RESOLUTION
NO.
(Planning Commission
Series)
A
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE
CITY OF
NECESSARY
TO APPROVE THE 415 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY PROJECT,
ADOPTING A
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION,
AND MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN
WHEREAS,
an Environmental Impact Report has been prepared which analyzes the
environmental effects of the
WHEREAS,
the Planning Commission, as Lead City Agency, reviewed the Final Environmental
Impact Report in full compliance with State and City CEQA Guidelines; and
WHEREAS,
on
NOW,
THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
SECTION 1. Consistent with Article IV, Section 12 of the
City of Santa Monica CEQA Guidelines and Section 15128 of the State CEQA
Guidelines, the Initial Study/Notice of Preparation, incorporated herein by
reference, determined that the following environmental impacts were not
considered potentially significant and were not addressed further in the Final
Environmental Impact Report: Biological
Resources; Shadows; Population and Housing; Land Use and Planning; Utilities
and Service Systems; Public Services; Recreation; Economic and Social Impacts;
Agricultural Resources and Mineral Resources.
SECTION 2. Consistent with Article VI, Section 12 of the
City of
SECTION 3. Consistent
with Article VI, Section 12 of the City of
(a) The Final EIR determined that without mitigation the proposed project could result in significant adverse impacts to Aesthetics. Although the building program and conceptual site plan prepared for the proposed project appear to be consistent with the guidelines set forth in the Land Use Element, it cannot be determined with certainty that the proposed buildings would be compatible with the existing historic and architectural setting of the Marion Davies Estate and that fencing within the front yard setback area would be consistent with the maximum height requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Therefore the proposed project has the potential to degrade the existing visual character and quality of the site. Additionally, the proposed project would include the use of outdoor lighting and has the potential to increase sources of glare on-sight, particularly from an increased number of automobiles parked in the expanded parking lot. Consistent with Article VI, Section 12 of the City CEQA Guidelines and Section 15091 and 15092 of the State of California CEQA Guidelines and as detailed in the Final EIR at Section 4.1, incorporated herein by reference, the Planning Commission finds that the following mitigation measures have been required for the project which will avoid or substantially lessen the potential significant environmental effects identified with respect to Aesthetics to below a level of significance.
1.
Landmarks
Commission Review (AES-2(b)). The design, scale and character of project
architecture shall be compatible with the existing Georgian Revival
architectural style of the Marion Davies Estate. Rehabilitation of historic resources shall
comply with the recommendations of the Cultural Resources Technical
Report: Proposed
HR-1(a) Final Rehabilitation Design. A
historically compatible rehabilitation design for the North House, pool, and
bulkhead shall comply with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties and Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating,
Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings or the Secretary of Interior’s
Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Historic Buildings (Weeks and
Grimmer, 1995). Prior to permit
issuance, a design plan shall be prepared and submitted to the Community and
Cultural Services Department for review as well as the Landmarks Commission as
part of review for a Certificate of Appropriateness, which includes, but is not
limited to the following:
·
Alterations
required for the conversion of the North House into a meeting facility,
including the installation of mechanical equipment and alterations related to
ADA accessibility, shall be designed so as to integrate, rather than obscure,
alter, or remove, character-defining features.
·
The
architectural design of new facilities and landscaping shall be “differentiated
from the old,” and not detract from or overwhelm the original historic
features.
·
Signage
shall be placed in a manner that is compatible with and does not obstruct
character-defining features of the North House, pool, or bulkhead.
·
Testing
shall be performed where necessary to ensure that the safest and gentlest means
possible are used to clean and repair materials. A materials conservator shall evaluate
historic ceramic tiles in the pool and North House restrooms and provide
appropriate methodology for repair and/or replacement in kind if necessary.
·
New
facilities, including the Event House, Pool House, Garden and children’s water
play area shall be designed to maintain spatial relationships of the
character-defining features as much as possible. New elements constructed on the site shall be
designed to be reversible and to cause minimal impact on the historic fabric of
the site.
Prior to issuance of Building Permits, the
applicant shall submit detailed plans for review and approval by the Landmarks
Commission that demonstrate compliance with this mitigation measure.
2.
Fence Design Requirements (AES-2 (c)). Plans for the proposed project shall include
design details of the fence that is envisioned along the street frontage of
PCH. The design of the fence shall be
compatible with the existing Georgian Revival architectural style of the Marion
Davies Estate and shall be subject to review by the Planning Commission and
Landmarks Commission, as required pursuant to Mitigation Measures AES-2(a) and
(b).
3.
Planning Commission Review (AES-2(a)). The physical
location, size, massing and placement of proposed structures on the site shall
be compatible with and relate harmoniously to surrounding sites and
neighborhood. Prior to issuance of
Building Permits, the applicant shall submit plans for review and approval by
the Planning Commission to demonstrate compliance with this mitigation measure.
4.
Low-glare Materials (AES-3(a)). All design and placement of windows shall be
of low-glare specification. Paint used
for exterior facades shall be of low-reflectivity. Metal surfaces shall be brush-polished, and
shall not be highly reflective.
5.
Parking Lot Landscaping (AES-3(b)). Parking areas shall be landscaped such that
the size, type and location of species reduce the glare from vehicles parked
on-site.
6.
Lighting Plan (AES-3(c)).
Any exterior night lighting installed on the project site shall be of
low intensity, low glare design, and shall be hooded to direct light downward
onto the subject parcel and prevent spillover onto adjacent parcels. The City shall develop a Lighting Plan
incorporating these requirements.
(b)
The Final EIR determined that without mitigation
the proposed project could result in significant adverse impacts to
Construction Effects. The proposed project would involve demolition of the
existing
1. Construction
Impact Mitigation Plan (CON-1). The
City shall prepare and implement a Construction Impact Mitigation Plan to
provide for traffic and parking capacity management during demolition of the
· A public information program to advise motorists of impending construction activities (e.g., media coverage, portable message signs, and information signs at the construction site);
· Approval from the City, or Caltrans if required, for any construction detours or construction work requiring encroachment into public rights-of-way, or any other street use activity (e.g. haul routes);
· Timely notification of construction schedules to all affected agencies (e.g. Police Department, Fire Department, Department of Environmental and Public Works Management, and Department of Planning and Community Development);
· Coordination of construction work with affected agencies five to ten days prior to start of work;
·
A traffic control plan for
· A pedestrian/bicyclists control plan for the beach pedestrian/bike path, which includes information regarding the project’s construction and activities that will disrupt public use of the path;
· Minimizing dirt and demolition material hauling and construction material delivery during the morning and afternoon peak traffic periods and cleaning of streets and equipment as necessary;
· Scheduling and expediting of work to cause the least amount of disruption and interference to the adjacent vehicular and pedestrian traffic flow. Weekday daytime work on City streets shall primarily be performed between the hours of 9:00 AM and 3:00 PM;
·
Limit queuing of trucks to on-site only, and prohibit truck queuing on
· Scheduling of preconstruction meetings with affected agencies to properly plan methods of controlling traffic through work areas;
· Storage of construction material and equipment within the designated work area and limitation of equipment and material visibility to the public; and
·
Provision of off-street parking for construction
workers, which may include the use of a remote location with shuttle transport
to the site, it determined necessary by the City of
2. Dust Minimization (CON-2(a)). Dust generated by the development activities shall be kept to a minimum with a goal of retaining dust on the site through implementation of the following measures recommended by the SCAQMD Rule 43 Handbook:
· During clearing, grading, earth moving, excavation, or transportation of cut or fill materials, water trucks or sprinkler systems are to be used to the extent necessary to prevent dust from leaving the site and to create a crust after each day’s activities cease.
· During clearing, grading, earth moving, excavation, or transportation of cut or fill materials, streets and sidewalks within 150 feet of the site perimeter shall be swept and cleaned a minimum of twice weekly.
· During construction, water trucks or sprinkler systems shall be used to keep all areas of vehicle movement damp enough to prevent dust from leaving the site. At a minimum, this would include wetting down such areas in the later morning and after work is completed for the day and whenever wind exceeds 15 miles per hour.
· Soil stockpiled for more than two days shall be covered, kept moist, or treated with soil binders to prevent dust generation.
3. Construction Equipment Conditions (CON-2(b)). Construction equipment used on the site shall meet the following conditions in order to minimize NOx and ROC emissions:
· Diesel-powered equipment such as booster pumps or generators should be replaced by electric equipment to the extent feasible; and
· The operation of heavy-duty construction equipment shall be limited to no more than 5 pieces of equipment at any one time.
4. Diesel Equipment Mufflers(CON-3(a)). All diesel equipment shall be operated with closed engine doors and shall be equipped with factory-recommended mufflers.
5. Electrically-Powered Tools (CON-3(b)). Electrical power shall be used to run air compressors and similar power tools.
6. Additional
Noise Attenuation Techniques (CON-3(c)).
For all noise-generating activity on the project site associated
with the installation of new facilities, additional noise attenuation
techniques shall be employed to reduce noise levels to City of
7. Construction Sign Posting (CON-3(d)). In accordance with Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 4.12.120, the City shall be required to post a sign informing all workers and subcontractors of the time restrictions for the installation of new facilities. The sign shall also include the City telephone numbers where violations can be reported and complaints associated with noise associated with the installation of new facilities can be submitted.
(c) The Final EIR determined that without mitigation the proposed project could result in significant adverse impacts to Geology and Soils. Seismic activity could produce sufficient ground shaking resulting in liquefaction. Consistent with Article VI, Section 12 of the City CEQA Guidelines and Section 15091 and 15092 of the State of California CEQA Guidelines and as detailed in the Final EIR at Section 4.4, incorporated herein by reference, the Planning Commission finds that the following mitigation measure has been required for the project which will avoid or substantially lessen the potential significant environmental effects identified with respect to Geology and Soils to below a level of significance.
1. Geotechnical Study (GEO-2). A geotechnical study shall be prepared for the project site prior to development. This report shall include, but is not limited to, an analysis of the liquefaction potential of the underlying materials. If the site is found to be prone to seismically-induced liquefaction, appropriate techniques to minimize liquefaction potential shall be prescribed and implemented. Suitable measures to reduce liquefaction impacts could include, but are not limited to: (1) specialized design of foundations by a structural engineer; (2) removal or treatment of liquefiable soils to reduce the potential for liquefaction; (3) in-situ densification of soils; and (4) other alterations to the ground characteristics. Any recommended measures to minimize liquefaction potential specified by the geotechnical study shall be fully implemented in accordance with the Uniform Building Code and California Building Code requirements.
(d) The Final EIR determined that without mitigation the proposed project could result in significant adverse impacts to Hazards and Hazardous Materials. The project would rehabilitate the historic swimming pool and restrooms in the North House, which contain ceramic tiles that are likely to contain lead. Provided that these features are reused for their original purpose and are maintained in good condition, the likelihood of exposure to lead is minimal. Consistent with Article VI, Section 12 of the City CEQA Guidelines and Section 15091 and 15092 of the State of California CEQA Guidelines and as detailed in the Final EIR at Section 4.5, incorporated herein by reference, the Planning Commission finds that the following mitigation measure has been required for the project which will avoid or substantially lessen the potential significant environmental effects identified with respect to Hazards and Hazardous Materials to below a level of significance.
1. (HHM-3): As part of Mitigation Measure HR-1(a), as required in Final EIR Section 4.6 Historic Resources, a materials conservator would be required to evaluate the historic ceramic tiles in the pool and North House restrooms and provide appropriate methodology for repair and/or replacement in kind, if necessary. Implementation of Mitigation Measure HR-1(a) would ensure that the historic tiles are maintained in good condition and further reduce any risk of lead exposure.
(e) The Final EIR determined that without mitigation the proposed project could result in significant adverse impacts to Historic Resources. Preliminary design for the rehabilitation of extant historical resources, construction of the proposed event house and pool house, and reuse of the project site could adversely affect designated historic resources, thus rendering the proposed project inconsistent with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. Consistent with Article VI, Section 12 of the City CEQA Guidelines and Section 15091 and 15092 of the State of California CEQA Guidelines and as detailed in the Final EIR at Section 4.6 incorporated herein by reference, the Planning Commission finds that the following mitigation measures have been required for the project which will avoid or substantially lessen the potential significant environmental effects identified with respect to Historic Resources:
1. Final Rehabilitation Design (HR-1(a)). A historically compatible rehabilitation design for the North House, pool, and bulkhead shall comply with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings or the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Historic Buildings (Weeks and Grimmer, 1995). Prior to permit issuance, a design plan shall be prepared and submitted to the Community and Cultural Services Department for review as well as the Landmarks Commission as part of review for a Certificate of Appropriateness, which includes, but is not limited to the following:
·
Alterations
required for the conversion of the North House into a meeting facility,
including the installation of mechanical equipment and alterations related to
ADA accessibility, shall be designed so as to integrate, rather than obscure,
alter, or remove, character-defining features.
·
The
architectural design of new facilities and landscaping shall be “differentiated
from the old,” and not detract from or overwhelm the original historic
features.
·
Signage
shall be placed in a manner that is compatible with and does not obstruct
character-defining features of the North House, pool, or bulkhead.
·
Testing
shall be performed where necessary to ensure that the safest and gentlest means
possible are used to clean and repair materials. A materials conservator shall evaluate
historic ceramic tiles in the pool and North House restrooms and provide
appropriate methodology for repair and/or replacement in kind if necessary.
·
New
facilities, including the Event House, Pool House, Garden and children’s water
play area shall be designed to maintain spatial relationships of the
character-defining features as much as possible. New elements constructed on the site shall be
designed to be reversible and to cause minimal impact on the historic fabric of
the site.
2.Mitigation Plan for Preservation of Historic
Materials During Construction(HR-1).
The City shall prepare and
implement a Mitigation Plan for Preservation of Historic Materials During Construction to protect historic materials during
construction of the proposed project.
This plan shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning and
Community Development Department prior to issuance of a building permit. At a minimum, it shall include the following:
·
Character-defining
features of the property shall dictate the placement of new design components,
as well as methods and design of new construction. Structural engineers, in consultation with a
designated historian, shall evaluate the condition of extant historical
resources to better understand the potential effects of excavation activities
and foundation design.
·
Engineers
shall provide a shoring design solution, if necessary, to protect historical
resources from construction procedures and mitigate the possibility of
settlement due to the removal of adjacent soil.
Structural engineers shall also evaluate what temporary seismic movement
the new construction may have, and whether any measures need to be taken to
allow for this movement.
·
The removal
of historic materials shall be minimized to the extent feasible. If any historic materials are removed, a
materials conservator shall evaluate historic material and provide appropriate
methodology for handling and/or preservation.
(f) The
Final EIR determined that without mitigation the proposed project could result
in significant adverse impacts to Hydrology and Water Quality. Overall the
project is expected to generate fewer pollutants in water runoff than the
current land uses on the site through the conversion of impervious surfaces to
landscaped areas with permeable surfaces.
This is considered an overall beneficial impact. However, the proposed project could still
contribute urban pollutants to surface runoff from onsite parking lots and
landscaping. Consistent with Article VI, Section 12 of the City CEQA Guidelines
and Section 15091 and 15092 of the State of California CEQA Guidelines and as
detailed in the Final EIR at Section 4.7, incorporated herein by reference, the
Planning Commission finds that the following mitigation measures have been
required for the project which will avoid or substantially lessen the potential
significant environmental effects identified with respect to Hydrology and
Water Quality to below a level of significance.
1. Best Management
Practices (HWQ-3(a)). The City shall include best management
practices (BMPs), such as sand filters and grease traps, within the
reconfigured surface parking lots to intercept and effectively prevent
pollutants, sediment, and debris from discharging offsite.
2. Landscape
Maintenance Plan (HWQ-3(b)). A landscaping maintenance plan shall be implemented
that limits the use of herbicides and inorganic fertilizers applied to
landscaping to quantities that are necessary to treat specific problems. The maintenance plan shall incorporate
features from the City of Santa Monica’s Integrated Pest Management Program,
which include, but are not limited to the following: pest-resistant plants, provisions for
mechanical weed control to be used wherever and whenever possible as the first
choice; determination of the probable cause of a disease problem and correction
as necessary (e.g. soil nutrient problems, irrigation, water quality, and plant
type) prior to chemical use; provisions that herbicides are to be used only
when necessary to cure a problem and not as a preventative measure or as a
regular, periodic application; and, guidelines for use of chemical forms that
have a low potential for leaching from the site.
(g) The Final EIR determined that without mitigation the proposed project could result in significant adverse impacts to Transportation and Circulation related to on-site parking. The proposed project would provide approximately 280 parking spaces onsite and during most times, the proposed parking supply would be adequate. However, on peak beach days, this supply would not be sufficient to satisfy the anticipated parking demand if all project components (including the Event House) were active during the day. Consistent with Article VI, Section 12 of the City CEQA Guidelines and Section 15091 and 15092 of the State of California CEQA Guidelines and as detailed in the Final EIR at Sections 4.10, incorporated herein by reference, the Planning Commission finds that the following mitigation measure has been required for the project which will avoid or substantially lessen the potential significant environmental effects identified with respect to Traffic and Circulation (parking) to below a level of significance.
1. Off-Site Parking (T-2). If events are scheduled during peak summer
beach hours (Fridays-Sundays during June through September 10 AM – 6 PM), the
party booking the event shall secure off-site parking within 5 miles of the
project site for the guests with a shuttle bus system to transport them to the
site and shall submit a Transportation and Parking Management Plan (Plan) to
the operator of the site prior to issuance of a permit for use of the
facility. The Plan shall include a
description of the methodology of notifying guests of the location for the
shuttle and shall include evidence demonstrating that 1) pre-paid parking has
been secured; and 2) pre-paid shuttle service has been hired between the site
and the off-site parking lot.
SECTION 4. Consistent with Article IV, Section 12 of the
City of
(a) The Final EIR determined that without
mitigation the proposed project could result in significant adverse impacts to Transportation
and Circulation. Consistent with Article
VI, Section 12 of the City of Santa Monica CEQA Guidelines and Section 15091,
15092, and 15093 of the State of California CEQA Guidelines, and as detailed in
Final EIR Section 4.10, incorporated herein by reference, the Planning
Commission finds that, the proposed project would result in 24 weekday AM peak
hour trips, 104 weekday PM peak hour trips and 104 weekend PM peak hours
trips. The increase in vehicles
traveling on the surrounding roadway network would result in significant and
unavoidable impacts at the following two
intersections in the project vicinity: 1) Pacific Coast Highway & the
California Incline; and 2) Pacific Coast Highway & Lot 10 N
entrance/primary project access point.
An
additional southbound left-turn lane on PCH and an additional departure lane
along the California Incline is proposed as a mitigation
measure for
The
intersection at
A
half-signal would stop all southbound traffic while northbound left-turning
vehicles enter the site and eastbound left-turning vehicles exit the site. Such a half-signal would require the
construction of a raised median divider to separate vehicles accelerating to
the north away from the site and away from the unrelated northbound through
traffic. This would be similar to the
installation currently in place at PCH and
A full
traffic signal would stop both northbound and southbound traffic while
northbound left-turning vehicles enter the site and eastbound left-turning
vehicles exit the site. A full signal
would necessitate the provision of some combination of new striping, signage,
controller cabinets, poles, mast arms, detectors and/or signal heads. However, it would not required
the construction of a raised median divider, acceleration lane or the
associated roadway widening. This
proposed mitigation measure would fully mitigate the project impact. , Hhowever,
because the intersection is owned by Caltrans, implementation of the mitigation
measure is beyond the control of the City of would
beis considered significant and
unavoidable. Nevertheless, the following
mitigation measure related to this intersection is required for the project.
1. PCH and
SECTION 5. The Final EIR found that the No Project Alternative would be environmentally superior to the proposed project on the basis of the minimization or avoidance of physical environmental impacts. However, the No Project Alternative is not feasible since it does not satisfy the project objectives of creating a community-oriented public recreation facility that encourages diverse users and preserves the history of the site by providing a range of uses including public recreational activities on a year-round basis and links to the regional open space network in that the site would remain vacant, boarded and fenced. None of the benefits of the project would be obtained if the No Project Alternative were adopted.
The CEQA Guidelines require that
if the environmentally superior alternative is the No Project alternative, that
the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the
other alternatives. Consistent with Article VI, Section 12 of the City of Santa
Monica CEQA Guidelines and Section 15091, 15092, and 15093 of the State of
California CEQA Guidelines, and as detailed in Final EIR Section 6.0, incorporated
herein by reference, the Planning Commission finds that, based on the other
project alternatives, the 1998 Reuse Plan is environmentally superior.
This alternative would not incur the potential impacts to historic resources
associated with new construction although similar impacts would be associated
with the reuse of the North House and there may be potential impacts associated
with the reuse of the Locker Building due to its proximity to the North
House. The 1998 Reuse Plan alternative would not be
feasible in that the costs associated with seismically retrofitting the Locker
Building, providing a new roof and other improvements to the building shell,
installing new building systems including, but not limited to HVAC, plumbing
and electrical and reconfiguring the interiors greatly exceeds the costs to
demolish the building and construct a new facility. It is further infeasible because it does not
achieve the project objectives of maximizing a range of integrated
community-oriented uses and diverse users while preserving the history of the
site. The 3-story alternative,
unlike the proposed project would not provide the historic North House with
ample open space around it given the scale and proximate location of the
existing
The Recreational Beach Use Alternative is not environmentally superior to the proposed project in that the impacts would be similar to the proposed project in most respects. Long-term impacts associated with geology and hydrology would be reduced in comparison to the proposed project due to the increased amount of permeable surface area. Traffic impacts would both be better and worse than the proposed project depending on the day and hour of peak traffic. AM peak hour and weekend peak hour trips would be worse than the proposed project and weekday PM peak hour trips would be slightly lower than the proposed project. The parking demand for this alternative would be lower than the proposed project, however the proposed parking supply associated with the Recreation Beach Use alternative would not be sufficient to meet the project demand and additional parking would need to be added to mitigate this impact which could result in a reduction in the recreational area proposed under this alternative. This alternative would not achieve all project objectives to provide a full range of uses because no new meeting or multi-purpose rooms would be built. Furthermore, this alternative would not meet the year-round use objective for the project because only the North House would be available for activities during inclement weather whereby the proposed project would provide multiple indoor spaces for community use.
SECTION 6. The Final
EIR found that the project would result in significant unavoidable adverse
impacts in the areas of traffic and circulation. Consistent with Article VI, Section 13 of the
City CEQA Guidelines and Section 15093 of the State of
(a)
The
(b)
The 415 Pacific Coast Highway project
will provide a public beach recreation facility on 5 acres of Santa Monica
State Beach, Santa Monica’s most recognized and used open space.
(c)
The
(d)
The
(e)
Land Use Element Policy 1.11.1
encourages the development of recreational facilities to meet the needs of both
the resident and daytime populations.
The project supports this policy of the Land Use Element with the
provision of inter-related indoor and outdoor spaces that encourage public
beach recreational use year-round and also provide for targeted event and
cultural programming during non-peak periods.
(f)
Objective 1 of the Open Space Element
calls for the City to develop and maintain a diversified and balanced system of
high quality open space. This project
supports this objective of the Open Space Element by providing a community
oriented destination with a variety of open space areas that accommodate
swimming, volleyball, paddle tennis, picnicking, and children’s play including
water play and sand play.
(g)
Objective 2 and Policy 2.1 of the Open
Space Element call for the city to expand the open space system through the use
of public properties. This project
supports this objective by returning a publicly owned site that has been closed
for many years to a productive public use providing an opportunity for
community members and visitors to enjoy a quintessential
(h)
Land Use Element Policy 3.1.3
encourages the retention of historic and architecturally significant
resources. This project supports this
policy in that the historically significant North House and swimming pool will
be preserved and rehabilitated and the site development will feature a
multi-faceted interpretive program in response to the high level of community
interest in the site’s history and local and regional context.
(i)
Land Use Element Policy 3.1.3 also
states that the design of new buildings should respect the character of nearby
historic resources and the project supports this policy because the event house
and pool house are both designed to be compatible with the historic structures on
the site while not mimicking their design.
(j)
Objective 5 of the Open Space Element
calls for establishing stronger connections to regional open spaces. This
project supports this objective by reusing a portion of State owned beachfront
property along the California Coastline for broad public access. Furthermore through the site’s interpretive
program visitors will be connected to the significance of the site as a gateway
to the Santa Monica National Recreation Area and as a part of
SECTION 7. Consistent
with Section 21081.6(d) of the California Environmental Quality Act, the
documents which constitute the record of proceedings for approving this project
are located in the Planning and Community Development Department,
SECTION 8.
Consistent with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, the City Council
adopts the Mitigation Monitoring Plan, which is included as Attachment A, to
mitigate or avoid significant effects of the Project on the environment, as
detailed in Sections 3 and 4 of this resolution, and to ensure compliance
during project implementation.
SECTION 98. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption
of this Resolution, and thenceforth and thereafter the same shall be in full
force and effect.
Attachment A: Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Plan
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
________________________
MARSHA JONES MOUTRIE
City Attorney