SR-415-002
.1C
F:\PCD\Share\CounciI2003\Madison EIR
Council Meeting: April 22, 2003
APR 22 2003.
Santa Monica, California
To:
Mayor and City Council
Chairperson and Redevelopment Agency
From:
City Staff
Subject:
Consider Options Regarding the Analysis of Alternative Parking Scenarios
in Santa Monica College Draft EIR for the Madison Theater Project,
Including Authorizing Funds to Conduct Further Analysis
INTRODUCTION
This report considers options relating to alternative parking scenarios that the City
Council requested be addressed in the Madison Theater Project Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) and, if City Council and Redevelopment Agency (Agency) decide to hold
discussions with the School District and College and advocate for additional analysis, to
authorize offering to pay the cost of the additional analysis.
BACKGROUND
On March 7, 2003 the Santa Monica Community College District released the Draft EI R
for the Madison Theater Project The Draft EIR considered but rejected analyzing the
parking scenarios S\IbmiI8I by the....ay Of Santa ManIca. ~ an Oofpber 23. .2002
transmittal (Attachment 1). Council had requested that staff develop possible scenarios
for Santa Monica College to evaluate in the Madison Campus EIR, since the Madison
Campus is near the downtown and on a corridor where there are known parking
shortages. The College's redevelopment of the School District owned site creates the
1
~
APR 2 2 2003
opportunity to address a larger community issue of a parking shortage in the area.
There is a high demand for employee parking from the surrounding businesses, and the
demand for parking has been intensified as a result of expanded preferential parking
areas. The City also submitted comments during the scoping process expressing
concern about potential parking overflow on neighboring streets and had suggested
consideration of parking pricing methods (Attachment 2.) The City had not advocated
any particular option, but had requested that the College evaluate the scenarios and
share the information as part of the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR noted that City's
suggestions are focused on citywide objectives and goals for the surrounding project
area and "are not in any way oriented at furthering the goals and objectives for the
Madison Theater Project" as outlined in the project's description and rejected the
alternatives.
DISCUSSION
If the Council is interested in pursuing the matter and is willing to pay the cost of
additional analysis, it would likely require re-circulation of the Draft EIR. Ultimately, if
there is a desire to move forward with an alternative that adds community-serving
parking, the City may need to consider its willingness and ability to fund additional
spaces. The interests of the property owner and lessee would have to be explored
further.
The cost of analyzing additional alternatives in the EIR will depend on the number of
alternatives and level of detail required (e.g. traffic analysis.) Council could indicate a
2
desire to address one or more of the alternatives listed below. Staff would then work
with the College to develop the necessary level of detail and cost. Alternatives
previously suggested include:
· A parking structure on a portion of the surface lot and additional community-
serving spaces.
. Underground parking either below the performance theater or under the current
surface lot and additional community-serving spaces.
. Various parking pricing methods to discourage attendees from looking for free on-
street parking.
The East-West Commercial Corridors Parking Task Force discussed the issue of Draft
EIR at the last meeting on April 3, 2003 and indicated support for obtaining additional
information through the analysis of one or more alternatives that add community-serving
parking.
BUDGETI FINANCIALlMPACT
The cost of the analysis of additional alternatives in the EIR is estimated not-to-exceed
$20,000 and will be funded from the Earthquake Recovery Redevelopment Project Fund
(Fund 17). An appropriation is necessary for $20,000 at account 01264.555060, sub
ledger 76027 to cover this expenditure for fiscal year 2002-03, should the City and
3
College decide to move forward with the analysis. In addition to fully reimburse the
General Fund for the expenditure, a technical adjustment in interfund transfers is
necessary between the General Fund and the Earthquake RDA Fund as follows.
01695.578170 - ($20,000)
17695.578170 - $20,000
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends that the City Council and the Agency:
1 Provide direction to staff on whether to hold discussions with the School District
and College and to add alternative(s) for analysis in the Madison Theater Project
EIR, indicating which alternatives are of interest;
2. If additional analysis is desired, authorize the City Manager to negotiate an
agreement with Santa Monica College for a not-to-exceed amount of $20,000 for
analysis of additional parking scenario(s) in the Madison Theater Project EIR; and
3. Approve the budget changes described above.
Prepared by: Suzanne Frick, Director, Planning and Community Development
Andrew Agle, Acting Director, Planning and Community Development
Ellen Gelbard, Assistant Director, Planning and Community Development
Lucy Dyke, Transportation Planning Manager
Jay Trevino, Planning Manager
Jeff Mathieu, Director, Resource Management
Tina Rodriguez, Redevelopment Administrator
Attachment 1: October 23, 2002 letter to Santa Monica College requesting the analysis
of alternative parking scenarios.
Attachment 2: June 13, 2002 letter to Santa Monica College in response to the Notice of
Preparation of the Madison Theater Project EIR.
4
......
~
ATTACHMENT 1
Office of the' City Manager
1685 Main Street
PO Box 2200
Santa Monica. California 90407.2200
City of
Santa Monica~
October 23, 2002
Dr. Thomas Donner
Executive Vice President, Business and Adminjstration
Santa Monica College
1900 Pica Boulevard
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Dear Dr. Donner:
This letter transmits a list of alternative parking scenarios that the Santa Monica
City Council is requesting Santa Monica College evaluate in preparing the Draft
EIR for the Madison Theater Project. These scenarios address both the
college's potential parking shortage and the larger community needs. The City is
not advocating any particular option at this time, but is suggesting that the
College analyze the following options and share the information as part of the
Draft EIR.
Develop underground parking where the surface parking lot is currently
located and replace the surface lot with a neighborhood park. The City
would be interested in working with the College to secure outside funding
sources.
· Develop a parking structure on a portion of the surface parking lot. The
College could explore possible joint utilization and funding scenarios. A
structure would need to be situated so that active neighborhood-serving
uses front Santa Monica Boulevard.
. Add underground parking below the performance theater/lecture hall.
. Require that all theater performances include parking in the ticket price to
discourage attendees from looking for free street parking.
· Provide a shuttle between Santa Monica College and the Madison site so
that students do not need to drive to the site to attend lecture classes.
· Provide bike lockers to encourage students to ride their bikes to lecture
classes.
tel: 310 458-8301 . fax: 310 917-6640
. Consider covered (structured) parking to address potential noise and
nighttime disturbance to adjacent residences from performances and
evening lectures.
Some of the alternatives could be analyzed as ways to mitigate the project
impacts, while the more significant community-serving scenarios may be
necessary in the event that impacts could not be mitigated. Please contact Ellen
Gelbard, Assistant Director in the Planning and Community Development
Department, at 310-458-2216, if you have questions about these suggestions.
G~~
/
Susan E. McCarthy ('
City Manager "-----
cc: City Council
....
-:)
ATTACHMENT
Planning & Community Development Department
Planning Division
1685 Main Street
PO Box 2200
Santa Monica, California 90407-2200
City of
SaDta MODica-
June 13,2002
Dr. Thomas Donner
Executive Vice President
Business and Administration at Santa Monica Community College District
1900 Pico Boulevard
Santa Monica, California 90405
RE: Madison Theater Project EIR Scoping Process
Dear Dr. Donner:
This will provide City's comments relative to the scoping process for the draft EIR for the"
Madison Theater project. Given the project description the City believes there are a number of
issues that should be considered during the scoping process.
Although this project will be located on a college site, it will generate considerable traffic that
will be using City streets. Please use the following significance criteria used by the City of Santa
Monica in our environmental analyses:
A pfoject is considered to have a "significant" traffic impact if the addition of
project traffic causes an intersection on a collector street operating at LOS A -
C to operate. at an unacceptable level (LOS D, E or F) or have an increase of
15 seconds or greater in average vehicle delay, whichever comes first.
Significance is also defined as an impact which causes an intersection on an
arterial street operating at LOS A - D to operate at an unacceptable level (LOS
E or F) or have an increase of 15 seconds or greater in average vehicle delay,
whichever comes first.
2. A project is also considered to have a "significant" traffic impact if the
addition of project traffic causes any net increase in average seconds of delay
per vehicle for intersections operating at a future base LOS D or LOS E for
collector streets and at a future base LOS E for arterial streets. For all
intersections operating at a future base LOS F, a significant impact is any
increase of .005 or greater in the HCM vlc ratio.
3 On collector streets, a transportation impact is significant if the Base Average
Daily Traffic Volume (ADT) is: greater than 13,500 (90% of capacity) and
there is a net increase. of one trip or more in ADT due to project related
traffic; greater than 7,500 (50% of capacity) but less than 13,500 and the
tel: 310 458-8341
project related traffic increases. the AnT by 12.5% or the AnT becomes
13,500 or more; or less than 7,500 and the project related traffic increases. the
ADT by 25%.
4. On feeder streets, a transportation impact is significant if the Base Average
Daily' Traffic Volume (AnT) is: greater than 6,750 (90% of capacity) and
there is a net increase. of one trip or more in ADT due to project related
traffic; greater than 3,750 (50% of capacity) but less than 6,750 and the
project related traffic increases. the AnT by 12.5% or the ADT becomes
6,750 or more; or less than 3,750 and the project related traffic increases* the
AnT by 25%.
5. On residential streets, a transportation impact is significant if the Base
Average Daily Traffic Volume (AnT) is: greater than 2,250 (90% of
capacity) and there is a net increase* of one trip or more in ADT due to
project related traffic; greater than 1,250 (50% of capacity) but less than 2,250
and the project related traffic increases. the AnT by 12.5% or the ADT"
becomes 2,250 or more; or less than 1 ,250 and the . project related traffic
increases* the AnT by 25%.
Note: Average Daily Traffic Volume "increase" denotes adverse impacts;
"decrease" denotes beneficial impacts.
Our Transportation Management and Planning Divisions have determined that the following
intersections and street segments need to be analyzed in the EIR:
Intersections:
1. The California Incline and Ocean Avenue
2. Ocean Avenue and Wilshire Boulevard
3. Lincoln Boulevard and Wilshire Boulevard
4. Lincoln Boulevard and Santa Monica Boulevard
5. Lincoln Boulevard and Broadway
6. Lincoln Boulevard and Colorado Avenue
7. Lincoln Boulevard and the 10 Freeway both east and westbound ramps
8. Arizona Avenue and lOth Street Santa Monica Boulevard and lOth Street
9. Arizona Avenue and 11th Street
10. Santa Monica Boulevard and 11 th Street
11. Broadway and II th Street
12. Euclid Avenue and Wilshire Boulevard
13. Wilshire Boulevard and 14th Street
14. 20th Street and Santa Monica Boulevard
2
15. 20th Street and the 10 Freeway both east and westbound ramps
16. Cloverfield Boulevard and the 10 Freeway both east and westbound ramps
Street Segments:
10th Street between Santa Monica Boulevard and Arizona Boulevard
2. 10th Street between Wilshire Boulevard and Arizona Boulevard
3. The shuttle route, and main paths of travel between the 1900 Pico Boulevard and
Madison campuses
In addition, the City is concerned about the access and parking for the new facility. Any change
in driveway locations for the Madison campus requires analysis, as well as potential parking
overflow on neighboring streets and parking pricing methods. The Transportation Management
Division suggests that analysis should include the possibility of allowing or requiring theater-
goers to purchase parking passes in advance with performance tickets. This would allow theater-
goers to decide in advance if they will drive or arrive by alternative means. Queuing of vehicles.
on surrounding streets as vehicles enter the site is also a concern that must be addressed.
The Noise and Shade and Shadows sections need to include a detailed analysis of the potential
impacts of the theater building and the overhead fly tower. The analysis needs to include any
potential impacts incurred due to the proposed building envelope exceeding the underlying R3
Medium Density Multi-Family Residential District height requirements of forty feet.
I have attached the City's standard Parking and Impact Analysis Guidelines for your review, and
it should be noted that we have current Master Environmental Assessment Parking and Traffic
data that we will make available to you and your consultants.
-~
Attachment
cc: Suzanne Frick
Lucy Dyke
Sarah Lejeune
Jay Trevino
Amanda Schachter
3
AUGUST 12, 1993
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
Traffic and Parking Impact Analysis Guidelines
I. Executive Summary
II. Introduction
A Project description
B. Study Scope
III. Existing Conditions - Conditions should be described based upon information found in the
most recently adopted Master Environmental Assessment when applicable. The MEA
existing base traffic counts and information should be used as existing conditions. <.
A. Description of existing street system serving the site (Number of lanes, classification,
etc.)
B. MEA base traffic volumes - ADTs and AM & PM peak hours (Figure to be included
in report)
C. MEA base levels of service - AM & PM (fable to be included in report)
D. Public transit (Santa Monica and RTD service to area)
E. On and off-street parking conditions/availability including any preferential parking
restrictions
F. Pedestrian conditions in the project area.
IV. Future Conditions (Including Project} Future conditions without project should be discussed
using the most recently adopted MEA future base traffic counts and information. Project
traffic should then be added to the MEA future base traffic counts. If the project build-out is
beyond the MEA base, future conditions should be projected to the ftrst year of assumed
project occupancy.
A. Description of new or planned changes of the street system serving the site including
changes in on-street parking
eff40
B. Future traffic volumes - ADTs and AM & PM peak hours.
1. List project trip generation rates
2. List project trips per project
3. Discuss trip distribution
4. Discuss impact of project traffic on intersections in vicinity of project
C. Future traffic levels of seIVice - AM & PM for both future and future plus project
analysis. Table to be included in report. Also a comparison table of base conditions
including a column showing the difference in seconds of delay and vlc between base
conditions and future traffic conditions with project and percent of increase.
V. Analysis
A. Discuss impacts of MEA future base conditions and MEA future base conditions with
project
1. A project is considered to have a "significant" traffic impact if the addition of
project traffic causes an intersection on a collector street operating at LOS A - C
to operate at an unacceptable level (LOS D, E or F) or have an increase of 15
seconds or greater in average vehicle delay, whichever comes first Significance
is also dermed as an impact which causes an intersection on an arterial street
operating at LOS A - D to operate at an unacceptable level (LOS E or F) or
have an increase of 15 seconds or greater in average vehicle delay, whichever
comes first
2. A project is also considered to have a "significant" traffic impact if the addition of
project traffic causes any net increase in average seconds of delay per vehicle for
intersections operating at a future base LOS D or LOS E for collector streets
and at a future base LOS E for arterial streets. For all intersections operating at
a future base LOS F, a significant impact is any increase of .005 or greater in the
HCM vlc ratio.
B. In unique circumstances as determined by the Parking and Traffic Engineer, analysis
may be necessary for impacts on collector, feeder, and residential streets as follows:
eff40
1. On collector streets, a transportation impact is significant if the Base Average
Daily Traffic Volume (ADT) is: greater than 13,500 (90% of capacity) and there
is a net increase. of one trip or more in ADT due to project related traffic;
greater than 7,500 (50% of capacity) but less t:hall13,500 and the project related
traffic increases. the ADT by 12.5% or the ADT becomes 13,500 or more; or
less than 7,500 and the project related traffic increases. the ADT by 25%.
2. On feeder streets, a transportation impact is significant if the Base Average Daily
Traffic Volume (ADT) is: greater than 6,750 (90% of capacity) and there is a
net increase. of one trip or more in ADT due to project related traffic; greater
than 3,750 (5096 of capacity) but less than 6,750 and the project related traffic
increases. the ADT by 12.5% or the ADT becomes 6,750 or more; or less than
3,750 and the project related traffic increases. the ADT by 25%.
3. On residential streets, a transportation impact is significant if the Base Average
Daily Traffic Volume (ADT) is: greater than 2,250 (90% of capacity) and there
is a net increase. of one trip or more in ADT due to project related traffic;
greater than 1,250 (50% of capacity) but less than 2,250 and the project related
traffic increases. the ADT by 12.5% or the ADT becomes 2,250 or more; or
less than 1,250 and the project related traffic increases. the ADT by 25%.
Note: Average Daily Traffic Volume "increase" denotes adverse impacts;
"decrease" denotes beneficial impacts.
C. Discuss project site circulation and access and identify any deficiencies.
D. Discuss compliance of project site parking to adopted City code including loading,
compact, tandem, and handicapped spaces and any proposed attendant parking. If a
shared parking rationale is proposed, an analysis of the adequacy of this aspect shall be
provided. Discuss any off-site parking impacts (such as neighborhood parking
intrusion) of the project
E. Analyze project in relation to relevant policies of the Circulation Element of the
General Plan
F. Pedestrian conditions and bicycle access, including safety issues, should be discussed.
G. Consult with City Transportation Department regarding any impacts on bus service.
H. Analyze project using the requirements outlined in the Congestion Management Plan
Land Use Analysis Program guidelines.
eff40
VI. Mitigation
A. Discuss specific mitigation measures in detail to address impacts which may occur as a
result of the addition of project traffic (provide table comparing before and after
mitigation). Analysis shall focus on mitigating significant impacts to a non-significant
level, but must also identify measures which would reduce adverse, although not
significant, impacts. All feasible and reasonable mitigation requirements that could
reduce adverse impacts of the project should be identified, whether or not there are
significant impacts caused by the project The goal of mitigation should be such that
there are no net adverse impacts on the circulation network. Mitigation measures may
include roadway improvements, operational changes, Transportation Demand
Management or Transportation Systems Management measures, or changes in the
project If the project would create a significant impact, mitigation measures shall be
identified which would reduce such impacts below the significance threshold. If
roadway or other operational measures would not achieve this objective, the consultant
shall identify a reduction in the project size which would, with any other measures,
reduce impacts below the significant level. All mitigation measures must first be
discussed with the City Traffic Engineer before they are included in the report.
B. Discuss possible mitigation measures to address future traffic conditions with the
project All feasible and reasonable mitigation measures that could reduce such
impacts, whether at the significant level or below, shall be identified. Mitigation
measures should be designed to address the project's share of impacts. Measures that
should be jointly required of the project and any other on-going related projects in a
related geographic area should also be identified, as applicable.
C. Discuss possible mitigation measures to address any site circulation or access
deficiencies.p
D. Discuss possible mitigation measures to address any parking deficiencies.
E. Discuss possible mitigation measures to address any impacts on pedestrian amenities,
bicycle access, safety, and bus sernce. .
VII. Summary and Conclusions
A. Assess level of significance of all identified impacts after mitigation
eff40
NOTES:
1. The Highway Capacity Manual Special Repon 209 (1985) (HCM) shall be used for
intersection analysis. The consultant shall use the City-wide TRAFFIX model with the HCM
methodology.
2. The most recently adopted Master Environmental Assessment (MEA) shall be used for all
information regarding existing and future base conditions.
3. Traffic counts that may be required beyond the counts contained in the MEA shall be less
than 6 months
4. The consultant shall submit all traffic count sheets to the City Parking and Traffic Engineer.
5. Figures of existing and any proposed intersection confIgurations shall be provided in an
appendix.
6. Trip generation rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineer's (ITE) publication "Trip
Generation", 5th Edition should be used. For uses where no rates are listed the consultant
shall develop a rate in consultation with the City Parking and Traffic Engineer. Trip
distribution sheets and diagrams should be provided in the report.
7. Street widenings and on-street parking removal are mitigation measures which may be
technically feasible, but which are generally considered undesirable. If such measures appear
potentially appropriate to the consultant, he/she should consult the Parking and Traffic
Engineer in preparing the impact analysis and mitigation recommendations. If such
measures are to be proposed, alternate mitigation measures which would be equally effective
should also be identified.
8. Existing uses at the site which would be removed as part of the project should be deducted
from the calculation of the project traffic.
9. See Congestion Management Plan (CMP) Land Use Analysis Program guidelines for
performing CMP analysis (EF47).
l)EFF40
eff40