 2013091056), and (c) consistent with the general use designation, density, building intensity, and applicable policies of the Southern California Association of Government’s (“SCAG’s”) adopted Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (as discussed in Section 4.12, Land Use and Planning, of the EIR). Therefore, the Project meets eligibility requirements and is exempt from CEQA under CEQA Guidelines Section 15182; and WHEREAS, although the Project is exempt from CEQA, the City also prepared an EIR for the Miramar Hotel Project in compliance with CEQA’s EIR requirements, which provides for informed decision-making about the potential environmental effects of the Project; and WHEREAS, a Draft Environmental Impact Report was published on February 24, 2020 for a period of 90 days, and a Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) was published on August 18, 2020, which analyze the environmental effects of the Miramar Hotel Project; and WHEREAS, the Santa Monica City Council, as Lead City Agency, reviewed the Final Environmental Impact Report in full compliance with State CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, on September 29, 2020, the City Council certified that the Final Environmental Impact Report was prepared in full compliance with State CEQA Guidelines; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: DocuSign Envelope ID: A8DD4581-F7B8-4F01-9FDA-F0E075F62E1F 3 SECTION 1. The City Council finds the Miramar Hotel Project (the “project”) exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Section 15182. Specifically, the project is located in a transit priority area, as it is within 0.5 mile of a major transit stop, including those stops provided by Santa Monica Big Blue Bus Route 2 and Los Angeles County MetroRapid Route 720, both of which travel the length of Wilshire Boulevard between the City of Santa Monica and downtown Los Angeles, as well as the Exposition Light Rail Line Downtown Santa Monica station, which is located at the intersection of Colorado Avenue and 4th Street. Additionally, the Project is consistent with the applicable specific plan for this area (the Downtown Community Plan, or DCP), for which an EIR was certified (State Clearinghouse No. 2013091056). The project is also consistent with the general use designation, density, building intensity, and policies of SCAG’s RTP/SCS (as discussed in Section 4.12, Land Use and Planning, of this EIR). Lastly, as confirmed by the EIR, the project does not cause any new significant impacts, or worsen any previously-identified significant impacts, than those identified in the DCP EIR. SECTION 2. The DCP allows projects on Established Large Sites to be authorized up to a height limit of 130 feet subject to four requirements, one of which requires additional environmental review to the extent not analyzed in the Downtown Community Plan (“DCP”) Final EIR. The other three DCP requirements include: the project shall be processed through a Development Agreement; preparation of a shade/shadow analysis; and inclusion in the application submittal of comprehensive responses to how the project meets each of the priorities described in the Downtown Districts Chapter. The project meets all of these DCP requirements. Given public interest, and to promote informed decision-making, the City has also prepared an EIR for the project in compliance with CEQA. In accordance with Section 15121 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the purpose of the EIR is to serve as an informational document that: “…will inform public agency decision-makers and the public DocuSign Envelope ID: A8DD4581-F7B8-4F01-9FDA-F0E075F62E1F 4 generally of the significant environmental effect of a project, identify possible ways to minimize the significant effects, and describe reasonable alternatives to the project.” SECTION 3. Consistent with Section 15128 of the State CEQA Guidelines, Chapter 6 of the Final EIR and the Initial Study (Appendix A-2 of the Final EIR) determined that the following environmental impacts were not considered potentially significant and were not analyzed in detail in the Final EIR: Agriculture and Forestry Resources, Mineral Resources, Population and Housing, Public Services – Schools and Libraries, Recreation, Solid Waste, and Wildfires. SECTION 4. Consistent with Sections 15091 and 15092 of the State CEQA Guidelines, and as analyzed in the Final EIR, the City Council finds that project impacts would be less than significant without mitigation for construction-related air quality, aesthetics, biological resources (specifically, those issues related to consistency with local ordinances protecting biological resources), energy, geology and soils (specifically, those issues related to seismicity, erosion or loss of topsoil, unstable geologic unit), greenhouse gas emissions, hydrology/water quality, land use and planning, operational noise and vibration, transportation (specifically, those issues related to consistency with plans, geometric hazards, emergency access), and utilities and service systems (wastewater and water). SECTION 5. Consistent with Sections 15091 and 15092 of the State CEQA Guidelines and as analyzed in the Final EIR, the City Council finds that most impacts resulting from the project can be reduced to a less than significant level. More specifically, significant environmental effects as identified below can feasibly be avoided and have been eliminated or substantially lessened to less than significant. (a) The Final EIR determined that without mitigation, the project could result in significant adverse impacts to operational air quality. Consistent with Sections DocuSign Envelope ID: A8DD4581-F7B8-4F01-9FDA-F0E075F62E1F 5 15091 and 15092 of the State CEQA Guidelines and as detailed in the Final EIR, the City Council finds that the following applicable mitigation measure from the Downtown Community Plan (DCP) EIR has been required for the project that will reduce the project’s operational air quality impacts to below levels of significance: DCP MM AQ-5b: Interior Air Quality Protection: Applicants of new projects in the Downtown that propose siting sensitive land uses within 100 feet of an intersection operating or projected to operate at Level of Service (LOS) E or F to include heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) infrastructure within the building to circulate and purify outdoor air sources sufficiently to reduce diesel particulate matter and vehicle emissions. HVAC control systems shall include particulate filters that have a minimum efficiency reporting value (MERV) of 15 as indicated by the American Society of Heating Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 52.2. The proposed HVAC system shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to occupancy of sensitive land uses or populations within the proposed project. (b) The Final EIR determined that without mitigation, the project could result in significant adverse impacts to biological resources (specifically those related to migratory birds). Consistent with Sections 15091 and 15092 of the State CEQA Guidelines and as detailed in the Final EIR, the City Council finds that the following applicable mitigation measure from the DCP EIR has been required for the project that will reduce the project’s biological resources impacts to below levels of significance: DCP MM BIO-1: Nesting and Roosting Sites. To prevent impacts to nesting or roosting birds through loss or damage of mature trees, the City shall require that applicants of new development projects within Downtown comply with the following: DocuSign Envelope ID: A8DD4581-F7B8-4F01-9FDA-F0E075F62E1F 6 1. Where suitable vegetation and structures for nesting birds and bats occur within 500 feet of project construction activities, all phases of project construction shall avoid the general nesting season (February 15 through August 31). 2. If construction cannot avoid the general nesting season, a qualified biologist shall be retained to conduct a pre-construction survey for nesting birds and/or bats. The survey shall be conducted within 72 hours prior to commencement of vegetation removal. 3. If any nesting birds are present within or immediately adjacent to the construction area, the following shall be required: A qualified biologist shall be retained by the Applicant to flag and demarcate the location of all nesting birds and monitor construction activities. Temporary avoidance of active nests, including the enforcement of an avoidance buffer of 25 to 500 feet, depending on the sensitivity of the species identified, as determined by the qualified biological monitor, shall be required until the qualified biological monitor has verified that the young have fledged or the nest has otherwise become inactive. 4. If federal or state protected species are observed during the site survey, consultation shall be completed with the USFWS and CDFW to determine if work shall commence or proceed during the breeding season; and, if work may proceed, what specific measures shall be taken to ensure protected bird species are not affected. (c) The Final EIR determined that without mitigation, the project could result in significant adverse impacts to archaeological resources and tribal resources. Consistent with Sections 15091 and 15092 of the State CEQA Guidelines and as detailed in the Final EIR, the City Council finds that the following applicable mitigation measures from DocuSign Envelope ID: A8DD4581-F7B8-4F01-9FDA-F0E075F62E1F 7 the DCP EIR and project-specific mitigation measures have been required for the project that will reduce the project’s cultural resources impacts to below levels of significance: DCP MM CR-3a: Archaeological Data Recovery: For projects that inadvertently discovered buried prehistoric or historic-period archaeological resources the City shall apply a program that combines resource identification, significance evaluation, and mitigation efforts into a single combined effort. This approach would combine the discovery of deposits (Phase 1), determination of significance and assessment of the project’s impacts on those resources (Phase 2), and implementation of any necessary mitigation (Phase 3) into a single consolidated investigation. This approach must be driven by a Treatment Plan that sets forth explicit criteria for evaluating the significance of resources discovered during construction and identifies appropriate data recovery methods and procedures to mitigate project effects on significant resources. The Treatment Plan shall be prepared prior to issuance of building permits by a Registered Professional Archaeologist (RPA) who is familiar with urban historical resources, and at a minimum shall include: • A review of historic maps, photographs, and other pertinent documents to predict the locations of former buildings, structures, and other historical features and sensitive locations within and adjacent to the specific development area; • A context for evaluating resources that may be encountered during construction; • A research design outlining important prehistoric and historic-period themes and research questions relevant to the known or anticipated sites in the study area; DocuSign Envelope ID: A8DD4581-F7B8-4F01-9FDA-F0E075F62E1F 8 • Specific and well-defined criteria for evaluating the significance of discovered remains; and • Data requirements and the appropriate field and laboratory methods and procedures to be used to treat the effects of the project on significant resources. The Treatment Plan shall also provide for a final technical report on all cultural resource studies and for curation of artifacts and other recovered remains at a qualified curation facility, to be funded by the developer. To ensure compliance with City and state preservation laws, this plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Historic Landmarks Commission and the City of Santa Monica Planning Division prior to issuance of building permits. DCP MM CR-3b: Inadvertent Discoveries: In the event of any inadvertently discovered prehistoric or historic-period archaeological resources during construction, the developer shall immediately cease all work within 50 feet of the discovery. The proponent shall immediately notify the City of Santa Monica Community Development Department and shall retain a Registered Professional Archaeologist (RPA) to evaluate the significance of the discovery prior to resuming any activities that could impact the site. If the archaeologist determines that the find may qualify for listing in the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR), the site shall be avoided or a data recovery plan shall be developed pursuant to MM CR-2a. Any required testing or data recovery shall be directed by a RPA prior to construction being resumed in the affected area. Work shall not resume until authorization is received from the City. MM ARCHAEO-1: Prior to issuance of demolition permit, the Applicant shall retain an archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for Archaeology (Qualified Archaeologist) to oversee an DocuSign Envelope ID: A8DD4581-F7B8-4F01-9FDA-F0E075F62E1F 9 archaeological monitor who shall be present during construction excavations such as demolition, clearing/grubbing, grading, trenching, or any other construction excavation activity associated with the Project. Full-time monitoring shall be conducted in Areas 1, 2 and 3 as denoted in Figure 9 - Archaeologically Sensitive Areas of the Archaeological Resources Assessment Report. Full-time monitoring in those areas can be reduced to part-time inspections or ceased entirely if determined appropriate by the Qualified Archaeologist, based on field observations. If the Qualified Archaeologist, based on field observations, determines that other areas beyond Area 1, 2, and 3 warrant monitoring, then monitoring in those areas shall be required. Prior to commencement of excavation activities, an Archaeological and Cultural Resources Sensitivity Training shall be given for construction personnel. The training session shall be carried out by the Qualified Archaeologist and shall focus on how to identify archaeological resources that may be encountered during earthmoving activities and the procedures to be followed in such an event. MM ARCHAEO-2: Prior to issuance of demolition permit, the Applicant shall retain a Native American tribal monitor from the Gabrieleno Tribe. The appropriate Native American monitor shall be selected based on ongoing consultation under AB 52 and shall be identified on the most recent contact list provided by the Native American Heritage Commission. The Native American Monitor shall be present during construction excavations such as demolition, clearing/grubbing, grading, trenching, or any other construction excavation activity associated with the Project. The frequency of monitoring shall take into account the rate of excavation and grading activities, proximity to known archaeological resources, the materials being excavated (younger alluvium vs. older alluvium), and the depth of DocuSign Envelope ID: A8DD4581-F7B8-4F01-9FDA-F0E075F62E1F 10 excavation, and if found, the abundance and type of prehistoric archaeological resources encountered. Full-time field observation can be reduced to part-time inspections or ceased entirely if determined appropriate by the Gabrielino Tribe. MM ARCHAEO-3: If human remains are encountered unexpectedly during implementation of the Project, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to PRC 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 shall then identify the person(s) thought to be the Most Likely Descendent (MLD). The MLD may, with the permission of the land owner, or his or her authorized representative, inspect the site of the discovery of the Native American remains and may recommend to the owner or the person responsible for the excavation work means for treating or disposing, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods. The MLD shall complete their inspection and make their recommendation within 48 hours of being granted access by the land owner to inspect the discovery. The recommendation may include the scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials. Upon the discovery of the Native American remains, the landowner shall ensure that the immediate vicinity, according to generally accepted cultural or archaeological standards or practices, where the Native American human remains are located, is not damaged or disturbed by further development activity until the landowner has discussed and conferred, as prescribed in this mitigation measure, with the MLD regarding their recommendations, if applicable, taking into account the possibility of multiple human remains. The DocuSign Envelope ID: A8DD4581-F7B8-4F01-9FDA-F0E075F62E1F 11 landowner shall discuss and confer with the descendants all reasonable options regarding the descendants' preferences for treatment. If the NAHC is unable to identify an MLD, or the MLD identified fails to make a recommendation, or the landowner rejects the recommendation of the MLD and the mediation provided for in Subdivision (k) of Section 5097.94, if invoked, fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner, the landowner or his or her authorized representative shall inter the human remains and items associated with Native American human remains with appropriate dignity on the facility property in a location not subject to further and future subsurface disturbance. (d) The Final EIR determined that without mitigation the project could result in significant adverse impacts related to geology and soils (specifically, paleontological resources). Consistent with Sections 15091 and 15092 of the State CEQA Guidelines and as detailed in the Final EIR, the City Council finds that the following applicable mitigation measures from the DCP EIR have been required for the project that will reduce the project’s impacts related to paleontological resources to below levels of significance: DCP MM CR-4a: Paleontological Monitoring. Construction activities involving excavation or other soil disturbance to a depth greater than 6 feet within Downtown shall be required to retain a qualified Paleontological Monitor as defined by the Society for Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) (2010) equipped with necessary tools and supplies to monitor all excavation, trenching, or other ground disturbance in excess of 6 feet deep. Monitoring will entail the visual inspection of excavated or graded areas and trench sidewalls. In the event that a paleontological resource is discovered, the monitor will have the authority to temporarily divert the construction equipment around the find until it is assessed for scientific significance and collected if necessary. DocuSign Envelope ID: A8DD4581-F7B8-4F01-9FDA-F0E075F62E1F 12 The Paleontological Monitor will periodically assess monitoring results in consultation with the Principal Paleontologist. If no (or few) significant fossils have been exposed, the Principal Paleontologist may determine that full-time monitoring is no longer necessary, and periodic spot checks or no further monitoring may be recommended. The City shall review and approve all such recommendations prior to their adoption and implementation. DCP MM CR-4b: Inadvertent Discovery of Fossils. If fossils are discovered during excavation, the Paleontological Monitor will make a preliminary taxonomic identification using comparative manuals. The Principal Paleontologist or his/her designated representative then will inspect the discovery, determine whether further action is required, and recommend measures for further evaluation, fossil collection, or protection of the resource in place, as appropriate. Any subsequent work will be completed as quickly as possible to avoid damage to the fossils and delays in construction schedules. If the fossils are determined to be significant under the CEQA, but can be avoided and no further impacts will occur, the fossils and locality will be documented in the appropriate paleontological resource records and no further effort will be required. At a minimum, the paleontological staff will assign a unique field number to each specimen identified; photograph the specimen and its geographic and stratigraphic context along with a scale near the specimen and its field number clearly visible in close ups; record the location using a global positioning system (GPS) with accuracy greater than 1 foot horizontally and vertically (if such equipment is not available at the site, use horizontal measurements and bearing(s) to nearby permanent features or accurately surveyed benchmarks, and vertical measurements by sighting level to point(s) of known elevation); record the field number and associated specimen data (identification by taxon and element, etc.) and DocuSign Envelope ID: A8DD4581-F7B8-4F01-9FDA-F0E075F62E1F 13 corresponding geologic and geographic site data (location, elevation, etc.) in the field notes and in a daily monitoring report; stabilize and prepare all fossils for identification, and identify to lowest taxonomic level possible by paleontologists, qualified and experienced in the identification of that group of fossils; record on the outside of the container or bag the specimen number and taxonomic identification, if known. Breathable fabric bags will be used in packaging to avoid black mold. Upon completion of fieldwork, all significant fossils collected will be prepared in a properly equipped paleontology laboratory to a point ready for curation. Preparation will include the careful removal of excess matrix from fossil materials and stabilizing and repairing specimens, as necessary. Following laboratory work, all fossils specimens will be identified to the lowest taxonomic level, cataloged, analyzed, and delivered to an accredited museum repository for permanent curation and storage. The cost of curation is assessed by the repository and is the responsibility of the Project proponent. At the conclusion of laboratory work and museum curation, a final report shall be prepared describing the results of the paleontological mitigation monitoring efforts associated with the Project. The report will include a summary of the field and laboratory methods, an overview of the Project area geology and paleontology, a list of taxa recovered (if any), an analysis of fossils recovered (if any) and their scientific significance, and recommendations. If the monitoring efforts produced fossils, then a copy of the report will also be submitted to the designated museum repository. (e) The Final EIR determined that without mitigation the project could result in significant adverse impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials. Consistent with Sections 15091 and 15092 of the State CEQA Guidelines and as detailed in the Final EIR, the City Council finds that the following applicable mitigation measures from the DCP DocuSign Envelope ID: A8DD4581-F7B8-4F01-9FDA-F0E075F62E1F 14 EIR have been required for the project that will reduce the project’s impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials to below levels of significance: DCP MM HAZ-2a: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. Prior to demolition, project applicants in the Downtown shall prepare a Phase I ESA. Consistent with local, state and federal regulations, the Phase I ESA shall be subject to City review and address the following: a. Asbestos-Containing Materials (ACM), Lead-Based Paints (LBP), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and Molds. Prior to any the issuance of a demolition permit, the Applicant shall conduct a comprehensive survey of ACM, LBP, PCBs, and molds. If such hazardous materials are found to be present, the applicant shall follow all applicable local, state and federal codes and regulations, as well as applicable best management practices, related to the treatment, handling, and disposal of ACM, LBP, PCBs, and molds to ensure public safety. DCP MM HAZ-2c: Discovery of Contamination. In the event that previously unknown or unidentified soil and/or groundwater contamination that could present a threat to human health or the environment is encountered during construction at a development site, construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the contamination shall cease immediately. A qualified environmental specialist (e.g., a licensed Professional Geologist [PG], a licensed Professional Engineer [PE] or similarly qualified individual) shall conduct an investigation to identify and determine the level of soil and/or groundwater contamination. If contamination is encountered, a Human Health Risk Management Plan shall be prepared and implemented that: (1) identifies the contaminants of concern and the potential risk each contaminant would pose to human health and the environment during DocuSign Envelope ID: A8DD4581-F7B8-4F01-9FDA-F0E075F62E1F 15 construction and post-development, and (2) describes measures to be taken to protect workers, and the public from exposure to potential site hazards. Such measures could include a range of options, including, but not limited to, physical site controls during construction, remediation, long-term monitoring, post- development maintenance or access limitations, or some combination thereof. Depending on the nature of contamination, if any, appropriate agencies shall be notified (e.g., SMFD). If needed, a Site Health and Safety Plan that meets Occupational Safety and Health Administration requirements shall be prepared and in place prior to commencement of work in any contaminated area. (f) The Final EIR determined that without mitigation the project could result in significant adverse impacts with respect to noise (specifically, construction-related noise). Consistent with Sections 15091 and 15092 of the State CEQA Guidelines and as detailed in the Final EIR, the City Council finds that the following mitigation measure is required for the project that will reduce the project’s construction noise impacts to below levels of significance: MM NOISE-1: To avoid exceedance of the City’s allowable noise increases between the hours of 8:00 A.M. to 10:00 A.M. and 3:00 P.M. to 6:00 P.M. on weekdays and on Saturday from 9:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. (and/or during extended hours if approved by the City through an After Hours Permit in accordance with SMMC Section 4.12.110(e)), the following specified construction activities occurring during the above referenced time periods and within the following setback distances from the specified sensitive receptors shall implement construction noise reduction strategies as described below: Distances for Noise-Sensitive Receptor Locations R1 and R2: DocuSign Envelope ID: A8DD4581-F7B8-4F01-9FDA-F0E075F62E1F 16 • Demolition or Overlapping Construction Activities: within 300 feet. • Grading/excavation: within 200 feet. • Building construction or paving: within 150 feet. Distances for Noise-Sensitive Receptor Location R3: • Overlapping Construction Activities: within 80 feet. • Grading/excavation or paving: within 65 feet. • Demolition, foundation/concrete pour, or building construction: within 50 feet. In order to stay below the noise thresholds established in SMMC Section 4.12.110, the construction contractor shall utilize one or a combination of the construction noise reduction strategies listed below if construction activities occur during the referenced time periods and within the specified setback distances: Noise Reduction Strategies: a) Use construction equipment, fixed or mobile, that individually generates less noise than presumed in the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM). Examples of such equipment are medium, compact, small, or mini model versions of backhoes, cranes, excavators, loaders, or tractors; newer model equipment; or other applicable equipment that are equipped with reduced noise-generating engines. Construction equipment noise levels shall be documented based on manufacturer’s specifications. The construction contractor shall keep construction equipment noise level documentation on-site for the duration of Project construction. b) Noise-generating equipment operated at the Project Site shall be equipped with California industry standard noise control devices or other noise control devices to effectively reduce noise levels, i.e., mufflers, lagging, and/or motor DocuSign Envelope ID: A8DD4581-F7B8-4F01-9FDA-F0E075F62E1F 17 enclosures or enclosures around stationary equipment. All equipment shall be properly maintained to assure that no additional noise, due to worn or improperly maintained parts, would be generated. The reduction in noise level from noise shielding and muffling devices shall be documented based on manufacturer’s specifications. The construction contractor shall keep noise shielding and muffling device documentation on-site and documentation demonstrating that the equipment has been maintained in accordance with the manufacturers’ specifications on-site for the duration of Project construction. c) Construction activities shall be scheduled so as to minimize or avoid operating multiple noise-generating heavy-duty pieces of equipment, simultaneously at the perimeters of the Project Site along the northwestern and northern boundaries of the Hotel Parcel and along the northeastern boundary of the Second Street Parcel. d) The Project shall stage noise-generating construction equipment away from the noise-sensitive receptors to the north and east (R1 and R2) of the Hotel Parcel and to the east (R3) of the Second Street Parcel at a distance equal to or greater than specified above. • During the course of construction other noise reduction strategies may be implemented as alternatives or additions to Noise Reduction Strategies a) through d) so long as their effectiveness is documents consistent with the noise monitoring requirements described immediately below. For Noise Reduction Strategies a) through d) or other noise reduction strategies, the effectiveness of these noise reduction strategies to achieve the City’s noise- level performance standards shall be documented by on-site noise monitoring conducted by a qualified acoustical analyst using a Type 1 DocuSign Envelope ID: A8DD4581-F7B8-4F01-9FDA-F0E075F62E1F 18 instrument in accordance with the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) S1.4. Noise monitoring shall be conducted during early Project construction activities when the use of heavy equipment is prevalent so long as it can be demonstrated to the City’s satisfaction that later construction activities would achieve the requisite noise reductions. (g) The Final EIR determined that without mitigation the project could result in significant adverse impacts related to public services (fire and police protection services). Consistent with Sections 15091 and 15092 of the State CEQA Guidelines and as detailed in the Final EIR, the City Council finds that the following mitigation measures from the DCP EIR have been required for the project that will reduce the project’s impacts related to public services to below levels of significance: DCP MM PS-1: The City shall require applicants of development projects with buildings that are seven stories and higher in the Downtown to prepare a high-rise pre-fire plan. At a minimum, the pre-fire plan shall address the types and capabilities of fire protection systems, the layout of the building, locations of stairwells and elevators, and how evacuation will be handled. A copy of the plan shall be kept in the fire control room and a copy shall be filed with the SMFD fire marshal. The plan shall be revised every 5 years. DCP MM PS-2: The City shall require applicants of development projects over a specified square footage in the Downtown to prepare and implement a security plan for common or public spaces, including parking structures/lots, courtyards, other open areas, public or common area walkways stairways and elevators as a condition of their development agreement. The security plan will identify the locations of 911-capable phones in parking garages and other public area, will establish rules and regulations for public use of the courtyard areas, and establish DocuSign Envelope ID: A8DD4581-F7B8-4F01-9FDA-F0E075F62E1F 19 private security patrols for the property. Private security patrols shall work in coordination with the Santa Monica Police Department. The plan shall be subject to review and approval by the SMPD. SECTION 6. Consistent with Sections 15091, 15092, and 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City Council finds that significant adverse environmental effects in the areas of vibration, historic resources (construction-related ground-borne vibration on off-site historic resources), transportation (intersection operations and street segment traffic volumes), neighborhood effects, and construction effects cannot feasibly be avoided or mitigated to below a level of significance. Nevertheless, these impacts are found to be acceptable due to overriding considerations as discussed in Section 7. (1) The Final EIR determined that without mitigation project construction on the Second Street Parcel could result in significant adverse impacts related to construction vibration on an adjacent building located at 1137 2nd Street, which is identified in the City’s Historic Resources Inventory as individually eligible for local listing and is considered a historical resource pursuant to CEQA. Consistent with Sections 15091 and 15092 of the State CEQA Guidelines and as detailed in the Final EIR, the City Council finds that a mitigation measure is required for the project that could avoid or reduce the project’s impacts related to construction vibration on an adjacent historical structure. MM NOISE-2, which is provided below, would require the voluntary acceptance of the implementation of the mitigation measure by the property owner of the historical structure. Although voluntary acceptance by off-site owner(s) would reduce potentially significant construction vibration impacts to the historical structure to a less than significant level, the City does not have the jurisdiction or control to mandate implementation of this mitigation measure. Therefore, this impact is conservatively concluded to be significant and unavoidable. DocuSign Envelope ID: A8DD4581-F7B8-4F01-9FDA-F0E075F62E1F 20 (2) The Final EIR determined that without mitigation project construction on the Second Street Parcel could result in significant adverse impacts related to construction vibration on two off-site buildings (The Huntley Hotel building at 1111 2nd Street and the Regency Moderne Medical Office building at 1137 2nd Street ) adjacent to the Second Street Parcel. Consistent with Sections 15091 and 15092 of the State CEQA Guidelines and as detailed in the Final EIR, the City Council finds that the following mitigation measure is required for the project that could avoid or reduce the project’s impacts related to construction vibration on adjacent off-site buildings: MM NOISE-2: To reduce the potential for construction-related vibration effects to structures, prior to the issuance of a building permit for the Project Site, the Applicant shall perform an inventory of the structural condition of The Huntley Hotel building at 1111 2nd Street, the Regency Moderne Medical Office building at 1137 2nd Street, and the on-site historic Palisades Building. Based on a survey of the building’s structural condition, a vibration specialist will determine the appropriate Caltrans vibration structural damage potential criteria, and for each piece of equipment, assess a standoff distance from the building. The construction contractor(s) shall restrict the use of vibration-generating equipment, as listed in Table 4.14-16, within the minimum applicable standoff distances to not exceed the building’s applicable structural damage criteria. If the vibration-generating construction equipment is required to be used within these minimum applicable distances, the construction contractor(s) shall implement one of the following measures for The Huntley Hotel building, the Regency Moderne Medical Office building, and the on-site historic Palisades Building: a. Restrict the use of large bulldozers and other similarly large vibration- generating equipment, so that the vibration-generating portion of the equipment (i.e., DocuSign Envelope ID: A8DD4581-F7B8-4F01-9FDA-F0E075F62E1F 21 the motor, engine, power plant, or similar) remains at the minimum standoff distances unless it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the City based on in-situ measurements (prior to initiation of full-scale construction activities) that vibration levels can be kept below the applicable structural damage potential criteria, as determined by the vibration specialist, through any combination of revised setbacks, alternative equipment and methods, alternative sequencing of activities, or other vibration-reducing techniques. b. Install and maintain at least one continuously operational automated vibrational monitor on the side of the building facing the construction activity and capable of being programmed with two predetermined vibratory velocities levels: a first-level alarm equivalent to 0.05 in/sec PPV less than the appropriate Caltrans vibration structural damage potential criteria and a regulatory alarm level equivalent to the Caltrans vibration structural damage potential criteria. For off-site buildings, the contractor may also locate the vibration monitors on or near the Project Site if access to the off-site buildings is restricted, in which case the first-level and regulatory alarm shall be adjusted to an equivalent level accounting for the vibration attenuation rate based on the distance to the off-site building. The monitoring system must produce real-time specific alarms (via text message and/or email to on-site personnel) when velocities exceed either of the predetermined levels. In the event of a first-level alarm, feasible steps to reduce vibratory levels shall be undertaken, including but not limited to halting/staggering concurrent activities and utilizing lower-vibratory techniques. In the event of an exceedance of the regulatory level, work in the vicinity of the affected building shall be halted and the building visually inspected for damage. Results of the inspection must be logged. In the event damage occurs, such damage shall be repaired. For the off-site historic Regency Moderne Medical Office building and the DocuSign Envelope ID: A8DD4581-F7B8-4F01-9FDA-F0E075F62E1F 22 on-site historic Palisades Building, such repairs shall be conducted in consultation with a qualified preservation consultant for the on-site historic Palisades Building and, if warranted, in a manner that meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. MM NOISE-2 would require the voluntary acceptance of the implementation of this mitigation measure by off-site property owners. Although voluntary acceptance by off-site owners would reduce potentially significant construction vibration impacts to a less than significant level, the City does not have the jurisdiction or control to mandate implementation of this mitigation measure. Therefore, this impact is conservatively concluded to be significant and unavoidable. In addition, due to these construction vibration impacts, construction effects are considered to be significant and unavoidable. (3) The Final EIR determined that the project would result in traffic-related impacts that would exceed significance thresholds at the following four intersections under both Approval Year (2020) Plus Project and Future Year (2025) Plus Project traffic scenarios and at the following five street segments: Intersections: a. Palisades Beach Road & California Incline (weekday AM and weekend peak hours) b. Ocean Avenue & California Avenue (all peak hours) c. 2nd Street & Wilshire Boulevard (all peak hours) d. Lincoln Boulevard & California Avenue (weekday AM peak hour) Street Segments: • 2nd Street between Wilshire Boulevard and California Avenue • California Avenue between Ocean Avenue and 2nd Street • California Avenue between 2nd Street and 3rd Street • California Avenue between 3rd Street and 4th Street • California Avenue between 4th Street and 5th Street DocuSign Envelope ID: A8DD4581-F7B8-4F01-9FDA-F0E075F62E1F 23 Consistent with Sections 15091 and 15092 of the State CEQA Guidelines and as detailed in the Final EIR, the City Council finds that the following mitigation measure has been required for the project that will reduce the project’s impacts at the 2nd Street & Wilshire Boulevard intersection to below levels of significance: MM TR-1: The Project Applicant shall reconfigure the southbound approach at Intersection No. 14 (2nd Street & Wilshire Boulevard) to include one left-turn lane, one shared right/through lane, and bicycle lane that includes a shared lane conflict marking. Physical improvements were considered that could potentially reduce the traffic impacts at the three remaining significantly impacted intersections under Approval Year (2020) Plus Project and Future Year (2025) Plus Project conditions and at the five street segments. However, these improvements are considered infeasible for the reasons described below: Palisades Beach Road & California Incline (weekday AM and weekend peak hours) This signal is on a state highway and is therefore controlled by Caltrans. A small percentage of project trips are forecast to use the California Incline to access the PCH northbound towards Malibu and Ventura, and southbound as the shortest path to reach I-10 eastbound from the Project Site. The current signal configuration permits eastbound and westbound movements during the same phase. Reconfiguring the signal to operate a split phase eastbound and westbound so that the minimal volumes exiting the Jonathan Club driveway (eastbound approach) are not in conflict with the significantly higher volume turning left from westbound California Incline would likely reduce the project effect on overall intersection delay. Sometime prior to the reconstruction of the California Incline, this intersection was operated with split phasing. However, this mitigation measure is considered infeasible since this measure would conflict with City policy to maintain flexibility in signal operations. Committing the City to permanent signal timing DocuSign Envelope ID: A8DD4581-F7B8-4F01-9FDA-F0E075F62E1F 24 configuration would preclude the City from effectively managing the flow of traffic as conditions change in the future. Therefore, the measure is deemed infeasible. Ocean Avenue & California Avenue (all peak hours) The critical movement is the eastbound through from the California Incline, which shares a lane with left-turning traffic. The westbound approach experiences a similarly saturated condition, with a high volume of left and through movements sharing a lane. Reconfiguring and retiming the traffic signal to operate a split phase eastbound and westbound would remove conflicts between through and left movements, improving overall delay to LOS E or better in all “with Project” conditions, thus mitigating the significant project impact to a less- than-significant level. However, this mitigation measure is considered infeasible since this measure would conflict with City policy to maintain flexibility in signal operations. Committing the City to permanent signal timing configuration would preclude the City from effectively managing the flow of traffic as conditions change in the future. Lincoln Boulevard & California Avenue (weekday AM peak hour) This intersection would be impacted during the AM peak hour under Approval with Project conditions, and additionally during the weekend midday peak hour under Future with Project conditions due to the addition of project trips making northbound left turns and eastbound right turns. This unsignalized intersection is controlled in all directions by stop signs. Under existing conditions, each approach is striped as a single lane. A possible mitigation would be to increase capacity of the intersection approach by removing sufficient curbside metered parking to stripe a left-turn pocket and a shared through-right lane, which would improve LOS to conditions better than the “without Project” condition in each case (LOS F or better). However, the addition of a left-turn pocket at a stop-controlled intersection would introduce additional conflict points between vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians. This location is a busy neighborhood intersection with a high volume of pedestrian and bicycle crossings, and DocuSign Envelope ID: A8DD4581-F7B8-4F01-9FDA-F0E075F62E1F 25 adjacent to a school, a church and Reed Park. The addition of the left-turn pocket could cause a secondary impact to pedestrian safety, inconsistent with City goals and policies including T7.1 of the LUCE to “ensure that walking is safe for everyone, everywhere in Santa Monica.” Restriping the travel lanes to include a northbound turn pocket could also encroach on the space required for the southbound bus stop at this intersection. Additionally, the curbside metered parking is necessary for users of Reed Park. Because increasing hazards for pedestrians and bicycles is inconsistent with City policies, this mitigation is deemed infeasible. Street Segments: Various traffic calming strategies were considered, such as the addition of curb extensions at neighborhood intersections and diverters along neighborhood street segments. While these traffic calming measures can reduce and slow traffic along a street, they do not eliminate traffic. Thus, even with traffic calming devices, the project would still contribute to traffic along California Avenue segments and the single trip threshold would be exceeded on these four segments. No feasible mitigation measures are available, including relocating the project’s access point or turn restrictions that would limit motorists that arrive or depart the Project Site from using the public street grid and these street segments. Short of full closure of the affected street segments, which would not be acceptable since these streets serve adjacent land uses and carry vehicles that would then need to shift to other nearby streets, no feasible mitigation measures are available to reduce the number of potential project-related vehicle trips on these four street segments to a less than significant level (less than one trip per day). TDM strategies would reduce project traffic along these streets; however, without fully reducing net-new trips to 0 (or lower than the existing trip production), TDM strategies would not mitigate impacts where a single daily trips is the impact threshold. DocuSign Envelope ID: A8DD4581-F7B8-4F01-9FDA-F0E075F62E1F 26 The significant impact on 2nd Street between Wilshire Boulevard and California Avenue is due to project trips which increase the daily volume by more than 12.5%. The primary project vehicular access is located on this segment. Possible mitigations for this impact would include other access alternatives that would disperse project traffic differently such as fully relocate the primary project driveway to another street such as Wilshire Boulevard or Ocean Avenue but these alternatives would be inconsistent with established City traffic policies including: “No driveways are permitted where access is available from a side street or alley” (LUCE, p. 4.0-54), “Prohibit driveways on boulevards and major avenues where access is available from a side street or alley” (LUCE, p. 4.0-56), and “Where a parcel contains more than 1 street frontage, the parking entrance should be located on the secondary street or alley. All efforts should be made to eliminate the impacts of parking entrances on main thoroughfares and transit-oriented streets” (SMMC Section 9.28.070.). Over half of the daily project traffic estimated to use the access on 2nd Street would need to be redistributed to one or more other driveways in order to fully mitigate this impact. Depending on the nature of alternative driveways, redistributing project traffic to other roadways could be inconsistent with the City’s approved traffic policies as well as trigger additional intersection impacts and possibly secondary impacts to pedestrian and bicycle hazards by adding new curb cuts or increasing the intensity of use at proposed driveways. It is unknown if TDM strategies alone could reduce the daily trip generation by half so as not to exceed the 12.5% additional trips threshold. Therefore, mitigation measures considered are deemed infeasible. Thus, consistent with the City of Santa Monica CEQA Guidelines, and as detailed in the Final EIR, the City Council finds that the project would result in traffic-related impacts that would exceed significance thresholds at four intersections under both Approval Year (2020) and Future Year (2025) traffic scenarios and five street segments. Based on the above, DocuSign Envelope ID: A8DD4581-F7B8-4F01-9FDA-F0E075F62E1F 27 transportation/traffic impacts would be significant and unavoidable. In addition, due to these transportation/traffic impacts, neighborhood impacts are considered significant and unavoidable. SECTION 7. The Final EIR analyzed 6 alternatives to the originally proposed project. Alternative 1 (No Project/NoBuild Alternative) represents a scenario where the project would not be developed and the existing on-site uses (e.g., hotel, food and beverage space, meeting space, retail floor area, spa and fitness, and surface parking) would remain unchanged and no modernization of the facility would occur. Alternative 2 (Ocean Avenue Transition Tier 2 Development Alternative) would develop a hotel and associated uses in accordance with the Ocean Transition (OT) standards on the Hotel Parcel and 19 residential units on the Second Street Parcel. Alternative 3 [Hotel Only on Hotel Parcel (No Condominiums) Alternative] would redevelop the Hotel Parcel as proposed with the elimination of the residential units; the Second Street Parcel would be developed in accordance with the Wilshire Transition (WT) District standards and would provide 12 residential units. Alternative 4 (Reduced Height and Density Alternative) assumes the Hotel Parcel would be mixed-use (hotel and residential) with a 2.0 FAR and a maximum building height of 84 feet; the Second Street Parcel would be developed in accordance with the Wilshire Transition (WT) District standards and would provide 19 residential units. Alternative 5 (Alternative Massing Alternative) would provide the same program for the Hotel Parcel but the buildings would be shifted towards the Wilshire Boulevard frontage and no new building would be constructed along California Avenue; the Second Street Parcel would be developed the same as under the project. Alternative 6 (Modified Access Alternative) would involve essentially the same development program and architecture as the project but would eliminate vehicular access on California Avenue. DocuSign Envelope ID: A8DD4581-F7B8-4F01-9FDA-F0E075F62E1F 28 The Final EIR found that the No Project Alternative would be environmentally superior to the project on the basis of the minimization or avoidance of physical environmental impacts. However, the No Project Alternative would not achieve any of the project objectives. Alternative 2 would result in significant impacts on historical resources, vibration construction, and transportation, as with the project, with greater impacts on historical resources, and would only partially meet project objectives. Alternative 3 would also result in significant impacts on historical resources, vibration construction, and transportation similar to the project and would only partially meet project objectives. Without residential units on the Hotel Parcel, Alternative 3 would not achieve the project objective related to the provision of housing in proximity to transit to the same extent as the project. Alternative 4 would result in significant impacts on historical resources, vibration construction, and transportation but to a lesser extent than the project but would only partially achieve project objectives. Alternative 5 would result in significant impacts on historical resources, vibration construction, and transportation similar to the project and would only partially meet project objectives. Alternative 6 would result in significant impacts on historical resources, vibration construction, and transportation similar to the project although Alternative 6 would avoid a significant impact along one street segment (California Avenue between Ocean Avenue and 2nd Street). Alternative 6 would only partially meet project objectives. The State CEQA Guidelines require that if the environmentally superior alternative is the No Project alternative, that the EIR also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives. Consistent with Sections 15091, 15092, 15093 and 15126.6(e)(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines, and as detailed in Final EIR Chapter 5.0, the City Council finds that, based on the other project alternatives, Alternative 4, the Reduced Height and Density Alternative, would have larger, more notable trip reductions, resulting in DocuSign Envelope ID: A8DD4581-F7B8-4F01-9FDA-F0E075F62E1F 29 less GHG emissions and mobile source air quality and noise impacts. Therefore, this alternative is considered to be the environmentally superior alternative. However, Alternative 4 would not achieve project objectives and certain City land use goals and policies to the same extent as the project. Importantly: • Alternative 4 does not achieve Objective 1 (to implement the LUCE, DCP and Coastal Act for the Project Site) to the same extent as the project. Importantly, Alternative 4 does not achieve the LUCE and DCP goals of expanding housing in the Downtown or the City and Coastal Act goals and policies encouraging the development of housing and visitor-serving uses in the Downtown (and specifically on the Hotel Parcel) to the same extent as the project in that Alternative 4 would result in almost 30% fewer hotel rooms than the project (and fewer hotel rooms than the existing conditions) and fewer affordable housing units (both market rate and affordable) compared with the project. In addition, because of reduced building heights and greater uniformity among Alternative 4’s buildings, Alternative 4 would not meet many of the design parameters set forth in the LUCE and DCP regarding architectural articulation, variable building heights and roof styles, and building step-backs that would be achieved with the project’s greater range of building heights and setback areas within the Project Site. Further, as compared to Alternative 4, the project would more fully support the Hotel Parcel’s Established Large Site designation in the DCP given the Site’s unique characteristics and potential to support growth within the City as accompanied by a range of community benefits. Alternative 4 would also result in fewer employment opportunities, less Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) and fiscal benefits to the City, and community benefits, including significantly less deed- restricted affordable housing (13 units) as compared to the project (42 units). DocuSign Envelope ID: A8DD4581-F7B8-4F01-9FDA-F0E075F62E1F 30 • Alternative 4 would not meet Objective 2 (to improve visitor serving uses) to the same extent as the project because it would reduce total hotel rooms from the existing 301 rooms and the project’s 312 rooms and, as such, would not expand visitor-serving uses per the Coastal Act as would occur under the project. • Alternative 4 would not meet Objective 3 (iconic architecture) to the same extent as the project because the range of building height would be less varied than under the project, and Alternative 4 would have less potential to provide variations in roof design and other features of iconic architecture compared to the project. • Alternative 4 would not meet Objective 5 (to provide market rate and affordable housing units in a transit priority area) to the same extent as under the project. Alternative 4 would reduce the number of market rate ownership units from 60 condominium units in the project to 51 units and affordable apartments from 42 units in the project to 13 units. • Alternative 4 would not meet Objective 8 (employment) to the same extent as the project. Importantly, because of the reduction in the number of guestrooms, Alternative 4 would provide fewer employment opportunities associated with the hotel than under the project. • Alternative 4 would also result in fewer economic and fiscal benefits with the reduction in the overall development (Objective 9). • Alternative 4 would not provide the same extent of community benefits as would the project (Objective 10) since less affordable housing would be developed on the Second Street Parcel. • Alternative 4 would not meet Objective 11 (economically viability) to the same extent as the project. Importantly, Alternative 4 would involve the removal of an DocuSign Envelope ID: A8DD4581-F7B8-4F01-9FDA-F0E075F62E1F 31 existing 10-story hotel building and replacement of that structure with a new 7- story hotel building, resulting in less desirable hotel rooms (even as to the existing hotel) and market-rate residences as compared to the project. As a result, hotel room rates and condominium sale prices would be reduced relative to the project. At the same time, Alternative 4 would include many of the same costs as the project (e.g., costs associated with closing the existing hotel, constructing underground parking and publicly-accessible open space, rehabilitating and seismic strengthening the historic Palisades Building, and developing new deed-restricted affordable housing), thereby reducing economic viability. • In addition, Alternative 4 is infeasible because it does not adequately implement or accommodate the City’s land use goals and policies. See Los Angeles Conservancy v. City of W. Hollywood, 18 Cal. App. 5th 1031, 1041, 226 Cal. Rptr. 3d 666, 674 (2017) (“In the context of project approval, a public agency may find that an alternative is infeasible if it determines, … that an alternative cannot meet project objectives or is impractical or undesirable from a policy standpoint.”) (internal quotation omitted). Importantly, Alternative 4 does not support to the same extent as the project the LUCE and DCP goals of expanding housing in the Downtown or the City and Coastal Act goals encouraging the development of housing and visitor-serving uses in the Downtown (and specifically on the Hotel Parcel). Specifically, Alternative 4 would result in almost 30% fewer hotel rooms than the project (and fewer hotel rooms than the existing conditions) and fewer affordable housing units (13) as compared to the project (42 deed-restricted affordable units). Alternative 4 would accordingly also result in fewer employment opportunities, less Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) and DocuSign Envelope ID: A8DD4581-F7B8-4F01-9FDA-F0E075F62E1F 32 fiscal benefits for the City, and fewer community benefits. Alternative 4 would also not meet many of the design parameters set forth in the LUCE and DCP that would be achieved with the project’s greater range of building heights and setback areas within the Project Site. And Alternative 4 would not as fully support the Hotel Parcel’s Established Large Site designation in the DCP given the Site’s unique characteristics and potential to support growth within the City as accompanied by a range of community benefits. In addition, Alternative 4 would also not support the LUCE, DCP, and Coastal Act goals of encouraging the development of housing to the same extent as the project in that, in addition to providing fewer affordable housing units, Alternative 4 would also result in fewer market rate housing units (45 units) than the project (up to 60 units). • Further, Alternative 4 would still result in significant adverse impacts in all of the same categories as the project. The impacts where the DEIR identifies Alternative 4 as “environmentally superior” are “impacts” where the project will itself result in less-than-significant impacts. Additionally, based on the Fiscal Impact Analysis prepared by HR&A, the project is anticipated to result in one-time construction-related economic impacts of 3,060 total jobs (3,050 construction jobs on-site) and approximately $418 million in total economic output and annual operations-related economic impacts of approximately 675 total jobs (214 total net new jobs) and $122.6 million in annual economic output ($41.8 million in additional economic output). In terms of fiscal impact, in the first year of stabilized operations, HR&A estimates that the project’s net fiscal impact to the City’s General Fund would be approximately $15.4 million ($8.1 million net new). Across the 26-year cumulative period, it is estimated that the project’s net fiscal impact would be approximately $444.4 million ($218.3 million net new). DocuSign Envelope ID: A8DD4581-F7B8-4F01-9FDA-F0E075F62E1F 33 SECTION 8. The preceding Findings, although based primarily on conclusions in the Final EIR, have not attempted to describe the full analysis of each environmental impact contained in the Final EIR. Instead, the Findings incorporate by reference the discussions and analyses in the Final EIR and supporting reference documents supporting the Final EIR’s determinations regarding the nature and severity of the impacts of the LUCE and mitigation measures designed to address those impacts. In making these findings, the City Council ratifies, adopts, and incorporates into these findings the analysis and explanation in the Final EIR and ratifies, adopts, and incorporates in these findings the determinations and conclusions of the Final EIR. SECTION 9. The Final EIR found that the project would result in significant unavoidable adverse impacts in the areas of construction vibration, historic resources, construction effects, neighborhood effects, and transportation. Consistent with Section 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City Council hereby makes a Statement of Overriding Considerations and finds that the benefits of the project outweigh its unavoidable environmental impacts based on the reasons stated below. The benefits identified are each one, in and of themselves, sufficient to make a determination that the adverse environmental effects are acceptable. The applicant will provide the following project and community benefits required by Section 2.8 of the Development Agreement, which is incorporated herein by reference: • 100% Affordable Housing Project – Land Donation and Construction Funding. Prior to issuance of a building permit for the Project, Developer will donate the Second Street Property to an entity owned in whole or in part by a non-profit housing provider to construct, own, and operate a minimum 42-unit deed restricted 100% Affordable Housing Project. Developer will pay for all DocuSign Envelope ID: A8DD4581-F7B8-4F01-9FDA-F0E075F62E1F 34 required entitlement and permit fees and will also provide any gap financing needed to cover the difference between any commercial and/or tax credit financing available, if any, for the 100% Affordable Housing Project and the total cost to complete construction of the 100% Affordable Housing Project. • Historic Preservation – Landmark Moreton Bay Fig Tree and Palisades Building. o The historic Moreton Bay Fig Tree serves as a focal point of the Project and will be protected during all times of the Project’s construction. To improve the Moreton Bay Fig Tree’s surrounding landscape environment, the existing impermeable paved circular drive installed in 1978 that encircles the Moreton Bay Fig Tree will be removed and replaced with an elevated wood pedestrian deck which will be supported by micropiles to allow improved airspace flow, nutrients, and irrigation to reach the Moreton Bay Fig Tree’s roots. This protective deck will be coupled with the construction of a new ring- shaped bench designed to keep the public off the buttressed tree roots. The new bench will permit visitors to sit beneath and enjoy the historic Moreton Bay Fig Tree, while also serving to discourage physical interaction with the Moreton Bay Fig Tree’s roots and trunk. The Moreton Bay Fig Tree will continue to be pruned and cared for on an ongoing basis under the supervision of an ISA (International Society of Arboriculture) Certified Arborist. o The Palisades Building will be rehabilitated. Rehabilitation and restoration of the Palisades Building will make the building safer in light of today's technical codes, rehabilitate and potentially restore its DocuSign Envelope ID: A8DD4581-F7B8-4F01-9FDA-F0E075F62E1F 35 character-defining features, and ensure that the Palisades Building endures for future generations. Specification on the treatment of the brick exterior, terra cotta, roof, windows, and historic rooftop sign are provided for in the Development Agreement; however, the proposed rehabilitation and restoration of the Palisades Building will be subject to review and approval through the Certificate of Appropriateness process. • Historic Preservation Interpretative Feature. The Developer will design and install two or more exhibits on the Project Site (such as, but not limited to, signage, artwork, and/or plaque) incorporating some or all of historic/cultural information, imagery, photographs, plans, postcards, etc. interpreting aspects of the Miramar’s history and its significance to the City more generally. At least one exhibit will be located within the Publicly-Accessible Open Space. A second Historic Preservation Interpretive Feature will be placed on the Project Site in a location adjacent to the Ocean Avenue sidewalk in front of Palisades Garden to further engage pedestrians. • Publicly-Accessible Open Space, Prominent Piece of Art, and Programming Plan. o The Project includes approximately 14,000 SF of publicly-accessible open space at Wilshire Boulevard and Ocean Avenue. o The Developer will be required to provide a prominent piece of art in the publicly-accessible open space (in addition to the Historic Preservation Interpretive Feature referenced above). o Programming is required to be provided in the Publicly-Accessible Open Space, including a minimum of two signature annual events DocuSign Envelope ID: A8DD4581-F7B8-4F01-9FDA-F0E075F62E1F 36 (e.g., holiday-related event, art show, musical performance or other programming with broad community interest) and a minimum of two additional programmed activities/events/classes per month (e.g. showcase events for musicians or other artists, history/educational events/classes, art classes or fairs, fitness classes, dance events, etc.). o Additional regulations pertaining to the open space (e.g., hours, maintenance, a security plan, a minimum percentage of planted areas, etc.) are set forth in the Development Agreement. • Sustainable Design and Features. o The project will further the LUCE's sustainability goal of increasing the number of buildings constructed to LEED standards by obtaining a minimum of LEEDv4 Platinum certification. o The project will reduce water use by at least 30% below the 2019 CALGreen (Title 24) baseline for interior building water use compared to existing conditions, which supports DCP Goal SI1 to reduce water use through water efficiency and conservation programs. All on-site irrigation of the Hotel Parcel’s landscaping will be achieved with non- potable water. The project will be equipped with cistern systems for capture and reuse of storm water. And the project will connect to the distribution line for recycled water in Ocean Avenue in case the project requires more water than is collected from runoff. o The project will reduce energy use by at least 15% compared to existing conditions, which supports LUCE and DCP policies, programs and objectives that address sustainability, including energy DocuSign Envelope ID: A8DD4581-F7B8-4F01-9FDA-F0E075F62E1F 37 conservation. Notably, the project will install photovoltaic panels on the roof deck, and all swimming pools in the project will be heated using solar energy. o The project’s sustainability features will reduce GHG emissions compared with existing on-site uses. Said reduction is considered a core community benefit under the LUCE. The project will minimize the GHG emissions relative to the existing Hotel Parcel conditions by reducing water and energy use and incorporating water conservation, energy conservation, and other green building features. These sustainability measures are consistent with the City’s Green Building Code, the Sustainable City Plan, the Climate Action and Adaption Plan, AB 32, AB 375, SCAG Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, etc. o The project will include electric vehicle chargers for use by residents, guests and employees. o The project will provide more than 300 bicycle parking spaces for guests, employees, customers and residents. o The Development Agreement requires a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan, which includes, but is not limited to, physical and programmatic elements such as transportation allowances for employees choosing to commute using non-single occupancy vehicle modes; a transportation coordinator; and incentives for both employees and customers to use non-single occupancy vehicle modes. DocuSign Envelope ID: A8DD4581-F7B8-4F01-9FDA-F0E075F62E1F 38 • Enhanced Impact Fees and Monetary Contributions. The project provides over $4.6 Million impact fees and monetary contributions for Affordable Housing, Early Childhood Initiatives, Transportation and Pedestrian Improvements, Economic Equity and Economic Recovery, Parks and Recreation, Homelessness Programs, Senior Programs, and Affordable Lodging. • Local Hiring Program for construction and permanent employment. The Development Agreement includes local hiring provisions for both construction and permanent hotel employment, with a priority for residents of the Pico neighborhood and low-income residents. • Internship Program. The Development Agreement requires that the hotel provide at least four internships during each school year to students who attend a high school in Santa Monica or Santa Monica College with a priority for residents in the 90404 zip code (i.e., the Pico Neighborhood). • Community Meeting Space. The Development Agreement obligates the project to provide meeting space for community groups and non-profit organizations not less than twelve (12) times per year at City community room rates. • Subsidized Community Events and/or Hotel Stays. The Development Agreement obligates the project to provide a cumulative annual discount of not less than Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00) to Santa Monica- based non-profits for special events, including but not limited to room fee waivers, food and beverage discounts, hotel night stays, and/or silent auction items (e.g., gift certificates for hotel stays, food and beverage credits or spa credits). DocuSign Envelope ID: A8DD4581-F7B8-4F01-9FDA-F0E075F62E1F 39 SECTION 10. Consistent with CEQA Section 21081.6, the City Council adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, which is included as Chapter 11 of the Final EIR, to mitigate or avoid significant effects of the project on the environment, as detailed in Sections 4 and 5 of this resolution, and to ensure compliance during project implementation. SECTION 11. Consistent with Section 21081.6(a)(2) of CEQA, the documents which constitute the record of proceedings for approving this project are located in the Community Development Department, 1685 Main Street, City Hall East, Santa Monica, California. The custodian of these documents is Rachel Kwok, Environmental Planner. SECTION 12. 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: ________________________ GEORGE S. CARDONA Interim City Attorney DocuSign Envelope ID: A8DD4581-F7B8-4F01-9FDA-F0E075F62E1F Adopted and approved this 29th day of September 2020. __________________________ Kevin McKeown, Mayor I, Denise Anderson-Warren, City Clerk of the City of Santa Monica, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 11291 (CCS) was duly adopted at a meeting of the Santa Monica City Council held on the 29th day of September 2020, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers Jara, McCowan, Winterer Mayor Pro Tem O’Day NOES: Councilmember Himmelrich, Mayor McKeown ABSENT: Councilmember Davis ATTEST: _____________________________________ Denise Anderson-Warren, City Clerk DocuSign Envelope ID: A8DD4581-F7B8-4F01-9FDA-F0E075F62E1F