Loading...
SR-410-014 (3) .. . . . . Cal&~:~989 .. CjED:PB:DKW:WW:ww PC/ccdr492r Council Mtg: November 7, 1989 '/IP--O/Cj Santa Monica, '" TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: city staff SUBJECT: Recommendation to Adopt a Resolution certifying Environmental Impact Report 888 that Includes an Addendum and Supplement and Introduce for First Reading an Ordinance Approving a Development Agreement Between the City of Santa Monica and the Santa Monica Community College District to Permit the Construction of Two Four-Story Parking Structures, Containing l538 Parking Spaces on the Santa Monica Community College campus. INTRODUCTION This report forwards to the City Council the Planning Commission' s recommendation to certify the Final Environmental Impact Report that includes an addendum and supplement and approve the Development Agreement between the City of Santa Monica and the Santa Monica Community College District governing the construction of two four-story parking structures. The two structures would contain 1538 parking spaces on property that is bounded by Pico Boulevard to the north, Pearl street to the south, sixteenth street to the west and Eighteenth Street to the east. Construction of the two parking structures will result in the elimination of 264 existing parking spaces, thereby yielding a net addition of 1274 parking spaces on the Santa Monica community College Campus. The proposed parking structures represent mitigation for the college's existing parking deficiency. - 1 - 5-A NOv 7 l~ -, . . . Development of the structures will allow the continuation of the Sunset Park preferential parking district around the college campus. The Development Agreement I EIR and staff analysis are discussed below and in greater detail in the Planning commission staff report. (See Exhibit A) . BACKGROUND On May 17, 1989, the Planning Commission voted to recommend that the City Council certify Environmental Impact Report 888 and approve the Development Agreement governing the construction of the parking structures. The Commission action included the stipulation that specific recommendations be forwarded to the Council. These items are discussed in the analysis section below. The development parameters for the proposed parking structures were established by Contract No. 5100 (CCS), which was executed between the City of Santa Monica and the Santa Monica Community College District on May 17, 1988. contract No. 5100 requires the College District to create a minimum of 1200 new on campus parking spaces to address parking and traffic intrusions associated with the COllege's use of street parking in the college campus vicinity and to address potential impacts caused by the City's contemplated adoption of a preferential parking zone around the college campus. On June 14, 1988, the City of Santa Monica City Council adopted Ordinance 1444 (CCS), to establish a preferential parking zone (Zone L) in the vicinity of the Santa Monica Community College - 2 - . . campus. Zone L consists of an approximately fifteen block area bounded by Fourteenth Street, pico Boulevard, Twenty-Third street, Pearl street, Twenty-First Street, Ocean Park Boulevard and Fourteenth Street. Ordinance 1444 contains a rescission clause to void the use of the Preferential Parking Zone in the event that 1) the city fails to approve an application for the construction of the two parking structures on the campus as described in Contract No. 5100 (CCS) or 2) a final judgment blocking construction of the parking structures is issued. PROPOSED PROJECT The proposed project consists of 1) the removal of a surface parking lot to permit the construction of a four story, 40 foot high parking structure that will contain approximately 182,000 square feet of floor area and 690 parking spaces located immediately south of Pico Boulevard between sixteenth street and Seventeenth Street (vacated), referred to as the Lot Four Parking structure and, 2) the removal of a softball recreation field to permit the construction of a four story, 38 foot high, plus one subterranean level parking structure containing approximately 238,000 square feet of floor area and 844 parking spaces located 124 feet east of Sixteenth street, south of the College Business Administration Building, referred to as the Lot Eight Parking Structure. The Lot Four structure is oriented in an east-west direction with primary frontage along Pico Boulevard. The lot contains approximately 440 feet of frontage on pico Boulevard and 130 feet - 3 - . . of frontage along Sixteenth street. The lot's entrances will be designed to facilitate eastbound and westbound traffic entrance along Pico Boulevard, right turn only exiting along Pico Boulevard, right turn only exiting along Sixteenth street and two way entrance/exiting along Seventeenth street (vacated), off of Pica Boulevard. The sixteenth street and Seventeenth driveway curb cut openings are presently in place. The pica Boulevard driveway curb cut openings do not presently exist. Site plan information indicates a front landscaping setback of 10 feet from pico Boulevard, graduated landscaping setbacks of 15 to 27 feet and 16 to 35 feet along Sixteenth street and Seventeenth Street (vacated) respectively and an approximate 10 foot building setback from the college's existing four level parking structure. A suspended vehicle bridge located on the fourth parking level will connect the parking structure with the existing four level, 370 space parking structure. Elevation plans indicate three enclosed parking levels covered over by a fourth roof level of parking. A 3' 6" parapet screen extends above the 40 foot roof height. The Lot Eight parking structure is oriented in an east-west di- rection and contains approximately 175 feet of frontage on Six- teenth Street. The lot's entrance will be designed to provide ingress and egress from Seventeenth street (vacated) eXClusively. Site plan information indicates a graduated landscaping setback of 124 to 141 feet from the Sixteenth street curbline and a 35 foot setback from the College Business Administration Building. - 4 - . . A raised pedestrian foot bridge located on the east wall will cross over two lanes of traffic and connect the parking struc- tures to the remainder of the campus. Elevation plans indicate a partial subterranean level and three levels covered over by a fourth roof level of parking. A J f 6" parapet screen extends above the 38 foot roof height. Neither structure will contain elevator or restroom facilities and any required handicap parking spaces will be located on the ground floor or in an adjacent surface level parking lot. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT The Development Agreement provides the terms and conditions by which the two four-story parking structures containing 1538 gross parking spaces will be constructed on the Santa Monica community College campus. Under Government Code Section 65864, the City Council may modify development standards, such as permitted uses, density or inten- sity of use, and maximum height, provided in a development agree- ment in order that the governing agreement more accurately re- flects the approved land use. The development standards have been modified to more accurately reflect a nonresidential (col- lege educational) use of the R2, residentially zoned property. From a land use perspective, the multiple family residential standards (i.e., unit density, lot coverage, building height) are not intended to apply to a large nonresidential use of property - 5 - . . in the R2 District. The R2 standards were established to en- courage uniform development among projects of a similar size, scale and intended use. SMMC Section 9012.1 specifies the R2 District is intended to provide a low density multiple family residential neighborhood (0-29) dwelling units per net residen- tial acre). Since the school use of the 4.5 acre site is sub- stantially different than the stated purpose of the R2 District, the development standards proposed for the site should also differ. The Community College District operates as a public learning in- stitution under the auspices of the California Department of Education and as such does not normally require City approval of it t S development proj ects . However, when the City began con- templating the establishment of the preferential parking zone around the College campus, the City approached the College to mutually consider the impact of removal of onstreet parking and to identify reasonable parking alternatives available to the Col- lege to address the loss of available street parking. The City and College mutually agreed that the development of additional on campus parking is crucial to the continued viability of the col- lege and that the approval of the parking structures under a governing development agreement would ensure the greatest as- surances, commitments and direct benefits to the surrounding com- munity, college District and City government. The obligations and conditions required as terms of the development agreement are intended to allow for successful achievement and monitoring of - 6 - . . the parking structures, transportation demand management provi- sions and other physical measures. Pursuant to Section 21081. 6 of the Public resources Code, the City Council, as lead agency is required to adopt a mitigation monitoring and reporting program to ensure compliance during project implementation. The Development Agreement requires that a monitoring review be conducted at least once during every twelve (12) month period. Approval of the project without the provision of a development agreement would make it difficult to achieve and monitor the development. Additionally, the College and city would be allowed to scale back, modify or eliminate details of the project without the mutual consent of both parties. The development agreement provides the necessary framework to secure the future construc- tion of the parking structures and to guarantee implementation of specific mitigation and monitoring features outlined in the text. The development standards are consistent with the General Plan Public Lands designation. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS Contract No. 5~OO (CCS) contained a provision that required prep- aration of an Environmental Impact Report to discuss potential environmental impacts caused by construction of the proposed parking facilities and to consider alternative on site and off site parking uses and locations. The College District paid for the preparation of the EIR which was prepared under contract with the City and Planning Consultants Research. - 7 - . . Draft Environmental Impact Report 888 was prepared to comply with the requirements of Contract No. 5100 (CCS). The draft document which addressed comments and concerns of surrounding residents, the City and the college administrators pertaining to transporta- tion, circulation, air quality, noise, and neighborhood impacts was circulated for pUblic review and comment on October 31, 1988. At the request of the Pico Neighborhood Association {PNA}, the thirty (30) day public review period was extended for an addi- tional fifteen (15) days to allow further public review. At the end of the 45 day comment period, a total of 10 written comments had been submitted. In accordance with CEQA Section 15089, the comments and responses to comments are included in the FEIR. The Planning Commission voted to recommend City council approval of the FEIR on May 17, 1989, subject to inclusion of consultant traffic count and noise measurement worksheets and related EIR information as an addendum. Prior to the scheduled City Council review of the project and EIR, City staff requested that the Environmental Consultant pre- pare a more in-depth evaluation of alternatives to the proposed project that quantified the comparative merits of the alterna- tives and focused on alternatives capable of achieving the same end results of the proposed project. The scope of the SEIR fo- cused only upon the impacts of the alternative on-site and off- site locations. In accordance with Section 15163 of CEQA Guide- lines and Statutes, the additional discussion was circulated on - 8 - . . September 15, 1989, for a thirty (30) day review period as a sup- plement to the EIR and has been incorporated as an SEIR to the Final EIR which the city Council is being asked to consider. At the end of the 30 day comment period, a total of eight (8) written comments had been submitted in response to the SEIR. While many of the comments contained discussion that went beyond the stated scope of the Draft SEIR some of the concerns expressed included the need to address additional off-site alternative locations, the need to propose solutions to problems identified for alternative sites, the need to expand the cumulative projects list and the need to reasonably establish that a minimum of 1200 new spaces are required for college use. The Final SEIR evalu- ated several of the alternative off-site locations indicated in several comment letters. The Final SEIR also indicated that fourteen projects listed in a comment letter as being mistakenly omitted from the cumulative projects list were located beyond the one mile cumulative projects sphere and were therefore not re- quired to be included in the cumulative discussion. In accor- dance with CEQA Section 15088, the comments and responses to com- ments are included as part of the Final EIR. The Council is being asked to certify the adequacy of the FEIR, before taking action on the Development Agreement proposal. ANALYSIS The Development Agreement outlined in the planning cOlll1'nission staff report will provide the necessary framework to achieve the construction of the 1200 new parking spaces specified under - 9 - . . Contract No. 5100 (eCS) executed by the City Council on May 17, 1988, and to allow physical mitigation measures that will improve traffic, circulation, noise and other impacts associated with use of the parking structures. The Development Agreement will not change the parameters of Contract No. 5100 (CCS) and as indicated in the FEIR, will not result in unmitigated significant adverse traffic, noise, air and other impacts. The Final EIR prepared for the project analyzes potential environmental impacts that may occur from the parking structures development . Circulation circulation issues were analyzed extensively in the FEIR. The city Traffic Engineer has reviewed and approved the layout and location of standard and compact parking spaces, structure parking aisles and internal driveways, fire emergency roads leading to both structures and street access points identified in the FEIR. A traffic study was completed as part of the FEIR to determine the impact the project will have on future levels of service and traffic volumes. Existing traffic levels were surveyed for fifteen (15) intersections in the project vicinity Monday-Wednesday, August 15-17 1988. The FEIR concluded that prior to mitigation, the project development would result in reduced levels of service at two of the fifteen intersections analyzed. Under the existing and cumulative scenarios, the level of service at Cloverfield and the 1-10 Freeway, will be reduced from LOS D - 10 - . . to LOS F and the level of service at Pico and Cloverfield will be reduced from LOS C to LOS F. Under the city Traffic Engineer's Guidelines, a significant traffic impact is considered to occur when the volume to capacity (v/C) ratio for a reduced intersection increases by 0.02 or greater along wi th an E or F LOS rating. A determination of nonsignificant impact was made for the intersection of Cloverfield and the I-10 since the addition of project traffic will not result in an increase of 0.02 or greater. However a determination of significant impact was made for the intersection of Cloverfield and Pico since the addition of project traffic will result in an increase of at least 0.02. The FEIR contains mitigation measures that will mitigate the significant impact at the "F" LOS to the acceptable 0 LOS discussed in Circulation Element Policy section 4.3.1. The FEIR recommended the addition of a second left-turn-only lane on eastbound pico Boulevard at the Cloverfield intersection to provide an acceptable volume/capacity ratio of 0.898 for the project and related projects. The creation of signage and right-turn-only restriction devices for traffic exiting the Lot Four structure onto Sixteenth street, to minimize peak hour levels of service was also recommended in the FEIR. Freeway and major arterial transportation connections play a pivotal role in college attendance. Information submitted by the College indicates IO% of students and 11% of staff reside in the same zip code within the City as the College, while 72% of of staff and 75% of faculty reside outside of the city. The College - 11 - . . indicates that the Fall 1987 student enrollment was 22,514. A total of 1179 staff were employed. Existing shuttle service to College Park-n-Shuttle lots operate with a capacity of 600 passengers per hour, serving lots with a total capacity of 1,200 vehicles. Following implementation of the preferential parking zone, 1,440 of 1200 on-street spaces occupied at the peak school hour of peak weeks by 900 student vehicles were displaced to shuttle lots and other locations. Following release of the FEIR, the ci ty and College representatives met separately with surrounding residents to discuss the traffic mitigation measures proposed in the FEIR. Resident concerns expressed during those meetings centered on the need to more directly facilitate the flow and direction and movement of traffic within closer proximity to the proposed parking structures. Further discussions with the environmental consultant, City Traffic Engineer and other area transportation officials indicated that the installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of 16th street and pico Boulevard and the upgrading of the traffic signal at the intersection of pico Boulevard and Seventeenth street (abandoned) to provide a left hand turn signal would mitigate traffic impacts resulting from use of the parking structures. The installation of the signal at Pico/l6th will facilitate the right turn only movement from the Lot Four structure. The upgrading of the Pico/17th signal will facilitate use of the internal campus ingress/egress driveway aisle and improve the movement and flow of eastbound and westbound traffic on pico. - 12 - . . It appears that in the present case, the addition of a second left-turn-only lane on eastbound Pico Boulevard at the cloverfield intersection will have less of a direct effect on the surrounding neighborhood. While the addition of a second left-turn-only lane on eastbound pico Boulevard needs to be considered in relation to other vicinity projects (i.e., The Water Garden, Colorado Place, etc.,) the lane addition will have less of a direct benefit in response to impacts from the parking structures. Therefore the second left-turn-only lane addition is not being required as a Development Agreement mitigation measure but should be reviewed as part of the city-wide Transportation study that is being conducted by the parking and Traffic Division. parking Analysis The FEIR indicates that during peak hours of school week use, approximately 5649 students and 620 staff arrive in 5017 automobiles. There are presently 1593 parking spaces available. At any given time, the parking supply (1593 spaces) is exceeded by the peak daily demand (5017 spaces). To offset the lack of available on site parking, students and staff use street curbside parking spaces. City parking and Traffic Division records indicate that approximately 1200 street parking spaces are located within the vicinity of the college. Since adoption of the Preferential Parking Zone, the availability of street parking during daytime hours has been drastically reduced. The College's Transportation Demand Management Plan which is being implemented in response to AQMD Regulation XV, resident - 13 - . . concerns and the preferential parking zone, contains provisions for shuttle bus service, ridesharing, incentive parking fees and other program incentives that are intended to effectively reduce the number of vehicle trips in and out of the site. The continued implementation of TDM measures are called for in the Development Agreement. A "Triple proj ect Trafficll (worst case scenario) test analysis was prepared to accompany the FEIR and to address resident concerns expressed regarding the level of service resulting from the projected daily turnover rate of 1.6. The "triple traffic analysis" multiplied traffic conditions three times over, for the 15 intersections. The "triple traffic analysis" indicated that with the exception of a change from a "CII to a "0" LOS at 20th and Pico, the level of service and volume/capacity ratios would not substantially differ from what was presented in the FEIR. The staff believes that the results of the "triple traffic analysis" clearly indicate that the peak use of the parking structures will not result in uncontrollable traffic conditions. The analysis further suggests that traffic volumes and levels created by future projects in the vicinity should not affect the use of the college parking structures. Noise Analysis The FEIR measured noise levels 50 feet from the centerline of the four streets adjoining the project site (Pico, Pearl, 20th, 16th) using the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) rating scale. (The CNEL Scale is similar to the Ldn scale except that evening noises are not penalized using the Ldn scale. The CNEL system - 14 - . . takes average sound levels at an observation point and adds a weighting penalty to those sounds which occur during evening and night hours. The penalty is added to account for the perception that nighttime noise is more annoying than daytime noise Under the Ldn system a nighttime penalty is not added. The two mea- sures are numerically equivalent within 0,5 decibels (dB) for most urban areas). Three of the four receptor site locations presently contain ambient noise levels that exceed the 60 Ldn standard established in the city's Noise Ordinance. The FEIR concluded that project and cumulative project development would not add to the existing noise levels. The third receptor site location (measured 50 feet from the centerline of 14th Street, south of Pico) would experience an incremental increase from 60.5 dBA to 61. 3 dBA based upon cumulative plus project conditions. Currently the morning peak hour (8:30-9:30 am) the noise levels at three of the four site locations exceed Ldn and CNEL thresh- olds. These noise levels however I are wi thin the normally ac- ceptable noise range established under State guidelines. since noise levels and traffic peak during the same hour (8:30-9:30 am) it appears that the increase in cumulative noise will be caused primarily by traffic. In community noise assessment, changes in noise levels that ex- ceed 3 dBA are generally termed significant, while changes less than 1 dBA will not be discernible to residents. Noise increases at the locations modeled were within the ldBA threshold range and should not result in adverse conditions for residents. - 15 - . . Air Quality Analysis The FEIR assessed the impact of vehicle carbon monoxide levels of the project on the existing land uses. While all locations within the proj ect area are presently af- fected by carbon monoxide concentrations, the report concluded that the proj ect development would not significantly increase pollutant levels. The FEIR also concluded that both existing and cumulative pollutant levels are below the federal and state one- hour and eight-hour thresholds. Light and Glare The primary sources of project light and glare will be caused by vehicle headlights and rooftop and exterior building wall light- ing. The construction of extensive solid concrete areas adjacent to second and third floor driveway ramps along the west eleva- tions of both structures will significantly reduce light and glare impacts for the residential uses located on the west side of sixteenth street. Headlight glare would occur from use of driveway aisle ramps between second and third floors. The fourth floor is above the level of adjacent residents and would not result in glare intrusions. The first floor and subterranean floor are located below the grade of adj acent residences and would not result in glare intrusions. The use of non-glare low level lighting on the roof-top parking levels that is directed away from Sixteenth Street, toward the interior of the college campus should reduce light and glare impacts to a non-significant level. The use of exterior wall lighting near openings only or directed away from the residential uses along Sixteenth street - 16 - . . should also ensure that nighttime lighting does not impact resi- dents. Finally, the placement of driveway access openings near the Pico Commercial District or on the interior of the campus should also minimize light and glare intrusions. Shade and Shadow The Environmental Impact Report indicated that shadow patterns cast by the two parking structures will not adversely impact sur- rounding residential land uses. During the extreme summer and winter solstice periods, shadow dispersion lengths cast onto pico Boulevard and Sixteenth Street by the two proposed structures will not shade residential buildings located across from the site. Land Use/Aesthetics The project consists of the replacement of a surface level park- ing lot and surface level softball field and parking area with two four-story parking structures. While the v 1sual scale of residential uses located along the west side of sixteenth Street in the vicinity of the project are characterized by one and two story building heights, college campus buildings located directly south and east of the structures are generally three or four stories in height. commercial buildings located along Pico Boulevard are generally one or two stories in height also. The intensity of the uses should be similar to existing college facilities. Neighborhood Impacts - 17 - . . The Environmental Report concluded that the project would not result in significant adverse neighborhood impacts. Project levels of traffic, circulation and parking intrusions will be reduced by the location of parking structures and inter- section signal control devices. Prior to implementation of preferential parking and the temporary shuttle system, the vo- lumes of vehicles (which in the future will be utilizing the new parking structures) were traveling through and parking in the residential neighborhood. The parking structures will redirect the movement of traffic, circulation and parking to benefit the residential neighborhood. Use of sites other than the main cam- pus for remote parking in combination with a shuttle would result in impacts to neighborhoods surrounding such si tee. For this reason, provision of needed parking at the campus is the pre- ferred solution. Project Alternatives The FEIR and Supplement to the FEIR considered six project alter- natives including no project, extension of the college shuttle program, an expanded Transportation Demand Management Program, reduced college enrollment, alternative on campus locations and an alternative off-campus location. The no project alternative scenario would be invoked automatically if the project were de- nied by the City Council, would not address the existing campus parking deficiency and would result in "spillover" impacts that could contribute to impacts on the surrounding residential area. Long term traffic and parking intrusions into the adjacent - 18 - . . residential neighborhood would not be reduced. This alternative is not viewed as superior to the proposed project. The extension of the college's shuttle program would result in little change to air, noise, police services and neighborhood impacts. The City previously declared as part of Contract No. 5100 that it cannot financially assume the continued $450,000 annual operating cost of the shuttle program for a long term period. Further, since the interim parking areas will be physi- cally developed, the land needed to accommodate the shuttle pro- gram will be eliminated. Even if the land currently in use for the shuttle lot were not going to be developed, there would be other competing possible uses of the land such as for recreation- al purposes. This alternative hinders a principal objective of the Sunset Park Residential parking Zone--to ensure continued effort by the College to achieve construction of 1200 additional campus parking spaces and would therefore have the same end resul t as the no proj ect scenario. This al ternati ve is not viewed as superior to the proposed project. The expanded Transportation Demand Management (TOM) Program on the campus would result in little change to air, noise, public services and neighborhood impacts. The College currently oper- ates a TDM program for employees and students through the opera- tion of rideshare parking lots and distribution of TOM promotion- al materials. In addition, the College has developed and gained approval of a Trip Reduction Plan pursuant to RegUlation XV, of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), which attempts to achieve a required Average Vehicle Ridership (AVR} of - 19 - . . 1.50 by eliminating 78 (17%) of the 454 current employee vehicle trips arriving at the College between the hours of 6 a.m. and 10 a.m. daily. This alternative is not viewed as superior to the proposed project since elimination through TDM of the demand for the 1200 spaces required under Contract No. 5100, would require a 44% reduction in faculty, staff and student vehicle trips at the college [based on 1242 proposed net spaces I (1222 + 1593 exist- ing spaces) on campus]. A 44% reduction in vehicle trips is not reasonably attainable. This alternative would have the same end result as the no project and extended shuttle program scenarios. The proposed project represents an increase of over 78% (1274 net spaces) to the existing college campus parking supply (1593 spaces.) In order to attain the project objective of eliminating the need to use surrounding street parking, student enrollment would need to be reduced by 44%. Since the College District has indicated that a 5% reduction alone would result in the loss of $1,063,900 in state funding and that the cuts necessary to offset this loss of income would occur through elimination of support services for certain identified target populations, this alterna- tive is not considered superior to the proposed project. The end result would be the reduction and possible elimination of the college education program(s). The construction of the parking structures at three alternative on-site campus locations was analyzed in the Supplement to the EIR. While air, noise, traffic, aesthetics and view impacts would be shifted from the residential neighborhood bordering the structures to the west, these same impacts would increase for - 20 - . . residential neighborhoods bordering the college campus elsewhere. The area environmental effects of the alternative on-campus loca- tions would therefore not be less than the proposed project. This alternative is therefore not considered superior to the pro- posed project. An alternative 2.65 acre off-site location at the northwest intersection of pico and Cloverfield Boulevards was also evalu- ated as part of the Supplement to the EIR. A six to seven story parking structure in-lieu of the two four story structures would need to be constructed on the site in order to attain the objec- tive of providing 1200 additional parking spaces. The increased building height would result in aesthetic and visual impacts for adjacent residential land uses that would be located in closer proximity to the site than residential uses are to the proposed structure. Air and noise impacts would also increase for adja- cent residential land uses. Additional economic considerations would exist for this alternative site as well. A financial anal- ysis prepared as part of the Supplement indicates an additional cost of $8,000,000 (million) required to purchase the parcel. The College District has indicated an inability to assume this cost. Funding for the parking structures (the "proj ecttl) is proposed via a twenty year financing package. Sales of parking permits for the added 1200 spaces is projected to result in $950,000 per year. Debt service for the 20 year financing package is estimated at $1,250,000 annually. Twice this deficit, which would result from the additional cost of land purchase, could not be absorbed by the College General Fund. Section - 21 - . . 15126(d) (5) of CEQA Guidelines and statutes requires that a "rule of reason" be applied to the range of alternatives in an EIR. An EIR need not consider an alternative whose implementation is remote and speculative. The staff believes that the off site alternative is remote, economically speculative, and infeasible and is therefore not superior to the proposed project. The staff believes the proposed proj ect is still the superior alternative. The Development Agreement will govern the construc- tion, maintenance and operation of the two parking structures and is the best assurance that the city, the College District and the neighborhood have in addressing traffic, parking, circulation, vehicle noise, air quality and related environmental concerns. The preferential parking zone will expire in a three year period. Unless the City, the College District and neighborhood act swift- ly to address the college's on site parking needs, the same set of parking and traffic problems that existed prior to adoption of the parking zone will prevail. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Commission's May 17, 1989 recommendation to the City Council on the EIR was predicated upon the following being incorporated as part of the Final EIR: 1. The Commission requested that the traffic count and noise measurement worksheets be included, to verify the accuracy of traffic and noise amounts presented in the text of the EIR. Staff Response/Action: Most of the worksheet information was provided as an exhibi t to the commission staff report to verify information contained in the EIR. CEQA does not re- quire EIR inclusion of traffic and noise measurement work- sheets. In the past, this information has been included when - 22 - . . the traffic level of service and noise measurement informa- tion significantly differed from EIR information presented for adjacent or vicinity project sites. The information has been incorporated as an EIR addendum item. 2. The Commission requested that the new noise measurement work- sheets that were prepared to respond to a resident comment made regarding the Draft EIR be included. staff Response/Action: CEQA, Section 15088, indicates that the response to comments may take the form of a revision to the draft EIR or may be provided as a separate section in the final EIR. Where the response to comments makes important changes in the information contained in the text of the draft EIR, the Lead Agency should either 1) revise the text in the body of the EIR, or 2) include marginal notes showing that the information is revised in the response to comments. Since the new noise measurement information was not required as part of the EIR and did not result in an important change in the text of the document, the new information was not in- corporated as a revision or included as a marginal note. In order to respond to the Commission's concern, the new infor- mation is shown as a marginal note in the Final EIR. 3. The Commission requested that the College's Transportation Demand Management Plan that was approved by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) be provided. Staff Response/Action: The approved Transportation Demand Plan was not available to Planning staff when the Commission staff Report was distributed. The Plan has been incorporated as an EIR addendum item. 4. The Commission requested that a copy of the College's written procedural plan for responding to vehicle alarm noise be provided. Staff Response/Action: Paragraph 6 (0) of the Development Agreement requires City approval of a vehicle alarm response plan prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. The proposed procedural plan has been incorporated as an EIR ad- dendum item. The Commission's recommendation to the City Council to approve the Development Agreement included the recommendation that the following be incorporated into the Development Agreement: 1. The inclusion of all mitigation measures identified in the EIR. staff Response/Action: Some of the EIR recommendations were modified during negotiations between the City and the College District to address the format and substance of the the - 23 - . . Development Agreement. The Agreement requires a range of mitigation measures which will address all of the adverse effects identified in the EIR. 2. The inclusion of a traffic mitigation measure that requires installation of a raised center median divider along six- teenth Street adjacent to the Lot Four Parking structure exit that will physically prevent left turn exiting along Six- teenth Street. staff Response/Action: The Final ErR referred to the use of a raised median divider if directional signage at the exit failed to deter vehicle left turns onto Sixteenth Street. To address the Commission's concern, it is recommended that the Council incorporate a new Paragraph 6(A) (7) that requires a raised median divider as part of the approved project. 3. The deletion of Paragraph 6(D)(2), that refers to use of low water use plumbing fixtures. Staff Response/Action: Since the parking structures will not contain restroom or other facilities that require pl~mb- lng fixtures, it is recommended that the council delete the section from the approved Development Agreement. 4. The provision under Paragraph E of the Development Agreement to require College consultation with the neighborhood regard- ing queueing of construction vehicles during excavation and construction of the structures. Staff Response/Action: To address the Commission's concern, it is recommended that the Council incorporate the new mitigation requirement as Paragraph 6(E) (2) . The Development Agreement and EIR revisions do not result in a substantially modified project scope or final EIR. The project is consistent with the intent of the General Plan and will not result in adverse environmental impacts. Prior to and during the Planning Commission's hearing, the City received comments from neighbors and technical consultants to them regarding traffic and noise issues associated with the pro- posed parking structures. The City's EIR consultant (PCR) re- sponded to those comments in memoranda dated May 9 and May 15, - 24 - . . ~ 1989, which are attached to this staff report under a cover memo- randum labeled Exhibit D. The issues raised included the traffic counts used for the EIR, the traffic study area, potential neigh- borhood intrusion and noise possibly emanating from. the struc- tures or created by added traffic. The consultant I s memos and oral responses to the Commission responded point by point to these comments. The Commission approved a separate motion recommending that the city council direct staff to investigate a permanent "surplus parcel" site on the Airport Residual Land for the continued oper- ation of the College parking lot and shuttle bus service. Al- though the city council previously approved the Development Agreement with Reliance Development Group for development of the residual land parcel at the airport, the disposition of the "sur- plus" parcel has not been resolved. Council action on the residual parcel included provision for a public process to deter- mine its ultimate use. Any commitment (prior to the scheduled pUblic process), to further shuttle parking at the Airport would prejudice this public process. with regard to the existing shut- tle lot, it will be developed during Phases I and II of the Reliance project. PROJECT APPROVAL AND CONSTRUCTION DEADLINES Contract Number 5100 establishes specific completion dates for processing the approval and construction of the two parking facilities. These deadline dates may be mutually extended based upon events beyond the control of either party. (See Section - 25 - . . 5(B)). The time required to prepare the addendum and supplement to FEIR was not anticipated during City and College discussions during approval of Contract No. 5100. City staff and College representatives agree that the deadline dates established in Con- tract Number 5100 should be. amended accordingly to reflect the additional time required to prepare the addendum and supplement. It should be noted that original April 17, 1991 construction com- pletion date specified in Contract Number 5100 (CCS) will not be increased. An April 15, 1991 construction completion date will be established. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT The recommendation presented in this report does not have any budget or fiscal impact. RECOMMENDATION It is respectfully recommended that the Council: 1) Adopt the attached resolution certifying the adequacy of the Environmental Impact Report (that includes an addendum and supplement) ~ 2) Introduce for first reading an ordinance approving the Development Agreement between the City of santa Monica and the Santa Monica community College District subject to the deletion of Paragraph 6 (D) (2) and the addition of Paragraphs 6 (A) (7), 6(E) (2) as follows: A) add the following language under Paragraph 6{A) (7): - 26 - . . The District shall reimburse the City for the cost of in- stalling a raised center median divider along Sixteenth street adjacent to the Lot Four Parking structure exit that will physically prevent left turn exiting onto Sixteenth street. B) add the following language under paragraph 6(E) (2): District shall prepare a construction vehicle circulation and daily use plan that specifies the proposed construction routes, hours and dates and indicates the manner by which the college will reasonably seek to minimize noise, vehicle and related impacts caused by construction activities. Said plan shall identify one or more designated individuals who will be responsible for coordinating and monitoring the construction vehicle circulation use plan and who will also be available during normal office hours to respond to neighborhood resi- dent complaints regarding construction vehicles. District shall mail a copy of said plan to all current property owners and tenants residing within a 100 foot radius of the college campus boundaries. A copy of the construction vehicle plan shall also be published at least once in a local daily newspaper. 3) Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute an amend- ment to section 5 (A) of contract Number 5100 (CCS) to es- tablish new deadline dates for processing the project. The amendments include: City to complete EIR College to obtain Office of state Architect (nOSA") approval College to award bid College to start construction College to complete construction November 7, 1989 November 21, 1989 January 8, 1990 February 15, 1990 April 15, 1991. 4) Authorize the city Manager to sign the final Development Agreement on behalf of the city based upon the following findings: FINDINGS MUNICIPAL CODE 1. The proposed Development Agreement is consistent with the objectives, pOlicies, general land uses and programs specified in the General Plan. The project is consistent - 27 - . . with the City's adopted General Plan; no specific plans are applicable to the project area. 2. That the proposed parking structures project is compatible with the uses authorized in the R2 District and will not result in a detrimental change in the character, scale or style of surrounding development. The 4 storY/40 foot height limit is similar to the height of other college campus buildings. The landscaping setbacks and building envelope should ensure that solar access/gain of surround- ing residences is not reduced. 3. That the proposed parking structures project is in confor- mity with the public necessity, public convenience, general welfare, and good land use practices, in that the General Plan encourages the provision of adequate parking to meet the demand of a particular land use. The parking structures will ensure that parking and circulation con- flicts are reduced in the surrounding residential neigh- borhood, will not increase noise, light and glare or air pollutants to an acceptable level and will contain a building design that is similar to other college parking facilities. 4. That the proposed parking structures project will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the surrounding neighborhood in that the Development Agreement contains specific physical mitigation measures and standards that should mitigate any potential health, safety or general welfare impacts. 5. That the proposed parking structures project will not ad- versely affect the orderly development of the property in that the property presently contains college facilities. The proposed parking structures are intended to support existing college uses and will not be used to increase student enrollment. The location of the parking struc- tures and driveway openings will reduce the amount of traffic and circulation in the surrounding residential neighborhood. 6. That the proposed parking structures project will have a positive fiscal impact on the City, in that the City-paid operation and maintenance costs associated with the shut- tle bus service will no longer be required. While the preferential parking zone will remain in effect, the spe- cial police and public services associated with enforcing the plan around the college should be reduced, since ille- gal college student and employee parking in the zone will be reduced by the addition of campus parking. GENERAL PLAN FINDINGS 7. That the proposed parking structures project complies with the Land Use Element Public Lands District Objectives 1.11 and 1.12. in that the project will provide an efficient - 28 - . . reuse of public lands and will provide an appropriate landscaping transition and building design (LUCE 1.1, 1.2) that will contain features that will promote land use com- patibility with surrounding residential uses (LUeE 3.1.1}. The project also conforms with LUCE Objectives 3.3, 3.4 and Policies 3.1.1, and 3.1.2 by providing adequate open space, substantial building separations between existing college buildings and ample street setbacks. The project will not result in the loss of an existing view corridor and will not reduce solar access for residential dwelling units located along Sixteenth Street. B. That the proposed project conforms to the objectives and policies of the Circulation Element in that the design and orientation of the parking structures will minimize vehi- cle intrusions into side residential streets as discussed in LUCE Objective 4.2. The project will also comply with Circulation Policy Sections 4.2.2 and 4.2.3 by limiting the number of driveway openings along a residential side street. The promotion of a rideshare program, staggered work hours, reduced parking fees and other transportation incentives will ensure compliance with LUCE 4.3.3, 4.3.8, 4.3.9, 4.3.10, and 4.3.11. The implementation of traffic mitigation measures will also provide compliance with LUCE Policy 4.3.1 which indicates the acceptable level of ser- vice on City streets shall be a "e" for collector, feeder and local streets and non for arterials. 9. That the proposed Development Agreement conforms with the goals and intent of the Housing Element in that the proj- ect will not result in the loss or relocation of residen- tial dwelling units. The Housing Element encourages the location of housing in close proximity to public lands and open space uses. 10. That the proposed Development Agreement conforms with the goals and intent of the Open Space Element in that the college I s open space area will not be substantially re- duced. The open space landscaping provided around both buildings will provide an attractive park like setting near the corner of Sixteenth and pico. 11. That the proposed Development Agreement conforms with the goals and intent of the Noise Element in that the instal- lation of sound absorbency materials, solid building walls, and other building treatments will ensure that ad- verse noise levels are mitigated to an acceptable range. The approval/implementation of a vehicle alarm plan will ensure that sensitive residents are not unreasonably dis- turbed by vehicle alarms. 12 . That the proposed Development Agreement conforms to the goals and intent of the seismic safety Element in that the structures will not be constructed across an active fault line and will contain adequate emergency exits and roads to transport individuals in the event of an earthquake. - 29 - . . . 13. That the proposed Development Agreement conforms to the goals and intent of the Public Safety Element in that the structures will comply with Uniform Building and Safety and Fire Code requirements, and will not result in dan- gerous or hazardous parking conditions. 14. That the proposed Development Agreement conforms to the goals and intent of the Conservation Element in that water conservation techniques will be applied throughout the project area. Exterior and interior energy efficient building lighting will also be installed. Prepared by: Paul Berlant, Director of Planning D. Kenyon Webster, Principal Planner Wanda Williams, Associate Planner Attachments: Exhibit A- Planning Commission staff Report Including Proposed Development Agreement Exhibit B- Proposed Resolution Certifying EIR SSS Exhibit c- Ordinance Approving Development Agreement Exhibit 0- May 16, 1988 Memo to Planning commission PB:DKW:WW PC/ccdr492r 11/Ol/89 - 30 -