Attachment O
Environmental Analysis
Project Exempt Pursuant to CEQA 15182
The City is the Lead Agency for this project under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.), and the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14). Per Section 15182 of the regulations implementing CEQA (CEQA Guidelines), a residential or mixed-use project, or a project with a floor area ratio of at least 0.75 on commercially-zoned property, including any required subdivision or zoning approvals, is exempt from CEQA if the project satisfies the following criteria:
(A) It is located within a transit priority area as defined in Public Resources Code section 21099(a)(7);
(B) It is consistent with a specific plan for which an environmental impact report was certified; and
(C) It 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.
The Project meets all of the above criteria. Specifically, the Project site is located in a Transit Priority Area (TPA), as it is within 0.5 miles of a major transit stop – the Downtown Station for the Metro E (Expo) Light Rail line. Additionally, the proposed Project is consistent with the applicable specific plan for this area - the Downtown Community Plan, for which a Program EIR was certified (State Clearinghouse No. 2013091056). Lastly, the proposed Project is consistent with the general use designation, density, building intensity, and policies of the Southern California Association of Government’s (SCAG’s) adopted 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). 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. Therefore, the Project is legally exempt from CEQA per Section 15182.
The DCP allows projects on Established Large Sites (ELS) to be authorized up to an absolute height limit of 130 feet subject to four requirements, one of which is requires additional environmental review to the extent not analyzed in the 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 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
EIR Analysis Conducted in Accordance with the Downtown Community Plan Given public interest, and to promote informed decision-making, the City has also prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Project in compliance with CEQA instead of simply confirming the applicability of the Section 15182. In accordance with Section 15121 of the CEQA Guidelines, the purpose of the EIR is to serve as an informational document that: “…will inform public agency decision-makers and the public generally of the significant environmental effect of a project, identify possible ways to minimize the significant effects, and describe reasonable alternatives to the project.” (City of Santa Monica, Downtown Community Plan, July 2017, p. 196; and the City of Santa Monica’s procedures for implementing CEQA). The principal State CEQA Guidelines sections governing content of the EIR are Sections 15120 through 15132 (Contents of an EIR), and Section 15161 (Project EIR).
As required by Section 15082 of the CEQA Guidelines, a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the EIR was published on December 21, 2018 with the review period ending on January 30, 2019. The purpose of the NOP was to formally convey that the City was preparing a Draft EIR for the Project, and to solicit input regarding the scope and content of the environmental information to be included in the Draft EIR.
In addition, a public scoping meeting was held on January 10, 2019 from 6:00 P.M. to 7:30 P.M. at the Civic Center Auditorium at 1855 Main Street, Santa Monica, California 90401. The meeting included a presentation of the Project and an overview of the CEQA process followed by an open house format which provided interested individuals, groups, and public agencies the opportunity to view materials, ask questions, and provide oral and written comments to the City regarding the scope and focus of the Draft EIR as described in the NOP.
In recognition of the current COVID-19 pandemic, an extended 90-day comment period for the Draft EIR was provided, which began on May 18, 2020 and ended on August 17, 2020. In accordance with Section 15087(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines, a public notice indicating the Draft EIR was available for review was distributed to parties providing comment on the NOP and residents within a 1,000-foot radius of the Project Site. Additionally, the notice was published in the Santa Monica Daily Press and mailed to all neighborhood groups, relevant governmental agencies, and interested parties.
The Draft EIR was made available for review online on the City of Santa Monica’s Planning & Community Development Department website.
The environmental issues studied in detail in the Draft EIR include:
• Aesthetics (Visual Character, Views, Light and Glare, Shading) • Air Quality/Health Risk
• Construction Effects
• Cultural Resources - Historical Resources
• Cultural Resources - Archaeology and Paleontology
• Energy
• Geology and Soils
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials
• Hydrology and Water Quality
• Land Use/Planning
• Neighborhood Effects
• Noise and Vibration
• Transportation
• Tribal Cultural Resources
• Utilities and Service Systems
Other issue areas such as Agricultural/Forestry Resources, Biological Resources, Mineral Resources, Population/Employment/Housing, Public Services, and Recreation were determined to be less than significant in the Initial Study (Appendix A of the EIR).
The Final EIR, which was published on May 3, 2022, contains all comments and responses to comments received during the comment period as well as minor changes to the Draft EIR. Prior to Council certification of the Final EIR, Staff is recommending additional minor revisions to the Final EIR clarifying that the City’s 2018 draft Local Coastal Plan Land Use Plan (LUP) has not yet been certified and to specify that implementation of the Project would require a site-specific amendment to the 1992 LUP.
Comments on the Draft EIR
The Draft EIR was available for a 90-day public review period, during which a total of 7 comment letters were received. Comments were raised regarding the transportation analysis, adequacy of the EIR, general support for the project, and concerns about historic effects. Responses to all comments received are included in the Final EIR within Chapter 10, Responses to Comments.
Significant Impacts
As indicated in Chapter 3, Environmental Impact Analysis, of the Final EIR, the Project would result in significant unavoidable impacts related to construction-related groundborne vibration that could affect the adjacent off-site Gussie Moran House, which is a City-designated Landmark (refer to Section 3.3, Construction Effects, Section 3.4, Cultural Resources and Section 3.12, Noise). Additionally, based on the City’s prior thresholds for intersection levels of service (LOS), the proposed Project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to neighborhood traffic effects and transportation (refer to Section 3.11, Neighborhood Effects and Section 3.13, Transportation).
Cultural Resources - Historical Resources
The Gussie Moran House, located at 1323 Ocean Avenue, immediately north of the Project site is a City-designated Landmark as it helps illustrate the historic context of Ocean Avenue. Construction activities along the northern boundary of the Project site would exceed the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) vibration damage potential threshold criteria for “Fragile” and “Fragile Historic” buildings. Therefore, Project construction activities could result in structural damage to the building – particularly the decorative shingles, steeple, tower, and chimney. MM CR-1 and MM NOI-2 could reduce potential impacts to less than significant; however, implementation of these mitigation measures would require consent from the owner of 1323 Ocean Avenue (Gussie Moran House). The City does not have the jurisdiction or control to mandate that the offsite property owner consent to the Applicant’s implementation of these mitigation measures. Therefore, because the consent of the offsite property owner cannot be guaranteed, it has been conservatively concluded that unless mitigated, construction activities could have potentially significant and unavoidable historic impacts to the Gussie Moran House.
Noise
As described previously, onsite construction-related vibration impacts would be reduced to less than significant through the implementation of MM NOI-2. However, construction activities could result in structural damage to the Gussie Moran House – particularly the decorative shingles, steeple, tower, and chimney. MM NOI-2 could reduce potential impacts to less than significant; however, that would require voluntary acceptance of these mitigation measure requirements by the property owner. The City does not have the jurisdiction or control to mandate implementation of these mitigation measures by the property owner. Therefore, because the consent of the offsite property owner cannot be guaranteed, it has been conservatively concluded that unless mitigated, construction activities could have potentially significant and unavoidable construction vibration impacts to the Gussie Moran House.
Transportation
As described further in Section 3.13 of the Final EIR, Transportation, operation of the proposed Project would generate up to an estimated 146 net new AM peak hour trips, 146 net new PM peak hour trips, and 168 net new weekend midday peak hour trips.
Based on the City’s previously adopted significance criteria of LOS, the addition of these Project-generated trips would result in significant and unavoidable impacts at the following four study intersections under the Approval Year (2020) traffic conditions:
• Palisades Beach Road (PCH) & California Incline (weekend midday hour); • Ocean Avenue & California Avenue (PM and weekend midday peak hours); • Second Street & Wilshire Boulevard (PM and weekend midday peak hours); and • Main Street & Olympic Drive (AM and weekend midday peak hours).
In addition, the proposed Project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts at the following six study intersections under the Future Year (2025) traffic conditions:
• Palisades Beach Road (PCH) & the California Incline (AM peak hour); • Ocean Avenue & California Avenue (all peak hours);
• Second Street & Arizona Avenue (weekend midday peak hour); • Second Street & Santa Monica Boulevard (PM and weekend midday peak hours);
• Main Street & Olympic Drive (AM and weekend midday peak hours); and • 4th Street & Santa Monica Boulevard (all peak hours).
As described in Section 3.13, Transportation, there are no feasible mitigation measures to avoid or reduce the traffic impacts at any of these intersections. Potential mitigations (e.g., re-timing signals, removing on-street parking, removing bicycle lanes, etc.) would be inconsistent with the policies of the City’s LUCE and DCP, which are intended to encourage multi-modal transportation.
It should be noted that after publication of the Draft EIR, on June 9th, 2020 the City adopted vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as the metric for analyzing the transportation impacts of projects that are subject to CEQA, to align with the requirements of Senate Bill (SB)743. VMT measures the cumulative distance of automobile travel, taking into account the origin and destination of a particular trip. Typically, development located at a greater distance from other land uses and in areas without transit generates more VMT than development near other land uses with more robust transportation options.
Since the Project’s Notice of Preparation and Draft EIR predate the adoption of the VMT thresholds, the Project’s analysis of transportation effects in the EIR are utilized using the former level of service (LOS) standards. Nonetheless, Section 3.13, Transportation, of the EIR does provide analysis and disclosure of the Project’s VMT effects.
Neighborhood Effects
The proposed Project would result in significant and unavoidable intersection impacts at four study intersections under the Approval Year (2020) and six study intersection during the Future Year (2025) based on the City’s previously adopted LOS significance thresholds. Therefore, neighborhood effects related to intersection operations would remain significant and unavoidable.
Alternatives Studied
The selection of alternatives studied in the EIR are based on CEQA requirements as well as consideration of public comments received during the NOP comment period for the Draft EIR. The EIR studied five alternatives to the project, which are intended to reduce the environmental impacts of the projects:
• Alternative 1 – No Project/No Build
Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2), the No Project/No Build Alternative analysis discusses the existing conditions at the time the Notice of Preparation (NOP) was published (December 21, 2018) and compares impacts of the No Project/No Build Alternative to the Project. Under the No Project/No Build Alternative, the Project would not be developed. Rather, the existing on-site uses (commercial office, medical offices, medical spa, salon, restaurants, and parking lot) would remain unchanged.
• Alternative 2 – DCP Tier II Mixed-Use Housing Projects Compliant with Ocean Transition (OT) and Bayside Conservation (BC) Districts Alternative 2 assumes that the parcels within the Project site would be sold and independently developed by separate developers. Alternative 2 would develop three individual mixed-use housing projects with ground floor commercial uses and upper floor residential uses, consistent with the DCP’s Tier II development standards for the OT and BC Districts (DCP Section 9.10.060). Alternative 2 would consist of three individual four-story mixed-use housing projects at 1333 and 1337 Ocean Avenue, 101 Santa Monica Boulevard, and 129 Boulevard. These projects would be separately developed but would total 227,347 SF with 69,837 SF of ground floor restaurant and retail uses and 148,210 SF of upper floor residential uses. Alternative 2 would include a total of 150 residential units, an approximately 50 percent increase (50 units) in residential units from the proposed Project. This alternative would also increase restaurant and retail floor area by approximately 93 percent (33,727 SF) from 36,110 SF under the proposed Project, and would eliminate the hotel and Cultural Use Campus.
• Alternative 3 – Maximum 84-Foot Building Height (Reduced FAR/Development) Alternative 3 would develop the proposed Project’s land uses with a reduced height of 84 feet and a corresponding reduction in total floor area. Similar to the proposed Project, Alternative 3 would include a hotel, mixed-use buildings with ground floor commercial uses and upper floor residential uses, and a Cultural Use Campus that would incorporate the two relocated City-designated Landmarks. Alternative 3 would consist of a mixed-use project totaling 270,570 sf with 36,110 SF of ground floor restaurant and retail uses, 100,291 SF of upper floor residential uses, 88,929 SF of hotel uses, and 35,500 SF of cultural uses. This alternative’s total floor area (above and below grade) would be approximately 15 percent less as compared to the proposed Project. Alternative 3 would include a total of 91 residential units, an approximately 9 percent decrease (9 units) in residential units from the proposed Project. This alternative would also decrease the number of hotel guestrooms by approximately 46 percent (55 guestrooms) and the total hotel floor area by approximately 28 percent (33,471 SF), from 120 guestrooms and 122,400 SF under the proposed Project.
• Alternative 4 – Retention of Existing City-Designated Landmarks and 101 Santa Monica Boulevard
Alternative 4 would develop a 50-foot-tall mixed-use commercial, residential, office, and museum project consistent with the height limits in the DCP for the BC and OT Districts. The existing City-designated Landmarks and the existing building at 101 Santa Monica Boulevard would be retained in place and three new mixed-use buildings would be constructed around the existing buildings. Alternative 4 would comprise three 50-foot-tall mixed-use buildings totaling 169,717 sf with 60,526 SF of ground floor restaurant and retail uses, 70,460 SF of upper floor residential uses, 12,000 SF of commercial office, 26,041 SF of museum space, and 690 SF of storage resulting in a 2.04 FAR. Alternative 4 would include a total of 80 residential units, an approximately 20 percent decrease (20 units) in residential units, from the proposed Project. This alternative would increase restaurant and retail floor area by approximately 68 percent (24,416 SF) from 36,110 SF under the proposed Project.
However, there would be an approximately 27 percent decrease (9,459 SF) in the size of the Cultural Use Campus (i.e., museum), from 35,500 SF under the proposed Project.
• Alternative 5 –Revised Circulation Alternative
Alternative 5 would involve development of a mixed-use hotel, residential, commercial, and Cultural Use Campus as generally described for the proposed Project. However, this alternative would include a revised circulation plan to address City concerns related to potential drop-off location along Ocean Avenue.
As with the proposed Project, Alternative 5 would reconfigure First Court into an “L”- shape with one-way access from Arizona Avenue east to Second Street. A vehicle access ramp from First Court would provide entry to the proposed subterranean parking garage. However, Alternative 5 would also provide an additional entrance to the Project site via a 16-foot wide curb cut along Ocean Avenue with a 13-foot wide vehicle access ramp into the proposed subterranean parking garage. This ramp would be similar in design and at construction to similar grade as compared to the other ramps on the Project site. This additional vehicle access ramp would be positioned between the proposed Cultural Use Campus and Hotel Building and extend above grade for approximately 100 feet through the heart of the public courtyard fronting the Cultural Use Campus. Alternative 5 would include 36,110 SF of ground floor restaurant and retail uses, 117,700 SF of upper floor residential uses (100 residential units), and 121,400 SF of hotel uses (120 guestrooms).
However, due to the configuration of the additional vehicle access ramp, this alternative would result in a reduction of ground level open space and a 2,000-SF reduction of below ground area for museum gallery space, hotel ballroom space, and back-of-house (BOH) uses. In total, Alternative 5 would have a total development area of 314,750 SF and a 2.95 FAR.
Environmentally Superior Alternative
In general, the environmentally superior alternative as defined by CEQA should minimize adverse impacts to the project site and its surrounding environment. Of the alternatives considered, the No Project Alternative does not create new impacts; therefore, it is generally environmentally superior to any project that proposes to change existing conditions through the addition of increased development with associated impacts. However, the No Project Alternative would not contribute to City efforts to implement the goals and objectives of the DCP, provide additional visitor serving uses in Coastal Zone, help meet regional housing demand, or meet the primary Project objectives.
CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6 states that if the environmentally superior alternative is the No Project/No Build Alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative from among the other alternatives. The remaining alternatives were reviewed in accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines requirement to identify an environmentally superior Alternative other than the No Project/No Build Alternative.
According to Section 15126.6(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the purpose of an Alternatives analyses is to identify alternative developments that would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. Other than Alternative 1, none of the remaining alternatives to the Project would avoid all of the Project’s potentially significant and unavoidable impacts.
Of the five alternatives considered for further analysis, Alternative 3, Maximum 84-Foot Building Height (Reduced FAR/Development), is the environmentally superior alternative because impacts to transportation and temporary construction-related impacts to air quality and noise would be reduced to the greatest extent. The reduction in the scope of development under Alternative 3 would reduce the overall duration of construction impacts relative to the proposed Project. Additionally, due to the reduced number of residential units and hotel guestrooms, this alternative would eliminate the weekend midday peak hour impact at Second Street & Arizona Avenue under the Future Year (2025) traffic conditions and reduce the increases in vehicle delay at the other impacted intersections.
Alternative 3 also would achieve the greatest number of primary Project objectives. For example, while Alternative 3 would not develop to the maximum height permitted within the ELS Overlay, this alternative would remain consistent with the LUCE and DCP including with respect to development standards, visitor-serving, residential, and pedestrian-oriented ground floor uses, historic preservation and adaptive reuse of two City-designated Landmarks, pedestrian-oriented design, publicly accessible open space, sustainability, high quality architectural design, TDM measures, and community benefits. Further, this alternative would enhance the Downtown by adding culturally rich uses, pedestrian-focused amenities, affordable and market rate housing, retail, restaurant and entertainment uses, and a full-service hotel. However, due to the reduced scope of development, Alternative 3 would eliminate the publicly accessible rooftop observation deck described for the proposed Project. Due to the substantial reduction in hotel guestrooms, Alternative 3 would be less consistent with Policy 199 of the City’s Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan (LUP) provides that “overnight visitor accommodations and related support facilities such as shops, restaurants and cultural uses that serve visitors and the local community alike shall be priority uses.”