SR-410-014 (2)
.
.
CjED:PB:DKW:bz
PC/colex
Council Mtg:
tI(t) - olr
Santa Monica, California
November 7, 1989
TO: Mayor and city Council
FROM: City Staff
SUBJECT: Supplemental Staff Report Regarding Development
Agreement Between city and Santa Monica College
INTRODUCTION
This report supplements the staff report regarding the Santa
Monica College Development Agreement.
Provided as attachments
are revised versions of the EIR resolution, and a copy of the
Development Agreement including the changes resulting from the
Planning Commission's review.
BACKGROUND
A revised version of the resolution certifying the Environmental
Impact Report is provided to replace the resolution previously
transmitted as part of the staff report on this project. The
revised resolution provides more detail regarding the impacts of
the project and required mitigation measures.
A second attachment is a copy of the text of the Development
Agreement which incorporates the specific amendments recommended
by staff in the previously-transmitted staff report, and which
- 1 -
.
.
includes the text of several phrases left blank in the previous
version of the Agreement, including the date of project plans
(listed on page 4 of the Agreement) and the number of days from
commencement of construction by which city review of plans would
occur (listed on page 6 of the Agreement). The revised version
has been prepared to simplify the council's review of the
document.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT
The recommendation presented in this report does not have any
budget or fiscal impact.
RECOMMENDATION
It is respectfully recommended that in conjunction with
certifying the Environmental Impact Report for the Development
Agreement, the attached resolution be adopted.
Prepared by: Wanda williams, Associate Planner
D. Kenyon Webster, Principal Planner
Paul Berlant, Director of Planning
planning Division
Community and Economic Development Department
Attachments: Resolution Certifying Environmental Impact Report
Development Agreement
DKW:bz
PC/colex
11/07/89
- 2 -
.
.
EXHIBIT "A" - Planning commission staff Report
including the proposed Development Agreement
.
.
CITY PLANNING DIVISION
community and Economic Development Department
MEMORANDUM
DATE: May 17, 1989
TO: The Honorable Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Staff
SUBJECT: DR 492, EIR 888
Address:
Applicant:
1654-1900 pico Blvd.
santa Monica Community College District
SUMMARY
Action: The Planning Commission is requested to review a pro-
posed Development Agreement to allow the construction of two
four-story parking structures, containing 1538 parking spaces on
Santa Monica Community College property that is bounded by pico
Boulevard to the north, Pearl Street to the south, sixteenth
Street to the west and Eighteenth Court (vacated) 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. Prior to taking action on the development agree-
ment, the commission is requested to certify Environmental Impact
Report 888, which indicates that the project will not have sig-
nificant adverse impacts on the environment.
Recommendation: Recommendation to the City Council for Develop-
ment Agreement Approval.
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The subj ect property consists of an irregular shaped 4. 5 acre
site that is bounded by pico Boulevard to the north, Pearl Street
to the south, Eighteenth Court (vacated) to the east and six-
teenth street to the west. The subject property contains a mix-
ture of one, two, ~hree and four story college campus structures.
The surrounding land uses and zoning generally consist of neigh-
borhood commercial uses (C2) located along Pico Boulevard to the
north, one and two story dwelling units (R1, R2) and a public
junior high school (R2) located along Pearl street to the south,
and one and two story residences (Rl, R2) located to the east and
west.
Zoning District:
Land Use District:
Parcel Area:
R2 (Residential Multiple Family) District
Public Lands
195,000 square feet (4.5 acres)
- 1 -
.
.
PROPOSED PROJECT
The proposed project consists of 1) the removal of a surface
parking lot to permit the construction of a four story 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 con-
struction of a four story 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.
Details of proposed parkinq Structures
Lot Four Parking structure
The Lot Four Parking structure will contain a building height of
40 feet, and a ground floor area of approximately 45,120 square
feet. The parking plan indicates a total of 402 standard parking
spaces and 292 compact parking spaces. There are no tandem park-
ing spaces proposed.
The Lot Four site is located to the extreme northwest of the cam-
pus and extends south from pico Boulevard to the college's exist-
ing four level parking structure and the Business Building. Lot
Four 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 of frontage along Six-
teenth street. The Lot's entrances will be designed to facili-
tate eastbound and westbound traffic entrance along Pico
Boulevard, right turn only exiting along pi co Boulevard, right
turn only exiting along Sixteenth street and two way entrance/
exiting along Seventeenth Street (vacated), off of Pico
Boulevard. The sixteenth street and Seventeenth driveway curb
cut openings are presently in place. The Pi co 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 structure will not contain elevator or restroom facilities.
Any handicapped parking will be located on the ground floor or in
an adjacent surface level parking lot.
- 2 -
.
.
Supplemental information submitted by the applicant indicates the
structure is intended to address the immediate college parking
demand and will not be used to increase/augment future student
enrollment.
Lot Eight Parking Structure
The Lot Eight parking structure will contain a building height of
38 feet, and a ground floor area of approximately 46,614 square
feet. The parking plan layout indicates a total of 485 standard
parking spaces and 359 compact parking spaces. There are no tan-
dem parking spaces proposed.
Lot Eight is located south of the existing College Business Ad-
ministration Building and is bounded by seventeenth street (va-
cated) to the east, Sixteenth street to the west and the College
Athletic Field to the south. The lot is oriented in an east-west
direction 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.
A raised pedestrian foot bridge located on the east wall will
cross over two lanes of traffic and connect the parking sructures
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 3' 6"
parapet screen extends above the 38 foot roof height.
The structure will not contain elevator or restroom facilities.
Any handicapped parking will be located on the ground floor or in
an adjacent surface level parking lot.
Supplemental information submitted by the college indicates the
parking structure is intended to address the immediate college
parking demand and will not be used to increase/augment future
student enrollment.
MUNICIPAL CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE
The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan "Public
Lands" Designation and is in conformity with SMMC Chapter 9, Sec-
tion 9800 governing Development Agreements. Section 9800 pro-
vides for the adoption of development agreements pursuant to Ar-
ticle 11, Section 7 of the California Constitution and pursuant
to Government Code Section 65864 et.seg. 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 appli-
cant may proceed with the proj ect in accordance wi th existing
policies, rules and regulations, and subj ect to condi tions of
approval." Development standards such as permitted uses, density
or intensity of use, and maximum height, provided for in a
development agreement may vary from those of the zoning district,
- 3 -
.
.
but the project must be in conformity with the General Plan. In
order to recommend City council approval of a development agree-
ment, the Commission must determine the proposed development is
consistent with the General Plan.
BACKGROUND
On May 17, 1988, Contract No. 5100 (CCS) was executed between the
City of Santa Monica and The Santa Monica Community College Dis-
trict in an effort to mitigate neighborhood parking and traffic
impacts associated with the College I s use of street parking in
the college campus vicinity and to address potential impacts cau-
sed by the city's anticipated adoption of a preferential parking
zone around the college campus. Under Contract No. 5100 the Col-
lege is required to create at least 1200 new on campus parking
spaces. Contract No. 5100 also contained provisions to 1) per-
mit the College to relocate classes from the College to the Santa
Monica Airport for a ten year period (commencing July 1, 1988),
2) allow temporary shuttle bus service to the college from
several satellite locations throughout the City and 3) permit the
preparation of an Environmental Impact Report that covered the
proposed parking structures. The College paid for the prepara-
tion of the EIR which was prepared under contract with the City
and Planning Consultants Research.
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
campus. Zone L consists of a fifteen block area bounded by Four-
teenth street, pico Boulevard, Twenty-Third street, Pearl street,
Twenty-First Street, Ocean Park Boulevard and Fourteenth street.
Ordinance 1444 contained a provision to void 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 Number 5100 (CCS) or 2) a
final judgment blocking construction of the parking structures is
issued.
CEQA STATUS
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
15088, the comments and responses to comments have been included
in the FEIR. The Commission is being asked to certify the
adequacy of the FEIR, before taking action on the Development
Agreement.
- 4 -
.
.
FEES
The proj ect is not subj ect to payment of any special planning
fees.
ANALYSIS
The Planning commission consideration of the two proposed parking
structures should focus on the following three issues:
1. project consistency with General Plan Elements
2. Adequacy of the Environmental Impact Report
3. Key provisions of the Development Agreement
PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH GENERAL PLAN ELEMENTS
The city's adopted Land Use Element designates the 4.5 acre col-
lege site as "Public Lands". Under Land Use objective 1.12, the
site is intended to:
Ensure the most efficient use of all public lands consis-
tent with the goals of the Land Use Element.
Objective 1.11 provides for adequate land and facilities to meet
the future needs of designated public lands uses. The 4.5 acre
Santa Monica Community College is surrounded by a fully developed
and urbanized residential area where there is limited potential
to expand college educational and parking facilities in the sur-
rounding neighborhood. The college campus itself is also fully
developed with educational and recreational facilities that
restrict the future development of the campus. The redevelopment
of underutilized surface parking lots will allow the college to
meet the existing educational and parking demands of students and
staff while at the same time aChieving the most efficient long
term use of the college property. The recycling of the surface
parking lots and athletic field to provide additional parking
should be viewed as a realistic and viable solution, leading to
compliance with Contract Number 5100 (CCS) and the intent of the
General Plan for this site.
The project will conform with Land Use and Intensity Objectives
~.1 and 1.2 which promote the improvement in the quality of life
for all residents by providing a balance of land uses that are
compatible with adjacent land uses. The 124-141 foot Sixteenth
street structure setback on Parking Lot Eight and 15-27 foot Six-
teenth setback for Parking Lot Four will reduce the perceived
visual scale and solar impact of the structures on the adjacent
one and two story residences located on the west side of Six-
teenth Street.
The project also conforms to Land Use Urban Design Policy 3.1.1
which encourages developers to minimize the impact of the per-
ceived mass and solar impact of structures, by establishing a
- 5 -
.
.
building volume lIenvelopefl that steps down or relates harmo-
niously to the height limit of adjacent residential uses. The
landscaping setbacks shown on both structures along with the ad-
ditional 70 foot setback provided by the width of sixteenth
street will minimize the bulk and mass of the structures while
creating a visual envelope that steps down to the 30 foot height
limit and harmoniously relates to the 30 foot height limit of the
residential uses located along Sixteenth street.
circula~ion Element
The proposed project conforms to the objectives and policies of
the Circulation Element. Circulation Objective 4.2 provides:
"Protect the environment on local residential streets by
minimizing the intrusion of vehicular traffic and parking
into residential neighborhoods. II
The addition of 1274 new parking spaces for college student and
staff use will reduce the demand for street parking in the sur-
rounding neighborhood and eliminate the need for existing shuttle
bus operations. The Lot Four Parking Structure's orientation and
location of primary driveway openings along Pico Boulevard and
Seventeenth Street (vacated) and the building'S extensive
profile/exposure along Pico Boulevard will encourage vehicle
ingress/egress along Pico and Seventeenth street (vacated). The
right-turn-only exit along sixteenth Street (near the pi co
Boulevard intersections) will encourage traffic circulation back
onto pico Boulevard. The Lot Eight Parking structure's orienta-
tion toward Pico Boulevard and the interior of the campus and the
location of driveway openings on the interior of the campus only
from Pi co Boulevard, will encourage vehicle circulation from off
of pico Boulevard. Traffic circulation and parking along Six-
teenth Street will therefore be minimized.
The proposal also complies with Circulation POlicy sections 4.2.2
and 4.2.3 which require new development access points to be lo-
cated in such a manner that discourages traffic utilization of
local residential streets for access to the development and its
parking. Site plans indicate Lot Four ingress is taken from pico
and Seventeenth street (vacated). Site plans indicate Lot Eight
ingress/egress is taken exclusively from Seventeenth street on
the interior of the campus. All of the new access points prQ-
posed are located along pico and Seventeenth Street (vacated) and
will reasonably discourage traffic utilization of local residen-
tial streets for site access. The Lot Four structure will uti-
lize one existing eqress point on sixteenth street, located near
the intersection of pico and is positioned in such a manner to
reasonably discourage vehicles from proceeding in a southern di-
rection along Sixteenth street. The installation of signage or a
road barrier (as suggested in the FEIR), near the sixteenth
street opening will further divert traffic away from the residen-
tial street.
The Circulation Element contains additional policies to discour-
age on-street parking, promote ride sharing, encourage staggered
- 6 -
.
.
AQMP applies only to employers, the Cityrs Transportation Manage-
ment Plan is expected to contain measures that will require
average vehicle ridership goal attainment for college students as
well. The full implementation of the College and city transpor-
tation plans should provide a reduction in the number of student
and staff vehicle trips and demand for parking.
Noise Element
The project will comply with the "Basic Out.door Planning stan-
dard" provided in the Noise Element as outlined under the FEIR
Discussion below.
Public Safety and Seismic Safety Elements
The project design, building materials and location of emergency
exits and roads will meet or exceed the objectives of the Public
Safety and Seismic safety Elements.
Housing Element
The project will conform with the intent of the Housing Element
to provide nonresidential uses that contribute to the maintenance
and support of the City's existing housing stock. The proposed
structures will not result in the demolition or relocation of
housing. The FEIR has identified mitigation measures that will
protect the scale and character of the surrounding residential
neighborhood.
Open Space Element
The project will comply with the open Space Element by providing
adequate landscaping and setbacks from public street rights of
way and from adjacent residential land uses. The Lot Four Park-
ing Structure will provide a landscaped setback of 10 feet from
Pico Boulevard and a 15-35 feet setbacks from Sixteenth Street
and Seventeenth Street. The Lot Eight Parking Structure will
provide a landscaped setback of 124-141 feet from Sixteenth
Street and will maintain a 35 foot setback from the Business
Building and 5-~O feet from the college's athletic field. Land-
scaping conservation measures will also be complied with.
~DEQUACY OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
An FEIR that analyzes potential environmental impacts that may
occur from the parking structures development was prepared for
the city by Planning Consultants Research.
I
Circulation Analysis
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 park-
ing aisles and internal driveways, fire emergency roads leading
to both structures and street access points identified in the
FEtR. A traffic study was completed as part of the FEIR to
- 8 -
.
.
work hours, and maximize efficiency of traffic signals. These
policies include the fOllowing:
4.3.3 The city shall work cooperatively with Cal-Trans to imple-
ment 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 improvements is to im-
prove traffic movement or mitigate existing traffic prob-
lems. All such improvements shall be designed to protect
existing residential neighborhoods. Particular attention
should be paid to mitigating the potential problems of
traffic intrusions into residential neighborhoods espe-
cially 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.
4.3.8 Promote programs to increase ridesharing as measured by
average auto occupancy, from 1.2 individuals per vehicle
to 1.4, or better.
4.3.9 Minimize peak hour trips by encouraging staggered work
hours and land uses which do not generate peak hour trips.
4.3.10 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.
4.3.11 Consider measures to facilitate the north-south flow of
traffic on 26th, 20th, ~7th 14th and ~lth streets consis-
tent with safety and the needs of nearby residents.
In 1988, the College submitted a Transportation Demand Management
Plan to the Air Quall ty Management District (AQMD) as required
under Regulation XV of the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP).
Under Regulation XV, an employer with 100+ employees must adopt a
transportation plan that contains measures for attaining an
average vehicle ridership of 1.50. Non-compliance findings and
fines are applied if an employer that has been informed of the
regulation does not submit an adequate TOM plan or does not make
an effort to implement it. While the TOM plan has not been offi-
cially approved by AQMO, the college began voluntarily implement-
ing provisions of the proposed TOM plan. Some of these provi-
sions include ride sharing, staggered classroom and work hours,
priority parking, reduced parking fees and carpool incentives,
and enforcement of City of Santa Monica parking and traffic reg-
ulations. The proposed TOM contains additional provisions that
are discussed in the Circulation Element.
In the near future, the City of Santa Monica intends to implement
a Transportation Management Plan that will contain provisions
similar to the college's TOM. Both transportation plans require
compliance with Regulation XV of the South Coast Air Quality Man-
agement District's Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). Since the
- 7 -
.
.
determine the impact the project will have on future levels of
service and traffic volumes. Existing traffic levels were sur-
veyed for fifteen (15) intersections in the project vicinity
Monday-Wednesday, August 15-17 1988. The FEIR concluded that
prior to ~itigation, the project development would result in re-
duced levels of service at two of the fifteen intersections
analyzed.
Under the existing and cumulative scenarios, the level of service
at Cloverfield and the I-10 Freeway, will be reduced from LOS D
to LOS F and the level of service at pi co 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/e) ratio for a reduced
intersection increases by 0.02 or greater along with an E or F
LOS rating. A determination of nonsignificant impact was made
for the intersection of Cloverfield and the 1-10 since the
addi tion of proj ect 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 "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-on1y lane on eastbound pi co 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 10% of students and 11% of staff reside in the
saIlle zip code within the city as the College, while 72% of of
staff and 75% of faculty reside outside of the City. The College
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 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 City 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
- 9 -
.
.
consultant, City Traffic Engineer and other area transportation
officials indicated that the installation of a traffic signal at
the intersection of 16th street and pi co 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. ~he installation of the signal at
pico/16th will facilitate vehicle 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.
Discussions with neighbors led to the determination that greater
traffic improvements relating to the parking structures would
result from installation of the above signal improvements,
instead of restriping for a double left turn pocket at
pico/Cloverfield. Further, the College, City Traffic Engineer
and surrounding residents have advocated Commission approval of
these alternative traffic mitigation measures. 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 impact on the parking
structures. The lane addition should be reviewed as part of the
City-wide Transportation study that is being conducted by the
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.
The availability of parking (1593 spaces) is exceeded by the peak
week demand (5017 spaces). To offset the lack of available on
si te parking, students and staff use street curbside parking
spaces. City Traffic Division records indicate 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 Sunset Park Residential Parking Zone was created in 1988 in
response to the traffic and parking impacts caused by the col-
lege's shortage of on site parking. In approving the preferen-
tial parking zone, the council made it clear that the restrictive
parking zone plan was not intended as a long term solution to the
college's parking problem. The preferential parking zone was
limited in area during a three year period or until such time
that the college was able to complete the construction of two new
parking structures containing a minimum of 1200 parking spaces
(See Contract No. 5100), whichever is sooner.
- 10 -
.
.
The College's Transportation Demand Management Plan which is
being implemented in response to Regulation XV, resident concerns
and the preferential parking zone, contains provisions for shut-
tle 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.
In the vicinity of the proposed parking structures, parking on
the west side of sixteenth street is restricted to resident park-
ing only. Parking on the east side is unrestricted metered
parking.
When completed, the project will add 1274 new parking spaces to
the existing 1593 college parking spaces (for a total of 2867)
spaces. Based on hourly campus attendance figures provided by
the College, the additional parking spaces will result in 395
morning peak hour (8: 30-9: 30 am) trips in and 25 vehicle out
trips. Evening peak hour (4:30-5:30 pm) trips will include 20
vehicle inbound trips and 305 vehicle outbound trips. Cumulative
totals indicate parking space occupancy will peak at the 11:00 am
hour (1220 spaces) and at the 7:00 pm hour (425 spaces). Spaces
would operate with an average daily turnover of about 1.6.
Following release of the FEIR, several residents expressed con-
cerns over the level of service reSUlting from the projected dai-
ly turnover rate. The residents felt that the 1.6 turnover rate
in parking spaces was understated in the EIR and that the addi-
tion of the project to existing and cumulative projects would
result in a level of service and volume/capacity ratio that would
measurably exceed the amount forecast in the FEIR. To illustrate
that the stated turnover rate or an increased turnover rate would
not create additional impacts and that the level of service and
volume/capacity at the 15 analyzed intersections would not sig-
nificantly change based upon a greater turnover rate, the en-
vironmental consultant ran a "Triple Project Traffic" (worst case
scenario) test analysis. (See Exhibit E).
The triple traffic analysis multiplied traffic conditions three
times over, for the 15 intersections. The Utriple traffic analy-
sis" indicated that with the exception of a change from a "c" to
a "D" 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 Noise Element of the General Plan identifies traffic related
noise as the major contributor to the cityts noise environment.
The parking structures proj ect will contribute to noise on the
- 11 -
.
.
surrounding street network as well as account for noise in the
parking structures. The 'I Basic outdoor Planning Standard" pro-
vided in the Noise Element is intended to protect health and pre-
vent annoyance and activity interference. The Basic outdoor
Planning Standard and the City's Noise Ordinance 1406 (CCS) set
the maximum permissible level of noise for residential areas at
60 Ldn (a 24-hour average sound level, expressed in decibels).
The Noise Ordinance also specifies that if the ambient (back-
ground existing) noise level exceeds the allowable exterior noise
level standard, the ambient level shall be the standard.
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). Three of the four
receptor site locations presently contain ambient noise levels
that exceed the established 60 Ldn standard. 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. During
the Morning peak hour (8:30-9:30 am) the noise levels at three of
the four site locations exceed Ldn and CNEL thresholds. 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.
The implementation of traffic noise mitigation measures that in-
clude the construction of second and third floor solid walls on
the west elevation of both structures, the manner of finishing
structure floors and the orientation of the structures ingress/
egress openings away from residential uses should reduce peak
hour noise levels to an acceptable range. These mitigation mea-
sures are incorporated into the Development Agreement.
One area of noise disturbance that has been raised by neighbor-
hood residents is car alarm noise. To address resident concern
with the level and degree of car alarm noise resulting from the
1538 parking spaces, the college should vigorously enforce vehi-
cle towing and penalty provisions for car alarm infractions--as
outlined in the college's proposed TOM. The City Police Depart-
ment has indicated that campus enforcement of a vehicle alarm
program is the exclusive responsibility of COllege Dis-
trictpolice. college compliance with and monitoring or vehicle
alarm procedures is required under the Development Agreement.
The College's procedure for responding to excessive vehicle alarm
noise and disturbance is to tow vehicles at the vehicle owners
expense. While this procedure has been criticized by surrounding
neighbors in the past, it is believed that when the procedure is
vigorously enforced by the College, the level of impact should
subside.
The provision of an extensive 124-141 foot landscaped setback on
Structure Eight, from Sixteenth street is required by the
- 12 -
.
.
Development Aqreement and should also provide siqnificant noise
dissipation near the street curbline.
Air Quality Analysis
The primary sources of air pollutants around the area of the 001-
leqe campus are the I-10 Freeway and major arterial streets. The
approval of the proposed project would result in increased sta-
tionary and mobile source emissions in the project vicinity.
stationary sources would primarily include on-site emissions cau-
sed by construction activities and would therefore be short-term
in duration. Lonq-term impaets associated with the permanent use
of the structures would primarily be in the form of vehicle car-
bon monoxide emissions. The FEIR assessed the impact of carbon
monoxide levels of the project on the existinq land uses. While
all locations within the project area are presently affected by
carbon monoxide concentrations, the report concluded that the
project development would not significantly increase pollutant
levels. The FEIR also concluded that both existing and cumula-
tive pollutant levels are below the federal and state one-hour
and eight-hour thresholds.
The report indicated that with the exception of two pollutant
types of ozone and total suspended particulates, all other pol-
lutant types including carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide, lead,
sulfur dioxide and sulfate did not exceed Federal and state stan-
dards during the 1986 measured period.
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 second and third floor solid building
walls along the west elevations of both structures will signifi-
cantly 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 and between second
and third floors. The fourth floor is above the level of adja-
cent residents and would not result in glare intrusions. The
first floor and subterranean floor are located below the grade of
adjacent residences and would not result in glare intrusions.
The use of non-glare low level lightin~ 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 im-
pacts to a non-significant level. The use of exterior wall
lighting near openings only or directed away from the residential
uses along Sixteenth street should also ensure that nighttime
lighting does not impact residents. 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. The Development Agreement incorporates the above
light and glare measures.
- 13 -
.
.
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 sl1l11mer 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 visual 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. As a result of the extensive landscaping setbacks
proposed for both structures along sixteenth street, the solar
access/gain of residences located on the west side of Sixteenth
will not be jeopardized.
While the construction of the parking structures may restrict
residential visibility of other college campus buildings located
to the east of the structures, existing three and four story col-
lege buildings now also restrict visibility of buildings located
further east of the college campus. The structures will there-
fore not result in a greater threshold reduction of visibility.
The building materials, architectural treatments and style will
be similar to the existing four story parking structure located
across from Sixteenth street. The structures height will be
similar to the height of the existing parking structure and Col-
lege Business Building. The Development Agreement requires Ar-
chitectural Review Board landscaping and building review and
approval.
Nei~hborhood Impacts
The Environmental Report concluded that the project would not
result in significant adverse neighborhood impacts.
A major objective of the Sunset Park Residential parking Zone was
to ensure continued effort on the part of the college to con-
struct at least 1200 new parking spaces to eliminate the use of
student and staff street curbside parking. While as indicated
above, the added parking spaces will increase the number of vehi-
cles concentrated within an area of the campus, the traffic,
light and glare, noise, air, land use and aesthetics mitigation
- 14 -
.
.
measures proposed by the FEIR and incorporated into the Develop-
ment Agreement, should substantially reduce adverse impacts for
the surrounding residential neighborhood. The levels of traffic
circulation and parking intrusions will be reduced by the loca-
tion of parking structures and intersection signal control
devices. Finally, prior to implementation of preferential park-
ing and the temporary shuttle system, the volumes of vehicles
which in the future will be utilizing the new parking structures
were traveling thorugh and parking in the residential
neighborhood.
Project Alternatives
The FEIR considered four project alternatives including no proj-
ect, expansion of the college shuttle program, decreasing college
enrollment and developing an alternate site. The no project al-
ternative scenario 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 residential
neighborhood would not be reduced. This alternative is viewed as
inferior to the proposed project.
The expansion of the college's shuttle program would result in
little change to air, noise, police services and neighborhood
impacts. The FEIR makes the assumption that the City would con-
tinue its financial funding of this program. The City funding of
this program already exceeds $300,000 a year. Since the city
previously declared (see Contract 5100) that it is not willing to
commit to long term funding of the shuttle service, this alterna-
tive is impractical and would eventually have the same impact as
the no project scenario and is therefore deemed inferior to the
proposed project.
The reduction in college campus attendance might require staff
layoffs and elimination of specialized curriculums. Since the
college's annual operating budget and maintenance costs are off-
set by student tui tion fees and costs, the reduction in campus
attendance could result in a substantial college debt increase.
It is likely that rather than comply with this alternative, the
college would relocate its facilities outside of the City or
otherwise not comply with the alternative. Since the College
District is not governed by the City, the City would not have the
ability to enforce this alternative. The potential loss of the
college's class curriculums, programs and activities in the City
should be viewed as unacceptable and inferior to the proposed
project.
The construction of the parking structures at an alternate on
site college site located further south on Sixteenth street near
Pearl would resul t in more severe impacts for the surrounding
residential neighborhood than the proposed structures. This al-
ternative is therefore inferior to the proposed project. The
FEIR also indicated that the use of a site not adjacent to the
college would very likely result in the same conditions/impacts
- 15 -
.
.
on a surrounding neighborhood and would also require the use of a
shuttle bus service.
Finally, it should be noted that some residents have recently
suggested that the College explore acquisition and operation of
an off site satellite shuttle bus service. The $300,000 City
cost of operating the shuttle service does not include the cost
of land acquisition, vehicle purchase or gasoline and vehicle
repair costs adjusted by consumer inflation. These added costs
would need to be absorbed by the College to start up the service.
The service would also require recruitment of qualified vehicle
operators. The College's present operating budget may not be
able to absorb the shuttle bus service. The long term operation
and maintenance of the shuttle bus service would exceed the cost
of constructing the two parking structures. The staff feels that
this alternative is not cost efficient. And once again, the City
would not have the ability to enforce the continued operation of
a shuttle service.
The staff believes the proposed project is the superior alterna-
ti ve. The Development Agreement will govern the construction,
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.
KEY PROVISIONS OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
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 proposed land use. The development standards have
been modified to Eore accurately reflect a nonresidential (col-
lege) 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
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
- 16 -
.
.
Education and as such does not normally require City approval of
it I S development proj ects. However, when the City began con-
sidering the establishment of the preferential parking zone
around the College campus, the city approached the College to
discuss the impact of removal of onstreet parking and to identify
the alternatives available to the College to address the loss of
available street parking. The City and College mutually agreed
that the creation of additional on campus parking was crucial to
the continued operation of the college and that the approval of
the parking structures under a development agreement would allow
the greatest assurances, commitments and direct benefits to the
surrounding community, College District and City government. The
obligations and conditions required as terms of the development
agreement will allow for successful achievement and monitoring of
the parking structures, transportation demand management provi-
sions and other physical measures.
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 guaranteed implementation
of specific mitigation and monitoring features outlined in the
text. The development standards are consistent with the General
Plan Public Land designation.
Floor Area/Intensity of Uses
Floor area under the Development Agreement conforms to the Zoning
Ordinance provisions. The Zoning ordinance floor area definition
excludes areas such as stairways/stairwells, exterior load bear-
ing walls, etc. Section 3A of the Development Agreement provides
for a floor area of 182,000 square feet in the Lot Four Parking
structure, and 238,000 square feet of floor area in the Lot Eight
Parking Structure. The total floor area of the project is re-
stricted to 420,000 square feet unless modified under Section 8
(see discussion below). contract Nnmher 5100 (CCS) which was
executed in anticipation of the development of the parking struc-
tures contained an exhibit referred to as the "College1s Descrip-
tion of Parking structures", that indicates a total of 825 spaces
will be created in the Lot Four Parking struoture and 700 spaces
will be created in the Lot Eight Parking structure. While the
"COlleges Description of Parking structures" was presented to the
College Board of Trustees as an advisory recommendation, the ex-
hibit was incorporated in the contract Number 5100 as a goal at-
tainment statement. The Development Agreement provides a total
of 694 parking spaces in the Lot Four Parking structure and a
total of 844 parking spaces in the Lot Eight Parking Structure.
The combined parking space total exceeds the 1200 parking spaces
specif ied in Section 4 (Construction of Parking Facil i ties) in
contract Number 5100 (CeS).
Maximum Height "and Number of Floors
- 17 -
.
.
Section 3A of the Development Agreement permits a four story/40
foot height limit for Parking Lot Structure Nu~ber Four and a 4
storY/38 foot height limit for Parking Lot Structure Number
Eight. A:3 ' 6" parapet screen located above the roof of both
structures is excluded froE the building height lneasurement. 'I'he
exclusion of the parapet screen is consistent with Zoning Code
and Development Agreement height provisions. Parking Lot struc-
ture Number Eight also contains a subterranean parking level that
conforms to the code standards governing subterranean parking
garages in the R2 District. The four storyj40 foot height limit
is similar to the other four story building heights located on
the college campus.
Structure Setbacks
The Development Agreement (Section 3A) specifies that the Lot
Eight parking structure shall provide a ~inimum 124 foot setback
from sixteenth Street. Building setbacks are not specified for
the Lot Four Parking Structure. Contract Number 5100 (CCS) (Sec-
tion 4,C) specifies that the structures shall be constructed in
"substantial accordance II with the College's Description of the
Parking Structures (emphasis added). The College's Description
of the Parking structures specified a 150 foot setback would be
1t\aintained.
The Commission should note that the floor design, angle and loca-
tion of the Lot Eight Parking structure in relation to the foun-
dation wall of the campus swimming pool (located east of the pro-
posed structure) and the intended alignment of the structure be-
side the existing parking structure effectively prevent the pro-
vision of a 150 foot setback. While the attachment of the Col-
lege's Description of the Parking structures was used as an ap-
pendix to the Contract, the Description is not a binding or
obligatory document. As indicated above, the Description is not
a stated requirement and should be viewed as a goal attainment
statement that should be reasonably observed where possible.
Landscaping/Open Space
The Development Agreement provides a landscaping standard that is
consistent with the Zoning Code. Section 3B requires the provi-
sion of landscaping that complies with the landscaping setbacks
and conservation requirements specified in the code. prior to
commencement of construction bidding, the applicant will be re-
quired to submit landscaping plans to the Architectural Review
Board for approval.
VehicUlar and Pedestrian Access and Circulation
The Lot Four Parking structure is permitted to utilize the exist-
ing 16th street exit for right turn only vehicle exiting and the
Lot Eight Parking structure will not contain entrances or exits
on sixteenth Street. Lot Four will also contain entrance and
exit driveway locations along Pico Boulevard and seventeenth
street (vacated). The Lot Eight parking structure will contain
- 18 -
.
.
exclusive entrance/exit locations on Seventeenth Street (va-
cated). Contract Number 5100 specified that no sixteenth Street
ingress/egress locations would be provided on the Lot Eight
structure. The traffic analysis and subsequent discussions with
neighborhood groups indicate that the restriction on driveway
locations will not adversely impact construction/use of the park-
ing structures.
Timinq of Construction
section 5 of the Development Agreement specifies that construc-
tion of the parking structures shall commence prior to October
17, 1989 and that construction shall be completed within eighteen
(18) months unless excusably delayed. The City retains the right
to terminate the agreement based upon the failure of the College
District to commence or complete construction within the
specified time period.
To ensure that the project is developed in a manner that is con-
sistent with City standards, the Development Agreement contains
physical mitigation measures and requirements that permit City
input and review of plans prior to OSA approval.
Project Mitigation Measures
The Development Agreement provides project mitigation measures
that are intended to physically mitigate potential environmental
and neighborhood impacts that may result from project development
and use. Section 6A of the Development Agreement requires the
following physical mitigation measures:
1. Pavement treatments shall be applied to each Parking
structure to mitigate noise effects as follows: Pavement
to be hand trowel finished with magnesium trowel. Finish
shall be in rotary pattern to obtain sweated swirl finish.
Finish shall be subject to architect's approval. Medium
broom finish at right angles to flow of traffic shall be
acceptable alternate.
2. Exterior lighting of each Parking structure shall be
shielded and directed away from surrounding residential
uses.
3. Openings on each level of the Parking structures shall be
designed to eliminate direct exterior penetration of head-
lights of vehicles within the structures. No opening
shall be allowed on the west wall'of either Parking struc-
ture on the second and third levels.
4. Materials used for the roofs and exterior facades of each
Parking structure shall be of a non-reflective nature.
5. District shall pay City one-fourth (1/4) of the cost of
acquisi tion and installation of traffic signal improve-
ments at the intersection of Pico Boulevard and 16th
street and for the left turn signal at the extension of
- 19 -
.
.
17th street at pico Boulevard as may be required by the
City if in Cityts sole discretion it determines such sig-
nal improvements are needed.
6. Signage at the Sixteenth street exit of Lot 4 shall indi-
cate right-turns only.
Section 6B of the Development Agreement provides for compliance
with air quality measures that include proper tuning of equipment
engines, watering of the site during excavation and removal of
mud and dirt from surrounding streets and sidewalks during
construction.
Section 6C of the Development Agreement specifies the College
District is required to submit a vehicle alarm plan for review
and approval to the City Manager prior to issuance of a Certifi-
cate of Occupancy. As stated under section 5 (Timing of Con-
struction), the office of State Architect is responsible for con-
ducting the plan check and issuing all construction and certifi-
cate of occupancy permits.
section 6C of the Development Agreement specifies the College
District shall comply with water conservation measures for land-
scaping around the perimeter of the structures.
Section 6E specifies that prior to commencement of construction
bidding, the College District shall submit a construction mitiga-
tion plan to the Director of General Services for approval that
indicates the location of construction staging areas, construc-
tion hours and noise mitigation measures.
Sections 6F and 6G of the Development Agreement provides for com-
pliance with Title 24 and handicap accessibility regulations.
Changes to The Project
The Development Agreement specifies that minor changes that will
not substantially change the scope or parameters of the project
may be approved by the Zoning Administrator. section 8 of the
Agreement outlines the procedures for requesting changes to
building setbacks, floor areas and relocation of driveway access
locations. Upon written approval of the Zoning Administrator,
the District may amend the floor area by an amount not greater
than 15,000 square feet for either structure, provided the proj-
ect total floor area shall not exceed 440,000 square feet, relo-
cate driveway access to the project by not more than 5 feet if
approved by General Services and relocate the exterior walls of
any building by a distance of not more than 4 feet; however, in
no case may the 16th street setback be reduced. Zoning Ad-
ministrator discretionary authority is provided for minor amend-
ments that do not result in substantial deviations from the
originally approved project.
Duration of Agreement
- 20 -
.
.
The Development Agreement prov~s~ons shall remain in effect for a
twenty-five (25) year period following agreement execution.
RECOMMENDATION
staff respectfully recommends that the Planning Commission for-
ward the following recommendations to the city council on the
proposed development agreement: 1) adopt a resolution, certifying
the adequacy of Environmental Impact Report and 2) approve the
development agreement between the City of Santa Monica and the
Santa Monica Community College District 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
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 1 imi t 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
- 21 -
.
.
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 ~aintenance 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
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 (LUCE 3.1.1).
The proj ect also conforms with LUCE Obj ecti ves 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.
8. 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 "C" for collector, feeder
and local streets and "0" 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.
- 22 -
.
.
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 Ele~ent 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.
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: Wanda Williams, Associate Planner
Attachments:
Exhibit A-
Exhibit B-
Exhibit C-
Exhibit 0-
Exhibit E-
Development Agreement
project Letters, written Comments
Contract No. 5100
Vicinity Maps
Triple Traffic Analysis
PC/DR492
WW:ww
04/24/89
- 23 -