Loading...
SR-410-010 (4) fIO-{J/tJ 8-A IIMI", 2 6 ~()v C/ED:CPD:DKW:JWR:jr COUNCIL MEETING: January 26, 1988 TO: Mayor and city council -....- santa Monica, California FROM: city Staff , SUBJECT: Recommendation for Approval of Development Agreement Between the City of Santa Monica and J.B. Snyder Company II INTRODUCTION Application has been made for a Development Agreement between the City of Santa Monica and the J .H. snyder Company II. The proposed Agreement would permit the development of a large office complex in the Special Office District of the city. In accordance with the requirements of the Municipal Code, City staff have processed the proposed Agreement, which was reviewed by the Planning Commission on December 14, 1987, and which comes before the Council for Public Hearing and review on January 26, 1988. The developer proposes to construct the project at a l.85 Floor Area Ratio (FAR). However, the Planning Commission approved the L 85 FAR on the condition that vehicle traffic to the project remain within a range normally associated with a project with a 1.5 FAR. (This concept is explained in greater detail below.) According to the Planning commission's recommendation, should Phase I of the proj ect fail to maintain the required vehicle trips, Phase II would have to be built such that the total FAR for both Phases equaled 1.5. B-A - 1 - IAN? f. 'Q,S. staff recommends that the project be approved at an FAR o~ 1.7. This would help achieve the reduction in vehicle traffic desired by the Commission but simplify the means of insuring that reduction. with the reduction in FAR proposed by staff, mitigation and improvement fees associated with the project would be proportionately reduced. As a result of further discussions with the applicant subsequent to Planning Commission review, staff has identified additional changes to the Development Agreement with which the applicant is agreeable. These changes have been incorporated into the Agreement and include the following: 1) A reduction in allowable medical office space from 75,000 sq.ft. to 40,000 sq.ft., and a reduction in allowable retail space from 60,000 sq.ft. to 40,000 sq.ft. These uses have higher trip generation rates than general office, and their reduction will lessen total trips to and from the project site. 2) Advance payment to the City of $3,500,000 in Housing and Parks and traffic mitigation fees no later than six months from approval of the ordinance for first reading of the Development Agreement. The version reviewed by the Planning Commission had a one-year payment allowance. 3) Failure to achieve a TDM goal of a 20% reduction in vehicle trips to the project will result in an annual penalty fee of up to $200,000 per year. This penalty will be pro-rated based upon percentage achievement of the TDM goal and will provide a significant incentive for an agressive TDM - 2 - program. 4) The Developer will be required to subsidize at least 50% of the cost of transit passes and tokens each month for 400 project employees. Along with the other TDM measures, this mandatory provision is expected to reduce vehicle trips to the project site. S) The proj ect will be required to provide designated and preferentially located parking spaces for carpools and vanpools. Some of the most desirable parking areas in the project will be reserved for carpools and vanpools. This report summarizes the proposed project and its environmental impacts, examines the plan'S relationship to the City Municipal Code and General Plan, outlines the main issues concerning the Development Agreement, summarizes the Planning Commission's concerns and recommendations, makes findings required by the Municipal Code, and presents recommendations to the council. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The project is consistent with the basic objectives of the Land Use Element for the Special Office District. One of the principles of the Land Use Element was to guide growth toward the areas of the City suited to accommodate it from the standpoint of access, existing infrastructure, and ~ini~ization of impacts on adjacent residential neighborhoods. The Land Use Element found that the eastern half of the Olympic Corridor area .. . is best suited to large-scale office development since it is adjacent to freeway access and the eastern City limit." The - 3 - Water Garden project was developed in response to the Lana Use Element standards adopted by the City three years ago, and is the second major project in the area to be proposed subsequent to the ~ adoption of the Element. According to the Environmental Impact Report, the proj ect may have significant impacts upon traffic and air quality in its vicinity: however, the mitigation measures required in the Development Agreement, together with the FAR reduction proposed by staff, would address these impacts. Unlike the Southmark Development Agreement, the Water Garden Development Agreement presents specific building design plans for approval. This allows the city to lower precisely the practical and aesthetic characteristics of the project. The Agreement provides for the payment to the City of not less than a $7,200,000 Housing and Parks Mitigation Fee; $6,586,500 in the form of a traffic improvement fee (a provision that goes considerably beyond standard city mitigation requirements): an on-site, 7,000 square-foot child care facility large enough to serve 60 children which will provide reduced-fee child care to qualified local residents; parking spaces for use by a potential Santa Monica College remote parking/shuttle program; and, payments to the city to cover fully the cost of administering a preferential parking district in the vicinity of the project, should the City, in its sole discretion, wiSh to create such a district. - 4 - The Agreement will also provide for $300,000 for servic~s or development of a shelter for the homeless, and $150,000 for off-site public art. In addition, the project incorporates extensive landscaping (comprising nearly 55% of the total project site), including a 2-acre water amenity, and utilizes attractive building materials as well as extensive horizontal setbacks. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SOUTHMARK AND WATER GARDEN DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS For the most part, differences between the Southmark (Colorado Place Phase III) and Water Garden Development Agreements represent improvements in the Water Garden Agreement over the Southmark Agreement. The differences can be summarized as follows: 1) The Water Garden Development Agreement is accompanied by plans showing building design, location, dimensions, materials, landscaping, etc. This allows the city to know specifically what the project will look like. 2) The Water Garden Development Agreement contains a provision requiring that a contract between the City and the developer be executed within 45 days of approval by the City council. The Southmark agreement contained no such requirement and thus execution of the contract was delayed. 3) Section 6(a), paragraph (ii) of the Water Garden Agreement requires that the developer pay an advance of $3,500,000 in Impact fees within six months of first reading of the - 5 - Development Agreement, or prior to issuance of a bunding permit, whichever is sooner, as opposed to the requirement in the Southmark Agreement that a portion of the fee be paid upon execution of the Agreement. Staff believes the six-month provision is reasonable, given uncertainties such as referenda or litigation that may delay project development even after council approval. 4) The Water Garden Development Agreement provides for a penalty fee of up to $200,000 for failure to achieve the TOM goal. The Agreement also requires the Developer to subsidize at least 50% of the cost of transit passes and tokens for 400 project employees, and requires the Developer to provide designated and preferentially located parking for carpools and vanpools. 5) The Traffic Impact fee for the Water Garden proj ect is comparable to that contained in the Southmark Agreement when considered on a square footage basis. 6) As explained on pages 34 and 35 of this report, the caveats contained in the Southmark Agreement regarding the installation of an on-site sewage treatment system have been eliminated in the Water Garden Agreement. While under certain circumstances Southmark would not have to provide such a system, the Water Garden Agreement simply mandates it. 7) Under staff recommendations, the Water Garden proj ect would be approved at a 1. 7 FAR, as opposed to the l. 85 FAR approved for the Southmark project. - 6 - SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION Located between Colorado Avenue, Olympic Boulevard, Cloverfield Boulevard, and 26th street, just south of Colorado Place and near the Santa Monica Freeway, the 17-acre, 740,928 square-foot project site is currently occupied by approximately 525,000 square feet of building area, 195,000 square feet of which is currently leased. The land is zoned M2 and lies within the boundaries of the "Special Office District". Surrounding uses include Colorado Place on the north, industrial and manufacturing buildings to the south, office and manufacturing uses on the east, and the s1 te of Colorado Place Phase III on the west. PROPOSED PROJECT The proposed project involves a Development Agreement between the City of Santa Monica and J .H. Snyder Company II. According to the Development Agreement, the developer will have the right to construct a total of 1,370,717 square feet of commercial space, at a 1.85 Floor Area Ratio, including the following categories: o Restaurant--So,OOO SF o Medical Office--40,OOO SF o Retail, primarily to serve employees of, or visitors to the businesses located on the Property--40,OOO SF o Health Club--25,OOO SF o Banks and Savings and Loans--30,000 SF - 7 - o General Commercial Office--The Daximum Floor Area pe~itted for the Project less the Floor Area utilized for other uses. Square footages associated with a proj ect with, a 1.7 FAR, as recommended by staff, are contained in Attachment C, as are snmmaries of the corresponding reduction in mitigation and impact fees. The proj~ct would consist of four buildings. Each of the buildings would be variegated, multi-level structures; various portions of each building would reach heights of two, four, and six stories. Each building would include a glass atrium which would serve as the main pedestrian entrance to the building and which would face onto a large artificial lake at the center of the site. As stated in the introduction, the Planning commission supports approval of a 1.85 FAR for this project with the following condition: that Phase I of the project be built at 1.85 FAR and that an aggressive Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program be implemented to maintain a level of vehicle trips in Phase I that correspond to the maximum peak hour trips normally associated with a project of 1.5 FAR; if this objective were achieved, Phase II may also be constructed with an FAR of 1.85; if the TOM program failed to meet this objective, Phase II would have to be built so that the total FAR for Phases I and II equaled 1.5. staff believes that the Planning Commission's proposal would be difficult to implement, primarily because it would be difficult - s - to develop a set of objective criteria for evaluating the TDM program for Phase I. Staff is also concerned that outstanding achievement of a TOM program during the early years of the project may not be maintained throughout the life'of the project. staff recommends instead that the FAR be reduced from 1.85 to 1.7. This would help achieve the Planning commission's goal of reducing vehicle trips to the project, but in a simpler and more reliable fashion. Under this scenario the TDM program could be less successful and still achieve the effective 1. 5 traffic result desired. Under the original version of the Agreement reviewed by the Planning Commissionl the developer would have had the option of building parking for Phase I at 2.6 spaces per 1000 square feet (current code is 3.3 spaces per 1000); then, if subsequent evaluations of Phase I determined that there was a parking shortage, the developer would have been required to build additional spaces in Phase II to bring the proj ect' s total parking ratio up to the normal 3.3 spaces per thousand square feet. staff has re-evaluated this concept and believes that it would be difficult to monitor its performance, especially if Phase II is built or before Phase I is fully occupied. staff recommends instead that parking for the project be provided at a ratio of 2.9 spaces per thousand, corresponding to the number of spaces normally required for a project of 1.5 FAR. This would help meet the Planning Commission's obj ecti ves for reducing maximum peak hour vehicle trips, while simplifying the means of meeting that objective. It would also satisfy parking demand for a project of - 9 - 1.7 FAR coupled with an aggressive TDM program. According- the EIR Consultant's calculations, a 2.9 ratio would provide adequate parking for the project. (See attachment B.) staff is recommending the parking spaces at a ratio less than the 3.3 ratio normally required in order to facilitate a reduction in single-person vehicle occupancy by employees at the project site. To the extent that excess parking is provided, there is little incenti ve for employees, employers, or the proj ect owner to participate in ridesharing and other TSM techniques. An aggressive TSM program can reduce traffio and associated air pollution and traffic-generated noise. As indicated, staff has identified additional measures to insure compliance with project TDM goals. These include up to a $200,000 penalty fee for non-achievement of the 20% vehicle trip reduction goal, subsidies for transit passes and tokens for 400 employees, and preferential parking for carpools and vanpools. Staff believes that the city must develop these and other approaches to traffic problems that do not simply involve the accommodation or encouragement of increased numbers of private automoDiles. As the City council is aware, staff is developing a comprehensive, City-wide TSM Plan which should be issued for public review within one month. This draft Plan will give consideration to reduced parking requirements for situations similar to that proposed for the Water Gardens project. - 10 - DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS section 9800 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code provides for the execution of development agreements pursuant to Article ll, section 7 of the California Constitution and pursuant to Government Code section 65864 et. seq. The expressed intent of the State law is to provide " . . . assurance to the applicant for a development project that upon approval of the project, the applicant may proceed with the project in accordance with existing policies, rules and regulations, and subject to conditions of approval.. " In other words, the purpose is to protect applicants from changes in policies and ordinances after approval but before completion of the project. Development agreements are most often utilized for large projects which will take a number of years to build out. since the local jurisdiction is relinquiShing its right to change its policies and ordinances (in relation to the particular project) for a specified period of years, it is not uncommon for cities and counties to require developers to provide additional amenities and facilities which would not be required for projects without development agreements. Background On October 28, 1986, the ~.H. Snyder Company filed an application to the Planning commission for a commercial office project including support retail, restaurant, a day care center and other ancillary uses at 2425 Olympic Boulevard. Since that time, a - II - draft EIR on the proposed Water Garden project has been preRared, issued for public review and finalized. At full occupancy, The Water Garden would generate approximately .. 5,200 jobs, most of which would be office related. The Development Agreement also requires the developer, in consultation with neighborhood organizations, to design and promote job training programs to address the needs of the surrounding neighborhoods. Based on the fiscal analysis in the Environmental Impact Report and staff calculations, the project would generate increased property and sales taxes. Net revenues (after City costs are accounted for) to the City are estimated to be over $1,212,000 per year once the project is completed. One-time payments would include approximately $7,215,869 for housing and parks, and a traffic improvement fee of $6,586,500. In addition, the developer has offered the city $300,000 and $150,000 as contributions for housing for the homeless and off-site public art, respectively. MUNICIPAL CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE Municipal Code Chapter 9, Section 9800-9819 established the City's procedures for adopting development agreements. In order to recommend approval of a development agreement, the City Council must determine that the proposed development agreement . . . is consistent with the general plan and any applicable It specific plan." (Santa Monica Municipal Code, Section 9814.) - 12 - Development standards (such as permitted uses, densi~ or intensity of Use, maximum height, etc.) provided for in a development agreement may vary from those of the zoning district, but the project must be in conformity with the General Plan. The proposed proj ect is compatible with the allowable intensity of development, land uses and other development parameters for the Special Office District set forth in the Land Use Element. Land Use Element The proposed project complies with the standards of the Land Use Element. Permitted uses in the Special Office District include large scale office and related uses. Specifically, the proposed Development Agreement is consistent with Land Use Element Obj ecti ve 1. 8 to " . provide opportuni ty for off ice and advanced technology uses requiring large floor areas" as well as with the following supporting policies: 1.8.1 The eastern portion of the Olympic Corridor should be the priority location for office and advanced technology uses. 1.8.2 Allow retail uses necessary to serve office and advanced technology uses. The proposed project also conforms to Land Use Element Objective 3.1 to " . reserve Santa Monica's existing solar access, low scale, and cultural resources consistent with the overall goals of the Land Use Element"; Land Use Element Obj ecti ve 3 . 3 to " . . . enhance the pedestrian scale and character of streets and - 13 - public spaces"; and Land Use Element objective 3..4 to " . . . enhance the image and the unique character of the c01l\1D.ercial districts and residential neighborhoods in the City" through the following urban design pOlicies for the Special Office District: 3.3.15 3.3.16 3.4.9 Reduce the visibility of surface parking, by requiring that buildings or landscaping form a specified percentage of the street facade on major arterials. Encourage five to twenty-foot setbacks from the street front and the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way in order to allow room for landscaping and usable public open space. Require landscaped open space visible from the street, including landscaped setbacks from the street, in order to create a Ugarden office" or "campus" environment. Encourage usable open space. Policy 1.8.7 of the Land Use Element prescribes a maximum F.A.R. in the special Off ice District of 2 . 0 and a maximum building height of 45 feet (three stories), with the possibility of an increase to 84 feet (six stories) upon Planning Commission approval. The Water Garden project was originally proposed to have an F.A.R. of 2.0. since then the F.A.R. has been reduced. Thus, the project incorporates less square footage than is allowed by the Land Use Element. - 14 - circulation Element The proposed Water Garden project conforms to the objectives and policies of the Circulation Element. objective 4.2 reads, "Protect the environment on local. residential streets by minimizing the intrusion of vehicular traffic and parking into residential neighborhoods." The Water Garden Development Agreement would all.ow the City, at its discretion, to require the Developer to pay for the cost of administering a preferential parking district in the vicinity of the project. Thus, the proposed project conforms to the following policy: 4.2.3 Locate new development and their access points in such a way that traffic is not encouraged to utilize local residential streets and alleys for access to the development and its parking. objective 4.3 reads "Provide road and highway facilities to meet anticipated needs for movement of people and qoods consistent wi th the goals of the Land Use Element." The proposed proj ect does not conflict with the following policies: 4.3.1 Safe or acceptable levels of service on City streets shall be a criterion for evaluation of new development proposals. Level of Service shall be "C" for collec- tor, feeder, and local streets and "Oil for arterials or better where possible. - 15 - The city council recently provided confirmation of the city's long-standing interpretation of this policy: that it expresses a guideline to be considered in evaluation of development projects. The Council also stated that the Planning Commission may modify or deny projects based on adverse traffic effects, along with consideration of other factors. At the city's request, the EIR traffic consultant prepared a revised analysis of the project's traffic impacts to reflect the reduction in F.A.R. from 2.0 to 1.85. This analysis is provided in Attachment F to this report. The EIR analysis showed that seven intersections would be at LOS E or F during the AM peak hour. With the mitigation measures to be provided by both the Snyder Company and southmark Pacific, there would be five intersections at LOS E or F in the AM peak hour and eight in the PM peak hour. Further reductions in traffic volumes would be achieved with a reduction in FAR to 1.7 and with the aggressive TSM program contained in the Agreement. The Circulation Element contains additional policies to discourage on-street loading, promote ridesharing, encourage staggered work hours, and maximize efficiency of traffic signals. These polices include the fOllowing: 4.3.3 The city shall work cooperatively with CalTrans to impleIDent freeway ramp improvements at Cloverfield or at 20th street and at 4th street to accommodate planned growth in the Special Office District and Downtown/ Oceanfront areas respectively. The purpose of the - 16 - 4.3.6 4.3.8 4.3.9 4.3.10 improvements is to improve traffic movement or ~itigate existing traffic problems. All such improvements shall be designed to protect existing residential neighbor- hoods. particular attention should' be paid to mitigating the potential problems of traffic intrusions into residential neighborhoods especiallY along 4th Street south of Pico Boulevard, in the vicinity of the Cloverfield on and off ramps (or the 20th Street freeway ramps), and in the Downtown/Oceanfront areas. On street loading and unloading shall be discouraged. Use of alley access to service residential and commer- cial buildings shall be encouraged. Promote programs to increase ridesharing as measured by average auto occupancy, from 1.2 individuals per vehicle to 1.4, or better. Minimize peak hour trips by encouraging staggered work hours and land uses which do not generate peak hour trips. Maximize the efficiency of the existing roadway system through traffic signal synchronization and other traffic flow improvements, as long as the impact on residential neighborhoods is analyzed and carefully considered. - 17 - 4.3.ll Consider measures to facilitate the north-south flow of traffic on 26th, 20th, 17th, 14th and 11th streets con- sistent with safety and the needs of nearby residents. In conformance with these policies, the Developer will do the following: 1) devise a Traffic Demand Management Plan to include ridesharing; 2) at the request of the City, pay for administering a permit parking district; 3) pay the city approxim.ately $6.6 million in traffic improvement fees: 4) provide all off-site loading and unloading. In addition the developer has retained an independent consultant to explore and specific traffic improvements to be made with funds collected through the traffic improvement fees. Objective 4.5 reads, "Encourage an improved public transit system capable of accommodating ten percent or more of all trips generated in the city by the year 2000.11 Policy 4.5.7 states the following: 4.5.7 If feasible, an employee transit shuttle should be implemented to link the Special Office District, Indus- trial Conservation District, Santa Monica Business Park, and possibly the Airport, to regional transit and peripheral parking facilities. The proposed project would not preclude an employee shuttle. In fact, the traffic demand manage~ent plan developed by the Snyder Company, as well as the citywide TSM plan, may call for such a shuttle system. - 18 - Objective 4.6 reads "Protect and encourage non-motorized trans- portation, especially bicycle routes and pedestrian trails, consistent wi th the goals of the Land Use Element. " To the extent the project plans include open space in over 50% of the project site, with ample opportunity for sitting and strolling. It conforms to the following policy: 4.6.2 Encourage new development to provide pedestrian paths through projects. Objective 4.7 reads nAIl new development should accommodate project-generated parking consistent with encouraging alternative transportation systems management programs." As indicated in a preceding section in this report, staff is recommending a parking ratio of 2.9 space per thousand square feet, corresponding to the numher of spaces normally required of a project with a 1.5 FAR. The proposed project conforms to the following pOlicies: 4.7.1 Ci ty parking standards should be adhered to, except with respect to parking requirements for hotels, resi- dential uses, and ~ixed use projects which need further study. 4.7.6 Encourage priority location of parking for van pools and car pools, to provide an incentive for these trans- portation alternatives. Perhaps the greatest concern about this proj ect on the part of the community is with traffic impacts. The EIR includes an extensive traffic study of the water Garden project. (Attachment - 19 - F provides a summ.ary analysis of the final i1rlpacts of a 1.~5 FAR project on intersections after all mitigation measures required by the Agreement have been implemented.) And, as indicated, the developer has hired his own traffic consul tan't to work wi th citizens to identify specific problem areas and improvements. After reviewing traffic impact data, staff believes that the traffic impacts of the Water Garden project will be sa'tisfactorily m.itigated by the reduction in FAR from 1. as to 1.7, by the measures specified in Exhibit D to the Agreement, and by the special traffic mitigation payment, which must be used by the city to address traffic issues in the project area. Improvements funded by these funds could improve levels of service beyond that which would occur as a result of the improvements specified in Exhibit D. One major goal of the City'S Land Use Element was to allow a manageable amount of growth in Santa Monica in order to implement mitigation measures and to obtain the employment, revitalization, and economic benefits to be derived from development. Another major goal of the Land Use Element was to direct growth to areas best able to accommodate it. The Special Office District was created to channel some of the office demand away from Wilshire Blvd. and other strip commercial streets where it would have a greater impact on residential neighborhoods. The achievement of these two goals, along with a balancing desire to protect the City's quality of life, led to the standard established for the Special Office District regarding development - 20 - intensity. The 2.0 floor area ratio was adopted after de~iled land use and circulation studies, enviromnental analysis, and balancing of a variety of goals. The traffic study was intentionally prepared on a conservative basis. It did not consider mitigation measures that might be required of other developers by the city, and it assumed that proposed projects not yet approved would be approved at their requested intensity, and would not be downsized. In addition to its required mitigation measures, the Water Garden will be required to participate in future TSM ordinances and also in any area-wide traffic assessment district. Staff anticipates that upon completion of the proposed traffic study, certain specific improvements will be recommended and financed from this type of funding mechanism. CEQA STATUS An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project and finalized after a 45-day public review period. A variety of potential environmental impacts including transportation and circulation, air quality, noise, hydrology, and geology (seismicity) were examined. Traffic and Circulation Thirty-four intersections and two freeway off-ramps were studied. As indicated, Attachment F summarizes the impact of a 1.85 project on these intersections after all required traffic improvements are made. Again, a 1.7 FAR project would generate - 21 - less traffic. The Attachment indicates that after all improvements described in Exhibit D in the Development Agreement are implemented, 8 intersections will have a Level of Service below level D in the PM peak period, severaL of which are relatively remote from the project site. Potential future declines in levels of service are primarily related to cumulative traffic growth rather than the proposed project. Mitigation measures for this project include widening Cloverfield on the easterly side to add one new lane northbound, restriping the westbound approach on Colorado Avenue to Cloverfield Boulevard to provide for two dedicated left turn lanes, constructing dual left turn lanes for northbound traffic on Cloverfield Boulevard at Colorado Avenue, constructing a dedicated right turn lane on westbound Olympic Boulevard at Cloverfield Boulevard, constructing a dedicated dual left turn lane on southbound 26th Street at Olympic Boulevard, constructing a dedicated right turn lane on southbound 26th street at Colorado Avenue, constructing a dedicated right turn lane on northbound C10verfield Boulevard at Colorado Avenue, and participating in modernizing the traffic signal standards, conduits, signal heads and controllers for the intersections of Cloverfield Boulevard with Colorado Avenue and Olympic Boulevard. Several major proposed developments in the Special Office District will contribute to increased traffic congestion at most - 22 - intersections in the project area. However, the traffic analysis does not account for the fact that many of those projects would be required to perform mitigation measures to reduce their traffic impacts. In this respect, the traffic analysis likely overstates adverse traffic impacts. Air Quality The EIR identifies two types of impacts on air quality associated with project: short-term, construction-related impacts in the form of dust, dirt and particulates, and long-term impacts from automobile emissions, particularly carbon monoxide (CO). According to the EIR, the short-term construction impacts would not be significant in that they can be adequately mitigated through dust abatement and adequate equipment maintenance. The EIR1s analysis of long-term effects focuses on carbon monoxide emissions, since these are the most important pollutants from motor vehicles. The analysis involves a worst-case scenario that assumes 1) the most severe meteorologic conditions, 2) construction of all proposed projects, and 3) no traffic mitigation programs for any of the projects (such as traffic demand management). The analysis also uses baseline data from a monitoring station located in West Los Angeles near the San Diego Freeway, where conditions are generally worse than near the Water Garden project. According to the EIR, most intersections modeled already exceed eight-hour emission standards under worst-case meteorologic - 23 - conditions. violations of these standards would persist if all projects are built. The Water Garden project itself would increase Santa Monica Source-Receptor Area Emissions from 305.59 to 307.64 tons per day, an increase of less than It. The EIR concludes that the project will have significant long-term impacts upon air quality. However, this is primarily because existing air :tUality does not meet certain state and Federal standards, rather than because this particular proj ect causes CO levels to exceed applicable standards. Noise construction noise associated with the Water Garden project will be a temporary problem but it can be minimized by restricting construction activity in accordance with the city's construction time ordinance (7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and Saturday, 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.). Hydrology The EIR indicates that the proposed 2-acre, 18-inch-deep artificial lake would consume approximately 4 million gallons of water per year, 3 million of which result from evaporation. To mitigate the adverse impact of the lake on the City's water supplies, the EIR suggests using reclaimed wastewater, stormwater, or seawater to fill the lake. The Development Agreement requires that not less than 50% of the water requirements of the lake be met by sources other than city water. - 24 - Geology Extensive ground borings have revealed the exact path of the South Branch Santa Monica Fault beneath the, project site. Available information indicates that this fault is inactive. state law requires that no habitable structure be located closer than within 50 feet of any active or potentially active fault. Even though the fault beneath the project site is inactive, and therefore the project is not Subject to this state regulation, the project buildings will be set back 50 feet from the fault as an added precaution. Furthermore, the underground parking structure has been designed with slip joints to "give" in the event of groundshaking. - 25 - DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ISSUES The proposed Development Agreement contains several key items that need to be evaluated during this review proc~ss. 1. Floor Area led) The definition in the proposed Development Agreement is comparable to that contained in the Southmark Development Agreement. The. definition in these two . Agreement differs somewhat from that contained in the City's proposed Zoning Ordinance. The principle differences from the proposed Zoning ordinance are that unenclosed decks, balconies and the like are not counted as floor area even if they are covered by a roof, and that similarly, temporary parking areas and exterior courtyards, arcades and the like are not counted as floor area whether or not they are covered by a roof. These provisions are appropriate, since counting such desirable urban design features for purposes of FAR would tend to discourage their provision. 2. Parking - 3(e) - Please see the previous discussion of this issue under the description of the proposed project. 3. Open Space 3ef) The site plans for the project incorporate extensive open space, including a 2-acre artificial lake. Park-like landscaping will provide employees of the project as well as residents of the adjacent neighborhood with ample opportunity for strolling, sitting, and reclining on the lawn. The site plan also includes a circular outdoor platform framed by a - 26 - semi-circular colonnade. This area could seat up to 500 people for outdoor concerts. The project is designed with an expansive public view corridor through the entire project site stretching from the intersection of 26th Street and Olympic Boulevard to Cloverfield and Colorado. Open space represents over 55% of the 17 acre site. 4. Housing and Parks Mitigation Fee - 6 (a) - This section provides accelerated payment of the required parks and housing mitigation fee. A sum of $3,500,000 would be paid within six months of first reading of the Development Agreement or immediately upon issuance of a building permit for the first Phase of the Project, whichever is sooner; a larger sum would be required if net rentable floor area exceeds current plans for the first phase. The City's Land Use Element only requires 25% of the fee be paid before the certificate of Occupancy is issued (which would probably be at least two years for the first office building following execution of the Agreement), and allows the balance to be paid over a period of three years following the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. Given the time value of money, the accelerated payment schedule is a significant benefit which will allow the City to utilize these funds for new affordable housing and additional park facilities much sooner. - 27 - 5. On-S i te Child Care Facil i ty 6 (b) This section requires the Developer to construct on-si te a child care facility consisting of a minimum ot 7,000 square feet. Ten percent of the facility's capacity would be'made available to residents in the vicinity of the project at 60% of the normal charges. Pursuant to a request by the Planning Commission, the Child Care facility must be incorporated into Phase I of the project. 6. Water Conservation - 6 (f) In order to substantially reduce the use of fresh water in the artificial lake, the Development Agreement requires that the developer use recirculated water, storm drain water, or other systems acceptable to the Department of General services to maintain water in the lake. The Agreement also requires at least 50% of the lake's water requirements must be met by non-potable water; that the goal of project water conservation methods be to reduce the amount of water consumed by the project to one-third of the amount that would otherwise have been consumed; and, that the landscaping plans include drought-resistant plants and be subject to the approval of General Services. 7. Impacts on Traffic Durinq Construction 6 (g) This section requires a construction staging area on the project site to minimize the impact of construction activities on adjacent streets. - 28 - 8. Traffic and Emission Abatement - 6(h)- Under this section, the developer is required to prepare and submit for City approval a traffic and air quality emissions plan to promote ridesharing, flex-time, special benefits for carpools and vanpools, increased use of public transit, and other measures. The Developer would also be required to comply wi th the provisions of a Ci ty-wide Transportation Systems Management plan, which is currently being prepared by the City Planning staff. 9. Traffic Improvement Fee - 6(i) - The Agreement provides for a $6,586,500 payment to the city, use of which is limited to traffic infrastructure improvements in or affecting the areas bounded by Santa Monica Boulevard on the north, 17th street on the west, Centinela Avenue on the east, and pico Boulevard on the south, and up to $500,000 of which can be used to fund a city-wide traffic systems management (TSM) program. This payment is comparable to that made in the southmark Development Agreement, but represents a greater amount because of the larger size of the Water Garden project. crain and Associates, the applicant I s traffic consultant, has identified a 'menu' of area-wide traffic infrastructure improvements which might be partly funded by the Water Garden and southmark traffic payments. None of these potential improvements have been endorsed by the City or by other agencies such as Cal trans, which might also have to approve some of the proj ects . In addition, the potential - 29 - total cost of these projects exceeds the combined fee~ from the Water Garden and Southmark projects. However, since this 'menu' of traffic improvement projects involves area-wide measures which benefit many existing and future roadway users beyond either Water Garden or Southmark, it is anticipated that the city-wide Traffic study will call for creation of systematic traffic impact fees on new development as well as assessment charges on existing development to fund traffic improvements deemed appropriate by the city. 10. Energy Conservation - 6(j) - The proposed Development Agreement provides for energy conservation techniques, including high efficiency lighting and high efficiency roof and wall insulation, in all project buildings. 11. College parking - 6 (1) - The Agreement provides that the developer offer parking on the project site in conjunction wi th a possible shuttle program conducted by Santa Monica College. The developer currently has an agreement with the city to provide on-site parking for this purpose. 12. Affirmative Action and Job Training - 6 Cn) - This section states that the Developer will develop an affirmative action program with input from neighborhood organizations to promote job training programs for project tenants. The job training programs will be designed to address the needs of the residents surrounding the water Garden project. - 30 - l3. Preferential parkinq - 6(m) - The developer has aqreediChat, in the event that the City establishes a preferential parking district (the boundaries of which would be , determined by the City), the developer will pay the city an amount equal to the cost of posting signs and administering the preferential parking district. In this way, residents will not be charged for preferential parking permits. Under the City's preferential parking ordinance (Section 3230-3238 SMMC) preferential parking zones may be initiated ei ther by peti tions of residents or by the Ci ty Council. The Council has ultimate approval or dissolution authority over preferential zones. These zones are primarily intended to protect residential areas from intrusion by commercial or customers or employees; without preferential parking, street spaces are unrestricted. Generally, staff has only recommended and the Council has only approved preferential zones when considerably more than a majority of the residents in the area support such a zone. The Water Garden Agreement does not mandate creation of a zone, but if such a zone was appropriate, the Water Garden owner would have to pay its operating costs. 14. Changes to the Project 8 This section contains procedures for requesting changes to building setbacks, Floor Areas of particular phases, Floor Areas of specific uses (i.e., retail, health club), and location of driveways. Floor Areas of particular phases may not be changed more than 5%; Floor Areas of specific uses may not be changed - 3l - ~ore than 3%. Paragraph (a) details the responsibilities of the Zoning Administrator and Paragraph (b) explains those of the Planning Commission. It should be noted that these paragraphs provide the Zoning Administratdr and Planning commission with discretionary review powers and responsibilities in order to avoid the necessity of a formal amendment for relatively minor changes to the project. In all - situations, the Council will have the power to hear appeals on these issues. 15. Effects of Agreement on Land Use Regulations - 12 - This section addresses future city-enacted or area-wide traffic mi tiqation measures. The developer would be required to participate in a City-wide traffic assessment district anticipated to be created after completion of the pending traffic study. 16. General Services Requirements (Exhibit D) - The proposed Development Agreement requires that the developer would provide various infrastructure improvements. The major circulation improvements include widening Cloverfield on the easterly side to add one new lane northbound, restriping the westbound approach on Colorado Avenue to Cloverfield Boulevard to provide for two dedicated left turn lanes, constructing dual left turn lanes for northbound traffic on Cloverfield Boulevard at Colorado Avenue, constructing a dedicated right turn lane on westbound Olympic Boulevard at Cloverfield Boulevard, - 32 - constructing a dedicated dual left turn lane on southbound 26th street at Olympic Boulevard, constructing a dedicated right turn lane on southbound 26th street at Colorado Avenue, constructing a dedicated right 'turn lane on northbound Cloverfield Boulevard at Colorado Avenue, and participating in modernizing the traffic signal standards, conduits, signal heads and controllers for the intersections of Cloverfield Boulevard with Colorado Avenue and Olympic Boulevard. other public works projects and improvements include installing high pressure sodium street lighting and street trees on all project street frontages; installing a sewage regulating tank, if deemed necessary by the General Services Division~ and, installing an on-site sewage treatment system to clean and recirculate sewage water back through the toilet system and for watering landscaping, if deemed appropriate by the General Services Division. The General Services Division has determined that these measures are adequate to mitigate adverse impacts of the project upon infrastructure. ISSUES RAISED BY PLANNING COMMISSION At the December 14th Public Hearing, the Planning Commission recommended numerous revisions to the Development Agreement, all of which are outlined below. While most of these revisions have been incorporated into the Agreement, some have been excluded. Explanations for these exclusions are also provided. - 33 - 1) The Commission approved a motion that would establish a linkage between vehicle trips generated by the proj ect and permitted Floor Area Ratio. According to this motion, Phase I of the project would be constructed at a Y.85 F.A.R. If the TDM program achieves a reduction in traffic such that the number of peak hour vehicle trips equals the n~mber of peak hour vehicle trips normally associated with a proj ect of a l.5 F.A.R. (according to ITE estimates), then the developer may proceed to build Phase II of the project at a l.S5 F.A.R. If, on the other hand, such a reduction is not achieved, then the developer must build Phase II at the F.A.R. of 1.5. After careful consideration of this proposal, staff has concluded that it would be difficult to implement. More specifically, it would be difficult to develop objective cri teria for an evaluation of the TDM proqralD. in Phase I. Staff recommends instead an approach that relies in part on a reduced total project FAR and in part upon a successful TOM program. This approach calls for a reduction in project FAR from 1.85 to 1.7. With this reduction in FAR, vehicle trips to the project would be reduced proportionately. In addition, staff recommends that parking be provided at a ratio of 2.9 spaces per thousand square feet, corresponding to the amount of parking normally required of the proj ect with a 1.5 FAR. 2) The Commission requested that the term "floor area ratio" be defined in the text of the Agreement. See section 1, paragraph (e). This change has been made. - 34 - 3) Section 3, paragraph (a) has been modified to authorize the Architectural Review Board to require additional setbacks along the Colorado Avenue frontage of the North Building above the third floor. 4) The Commission requested that there be a 20% cap on the proportion of tandem parking in the proj ect, and that the Developer be required to have a parking attendant in all areas of the project where tandem parking is used. These changes have been made. See Section 3, paragraph (e). 5) As a way of providing some leeway in the parking required for the project, the Commission requested that the reduced parking ratio be increased from 2.5 to 2.6 spaces per thousand square feet. As indicated, staff recommends that parking be provided at a ratio of 2.9 spaces per thousand square feet. 6) The number of days notice that the Developer must give the city before applying for the permit to build the parking facility for Phase II has been increased from 60 to 120. See Section 3(e), paragraph (iii). 7) Pursuant to the Commission'S request, Section 3 (e), paragraph (v) requires Planning Commission review and recommendation to Council regarding the aspects of Phase II parking addressed in Section 3 (e) of the Agreement. 8) The Commission requested that the language in Section 3(f) be revised to state clearly that the project be landscaped in - 35 - a park-like manner. accordingly. The language has been re-vised 9) section 3 (g) and (h) have been modifie~ to specify an exact range of setbacks for each building as well as minimum setbacks between buildings. 10) At the Commission's request, the Agreement has been revised to require that the Child Care facility be included in Phase I rather than Phase II of the project. See section 6 (b) . 11) The Commission asked that the General Services Division review the water conservation goals contained in Section 6(f), paragraphs (ii) and (v). l2) Section 6{h) (i), require that adequate parking of bicycles. paragraph (f) has been modified to facilities be provided for secure 13) Section 6{h) has been revised to state explicitly that vans and employee shuttles will be part of a TDM program. See Section 6(h} (i), paragraph (g). 14) The Commission had requested that the TOM goal for the proj ect be changed from a 20% reduction in vehicle trips normally associated with a 1.85 F.A.R. to a goal that equals the number of vehicle trips normally associated with a project of a 1.5 F.A.R. As discussed above, staff is recommending that the 20% standard be maintained, with the - 36 - added provision of a $200,000 penalty clause. See Section 6{h), paragraph (ii). 15) section 6 (h), paragraph (iii) has b~n modified to authorize the city to request and inspect any supporting documents which may be used in the preparation of the developer's report to the City regarding the perfo~ance of the TDM program. 16) The Commission requested that the Agreement explicitly state the the developer must require each lessee to cooperate and participate in the TDM Program. See revised language in section 6(h), paragraph (v). l7) section 6(m) dealing with preferential parking has been modified so that the boundaries of the a preferential parking district will be left to the discretion of the city. 18) Section 8 (a) of the Development Agreement allows the Developer to adjust certain parameters of the project, such as square footage of restaurant space, by a small percentage without amending the Development Agreement. The C011Ul\ission expressed concern that if allowable square footages of certain uses changed, then the parking requirements for the project should be adjusted accordingly. Staff has reviewed this issue and concluded that the changes in square footage would not be significant enough to warrant adjustments to the parking requirements. - 37 - 19) The Commission requested revision of the language in section 12(e) paragraph (iii) to make clearer the distinction between "existing" and "new" development. The section has been revised accordingly. 20) The commission expressed concern that the condi tions originally stipulated in Exhibit D, paragraph 20 regarding an on-site sewage treatment system could impede the timely installation of such a system. Among these conditions were requirements that there be no federal, state, or local laws Which would required licensing of such a system, that the system be capable of being safely and conveniently located on the property, and that it be economically and technologically viable and efficient. All these conditions have been removed from the Agreement. 21) Paragraph #22 of Exhibit D has been revised to require that, in siting a bus shelter along Olympic Boulevard, the City and the developer consider pollution levels adjacent to the project. 22) The Commission has asked staff to prepare a summary of the mitigation measures contained in the Environmental Impact Report that were not included in the Development Agreement, and the reasons for the exclusions. This summary is contained in Attachment D to this report. Staff has reviewed all of these measures. - 38 - BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT Based on the Project Mitigation prog-ram (Ordinance 1367), for 1,169,192 square feet of office space, 75,000 'square feet of Eedical office space, and 30,000 square feet of banks and savings and loans space, the snyder Company would pay a housing/parks in-lieu fee of not less than $7,215,869. In addition, annual tax revenue to the city would amount to over $l million. Somewhat lower revenues would be realized from the 1.7 FAR project recommended by staff. The Development Agreement also provides for a one-time payment to the City of $6,586,500 in traffic improvement fees. This fee would also be lower for a 1. 7 FAR project. Moreover, the agreement provides that the developer will participate in a potential assessment district in the project area for street and other traffic improvements. The Agreement also provides for a one-time payment of $300,000 to be used for transitional and/or emergency housing facilities and services for the homeless, and a sum of $150,000 to be used for off-site public art. The Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District would also realize fee income from this project under its Developer Fee program which was recently enacted. The District would receive fee revenues of over $340,000 from the project from its $0.25/sq. ft. charge on new commercial or industrial development. This fee would be reduced with a 1.7 FAR project. - 39 - RECOMMENDATION staff respectfully recommends that the city Council: 1) adopt the resolution set forth in Attachment G certifying the Environmental Impact Report on the proposed Development Agreement between the city and the J. H. Snyder C01npany, and 2) approve the Development Agreement between the City of Santa Monica and J.H. snyder Company II with the revised 1.7 FAR, substituting the section5 set forth in Attachment E for those set forth in the proposed Agreement, and with the findings specified below. Findings I. MUNICIPAL CODE: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS l. The proposed Development Agreement is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the General Plan. The project is consistent with the City'S adopted General Plan; no specific plans are applicable to the project area. A. LAND USE ELEMENT The proposed Water Garden project complies with the standards of the Land Use Element. permitted uses in the Special Office District include large scale office and related uses. specifically, the proposed Development Agreement is consistent with Land Use Element Objective l.8 and its related policies to ,. . . . provide opportunity for office and advanced technology uses requiring large floor areas. II The proj ect conforms to the development standards - 40 - set forth in Policy 1.8.7 by limiting height to a maximum of six stories and 84 feet, by limiting floor area to less than the maximum specified in the POlicy, by providing for appropriate setbacks, pedestrian features, open space, parking, and by ensuring that utility systems and roadways are adequate to serve the project, and by providing in-lieu fee payments for parks and housing mitigation, as further described in the findings below. The proposed project also conforms to Land Use Element Objectives 3.1, 3.3 and 3.4, and Policies 3.3.15, 3.3.16 and 3.4.9 by providing ample open space and open space amenities, substantial space between buildings, building setbacks ranging from 20 to 133 feet, all-subterranean parking, and substantial view corridors through the project site from the street. B. CIRCULATION ELEMENT The proposed project conforms to the objectives and policies of the Circulation Element. In particular, the development is consistent with Objective 4.2 and Policy 4.2.3 in that the developer has agreed to absorb the cost of preferential parking program as well as provide ample improvements to major roadways so as to minimize incursion into residential neighborhoods; it is consistent with Objective 4.3 and Policy 4.3.1 in that it provides for widening Cloverfield on the easterly side to add one new lane northbound, restriping the westbound approach on Colorado Avenue to Cloverfield - 41 - Boulevard to provide for two dedicated left turn l-anes, constructing dual left turn lanes for northbound traffic on cloverfield Boulevard at Colorado Avenue, constructing a dedicated right turn lane on westbound OlympIc Boulevard at C10verfield Boulevard, constructing a dedicated dual left turn lane on southbound 26th street at Olympic Boulevard, constructing a dedicated right turn lane on southbound 26th street at Colorado Avenue, constructing a dedicated right turn lane on northbound Cloverfie1d Boulevard at Colorado Avenue, participating in modernizing the traffic signal standards, conduits, signal heads and controllers for the intersections of Cloverfield Boulevard with colorado Avenue and Olympic Boulevard, restriping the centinela Avenue approach to Colorado Avenue in order to provide a through-right turn only lane and a left turn lane in both directions, and restriping the northbound approach to the intersection of Wilshire and 20th street to provide two through-lanes instead of one right-only and one through-lane. These improvements will facilitate traffic flow to a greater extent than would otherwise occur without such improvements. The proposed Development Agreement contains a traffic and vehicle emission abatement plan which is' consistent with Objectives 4.5, 4.6 and 4.7. This plan will call for the implementation of such measures as flexible work time, ride-sharing, and bicYCle parking in order to reduce demand for parking. - 42 - C. HOUSING ELEMENT Although the proposed development is not a residential project, it is consistent with the goals and ,policies of the city's Housing Element to " . maintain and increase the supply of housing affordable to low- and moderate-income persons. ., 'rhis will be accomplished through a Housing and Parks Mitigation Program (Ordinance 1367) in-lieu fee payment in excess of $3.5 million, and a somewhat lower fee if the l.7 FAR recommendation is approved. D. OPEN SPACE ELEMENT The proposed Development Agreement is consistent with the City I s 1973 Open space Element. The proposal includes an in-lieu housing and parks fee required by the Project Mitigation Program (Ordinance 1367) as well as 9.8 acres of on-site open space, which represents over 55% of the total land area. E. CONSERVATION ELEMENT The proposed Water Garden project is in conformity with the policies of the 1975 Conservation Element including the use of energy efficient insulation and lighting, solar heating, water conservation techniques and planting street trees. - 43 - F. NOISE ELEMENT The proposed proj ect is in agreement with the goals and , objectives of the Noise Element to identify and control noise levels in the city. The proposed Development Agree- ment specifies that the developer will properly muffle all construction equipment, limit construction hours, and erect noise barriers along Olympic Boulevard to reduce noise impact from traffic generated by cumulative projects. G. SCENIC CORRIDORS ELEMENT The proposed Water Garden project is consistent with the 1975 Scenic Corridors Element's qoal to protect and enhance the scenic resources of the Ci ty. Al though the proposed development is not located on or near the seven identified scenic corridors in the City, the proposed Development Agreement does provide for street tree planting along all four streets abutting the project site. Project landscaping will include extensive tree plantings as well. H. SEISMIC SAFETY ELEMENT The proposed project is consistent with the principles of the City'S seismic Safety Element. Although the project is si ted on top of the South Branch Santa Monica faul t, the fault is considered inactive and buildings are situated at minimum distances of 50 feet from the fault. - 44 - I. PUBLIC SAFETY ELEMENT The proposed Water Garden project is consistent with the pOlicies and programs of the City's Public Safety Element to lower the risk factors of fire and geologic hazard to a safe level. The proposed development will comply with the City's fire and building codes in order to provide for the community's physical safety. 2. The proposed land uses outlined in the Development Agreement are compatible with the uses authorized in the M2 district in which the real property is located. The list of uses permitted in the Development Agreement was designed to include those which were mutually compatible in physical and use characteristics. It is important to note that the current M2 zoning of the site is planned to be changed to C5, Special Office District. The uses allowed in the Special Office District are compatible with uses of the proposed proj ect. The proj ect proposal is also compatible with uses authorized under the Special Office District development standards of the Land Use Element. 3. The proposed Development Agreement is in conformity with the public necessity, public convenience, general welfare and good land use practices. With a 1.85 FAR, the proposed project will create approximately 5,200 jobs in the retail, restaurant, office, health club, banking, and child care categories and would produce significant net revenues to the - 45 - City, benefiting the general welfare: a lower number o~ jobs would be created with a 1.7 FAR project. The proposed Development Agreement is in conformance wi th good land use practices. The project concept is consistent with the land use standards for the Special Office District. The specific design features of the project also conform to the Special Office District standards. 4. The proposed Development Agreement will not be significantly detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare. Like any development project, this proposal will produce both adverse and positive effects on health, safety and the general welfare, as shown in the EIR. The project will result in an increase in traffic volumes and will have an adverse impact on local air quality, but mitigation measures will adequately address those impacts. On balance, the beneficial aspects of the project, including employment opportunities, open space areas and visual improvements to the site, outweigh the incrementally adverse effects. 5. The proposed Development Agreement will not adversely affect the orderly development of the property. Redevelopment of the site as proposed is a logical and orderly use of the site and an improvement from the current use, which consists primarily of under utilized industrial, office, and parking space. The basic project concept is consistent with the overall direction of the city's land use policies and would also meet objectives of the applicant. - 46 - 6. The proposed Development Agreement will have a pori ti va fiscal impact on the city: staff calculations indicate annual net revenues in excess of $1/212,000 in addition to one-time revenues of about $l3. 9 million for a 1.85 FAR project~ somewhat lower revenues would be realized from a 1.7 FAR project. 7. The proposed Water Garden project is designed to relate harmoniously with surrounding sites and neighborhood. The project includes considerable building articulation as well as extensive landscaping. Surrounding uses include the 3-story Colorado Place Phase III project on the north, 2- and 3-story offices, and Gillette/Papermate factory on the east, I-story industrial storage yards on the south, and the I-story GTE manufacturing buildings on the west. The proposed project is co~patible with the surrounding uses in terms of scale and type of use. 8. The Development Agreement requires the developer to provide sufficient circulation improvements to meet the anticipated results of the proposed development, including adequate parking facilities. Exhibit D of the Development Agreement lists specific improvements to be undertaken by the developer to mitigate adverse impacts on auto and pedestrian circulation. An analysis of Levels of service at modeled intersections after mitigation indicates that impacts are adequately mitigated. In addition, the Development Agreement includes a traffic improvement fee of $6,586,500 to assist in financing the costs of implementing a city-wide - 47 - traffic systems management ordinance, the costs of specific traffic improvements, and the cost of acquiring land for improvements. 9. The project will be adequately supplied with the public and/or private health and safety facilities to accommodate anticipated demand. City Police and Fire Departments have indicated that they will be able to service the project, as have the electrical and gas companies that will service the project. To mitigate the potential adverse effect of increased solid wastewater from the project, the project may be required to construct an on-site sewage treatment facility that meets with the approval of the General Services Division. 10. The proposed project adequately mitigates the significant environmental impacts upon traffic and air quality identified in the Final Environmental Impact Report. The development agreement requires that the developer provide specific improvements as well as a traffic and emission abatement plan to mitigate the project's impacts on traffic and air quality. The mitigation measures do not--and are not intended--to address the adverse impacts that may occur on Levels of Service at intersections and the associated adverse impact on air quality that will result from the cumulative impact of other projects included in the modeling. - 48 - ~l. The proposed Water Garden project provides adequate mitigation measures to meet the Project Mitigation Measures of the Land Use and Circulation Element of the General Plan. , This includes in-lieu fee payment to the city calculated at $2.25 per square foot for the first 15,000 square feet of Net Rentable Floor Area of medical or off ice space, plus $5.00 per square foot of the remaining Net Rentable Floor Area of any medical and commercial office space in excess of 15,000 square feet. These per square foot figures are adjusted from the October 23, 1984 base by intervening change in the Consumer Price Index for the Los Angeles/Long Beach Metropolitan Area. 12. The city of Santa Monica may face City-wide sewage treatment capacity constraints related to the Hyperion treatment plant and the related sewage transport and treatment infrastructure. In response to such concerns, Exhibit 0 to the Development Agreement contains a sewage reduction provision which would significantly reduce wastewater flow from the proj ect, substantially mitigating potential wastewater impacts of the proj ect. Section 6 (f) of the Development Agreement also requires a variety of water conservation measures of the project. In addition, section 7 of the Agreement specifically states that nothing in the Agreelllent requires the city of santa Monica to issue a building permit for the project in the event of any valid building moratorium resulting from a lack of sewage - 49 - treatment capacity. The City Council is approving-- the Development Agreement in the context of these requirements. Attachments: Prepared By: DKW:JWR:jr w/wg3 01/21/88 A - B - C o - E - F G - , Proposed Development Agreement Supplemental Parking Analyses summary of mitigation and improvement fees associated with 1.7 FAR Summary of Mitigation measures not included in Development Agreement Substitute Development Agreement Sections for 1.7 FAR project Revised Traffic Analysis for l.85 FAR project Resolution Certifying the Final EIR on the proposed Water Garden Development Agreement D. Kenyon Webster, Senior Planner John Read, Associate Planner - 50 -