Loading...
SR-410-014 (4) ,- , . t/ /{)-o/'1 .8-D JUN 2 0 198~ C/ED:PB:DKW:WW Council Mtg: June 20, 1989 Santa Monica, California It'o-otLf TO: Mayor and city council FROM: city staff SUBJECT: Recommendation to Adopt a Resolution Certifying Environmental Impact Report 888 and Introduce for First Reading an Ordinance Approving a Development Agreement Between the City of Santa Monica and the Santa Monica community College District to Permit the Construction of Two Four-story Parking structures, Containing 1538 Parking Spaces on the santa Monica Community College Campus. INTRODUCTION This report forwards to the city Council the Planning Commission's recommendation to approve the Development Agreement between the City of Santa Monica and the Santa Monica Community College District governing the construction of two four-story parking structures, 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 street to the east. Construction of the two parking structures will result in the elimination of 264 existing parking spaces, thereby yielding a net addition of 1274 parking spaces on the Santa Monica Community College Campus. The proposed parking structures represent mitigation for the COllege's existing parking deficiency. Development of the structures will allow the continuation of the Sunset Park preferential parking district around the college -1- ~~lP , , . . campus. The Development Agreement, EIR and staff analysis are discussed in more detail in the Planning commission staff report. PROJECT The proposed proj ect consists of 1) the removal of a surface parking lot to permit the construction of a four story, 40 foot high parking structure that will contain approximately 182,000 square feet of floor area and 690 parking spaces located immediately south of Pico Boulevard between Sixteenth Street and seventeenth street (vacated), referred to as the Lot Four Parking structure and, 2) the removal of a softball recreation field to permit the construction of a four story, 38 foot high, plus one subterranean level parking structure containing approximately 238,000 square feet of floor area and 844 parking spaces located 124 feet east of Sixteenth Street, south of the College Business Administration Building, referred to as the Lot Eight Parking structure. The Development Agreement provides the terms and conditions by which the two four-story parking structures containing 1538 gross parking spaces will be constructed on the santa Monica Community College Campus. BACKGROUND On May 17, 1989, the Planning Commission voted to recommend that the City Council certify Environmental Impact Report 888 and approve the Development Agreement governing the construction of the parking structures. The Commission action included the - 2 - . . stipulation that specific recommendations be forwarded to the Council. The Commission approved a separate motion recommending that the city Council direct staff to investigate a permanent site on the Airport Residual Land for the continued operation of the College parking lot and shuttle bus service. However, the City Attorney has advised staff that negotiation with the College of a permanent site for College parking on the Airport Residual Land would violate both Section 1.2 and section 1.3(e) (iv) of the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement ("ENA") between Reliance Development Group, Inc. and the City regarding development of the Airport Residual Land, Section 1.2 of the ENA precludes the City from negotiating with anyone other than Reliance during the term of the ENA for development of the land. Section 1.3(e){iv) of the ENA requires that the City deliver clear title to a ground lease interest in the land free and clear of other agreements and encumberances. Therefore, negotiation to commit the property for long term shuttle service or College parking does not appear to be a viable solution to the College's parking problem.In addition, it is not clear what the long-term environmental benefit of a shuttle operation would be, since the net effect of such an approach might be simply to shift impacts from one neighborhood to another, while at the same time necessitating substantial continuing operating costs. Therefore, staff recommends the City Council take no action on the separate recommendation. - 3 - . . ANALYSIS The Development Agreement outlined in the Planning commission staff report will provide the necessary framework to permit the construction of the 1200 new parking spaces specified under Contract No. 5100 (CCS) executed by the City Council on May 17, 1988, and allow physical mitigation measures that will improve traffic, circulation, noise and other impacts associated with use of the parking structures. The Development Agreement will not change the parameters of Contract No. 5100 (CCS) and will not result in unmitigated significant adverse traffic, noise, air and other impacts. The Commission. s recommendation to the city council on the EIR was predicated upon the following being incorporated as part of the Final EIR: 1. The Commission asked that the traffic count and noise mea- surement worksheets be included, to verify the accuracy of traffic and noise amounts presented in the text of the EIR. Most of the worksheet information was provided as an exhibit to the Commission staff report to verify information con- tained in the EIR. CEQA does not require EIR inclusion of traffic and noise measurement worksheets. In the past, this information has been included when the traffic level of ser- vice and noise measurement information significantly differed from EIR information presented for adjacent or vicinity proj- ect sites. The information has been incorporated as an EIR addendum item. 2. The commission asked that the new noise measurement work- sheets that were prepared to respond to a resident comment made regarding the Draft EIR be included. CEQA, Section 15088, indicates that the response to comments may take the form of a revision to the draft EIR or may be provided as a separate section in the final EIR. Where the response to comments makes important changes in the information contained in the text of the draft EIR, the Lead Agency should either 1) revise the text in the body of the EIR, or 2) include mar- ginal notes showing that the information is revised in the response to comments. since the new noise measurement in- formation was not required as part of the EIR and did not - 4 - . . result in an important change in the text of the document, the new information was not incorporated as a revision or included as a marginal note. In order to respond to the Com- mission's concern, the new information is shown as a marginal note in the Final EIR. 3. The Commission also asked that the COllege's Transportation Demand Management Plan that was approved by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) be provided. The ap- proved Transportation Demand Plan was not available to Plan- ning staff when the Commission staff Report was distributed. The Plan has been incorporated as an EIR addendum item. 4. The Commission also requested that a copy of the College's written procedural plan for responding to vehicle alarm noise be provided. Paragraph 6 (c) of the Development Agreement requires City approval of a vehicle alarm response plan prior to issuance of a certificate of Occupancy. The proposed pro- cedural plan has been incorporated as an EIR addendum item. The commission I s recommendation to the City Council to approve the Development Agreement included the recommendation that the following be incorporated into the Development Agreement: 1. The inclusion of all mitigation measures identified in the EIR. Some of the EIR recommendations were modified during negotiations between the city and the College District to address the format and substance of the the Development Agreement. The Agreement requires a range of mitigation mea- sures which will address all of the adverse effects iden- tified in the EIR. 2. The inclusion of a traffic mitigation measure that requires installation of a raised center median divider along Six- teenth street adjacent to the Lot Four Parking structure exit that will physically prevent left turn exiting along Six- teenth street. The Final EIR referred to the use of a raised median divider if directional signage at the exit failed to deter vehicle left turns onto sixteenth street. To address the Commission's concern, it is recommended that the council 3. The deletion of Paragraph 6{D) (2), that refers to use of low water use plumbing fixtures. since the parking structures will not contain restroom or other facilities that require plumbing fixtures, it is recommended that the Council delete the section from the approved Development Agreement. 4. The provision under Paragraph E of the Development Agreement to require college consultation with the neighborhood regard- ing queuing of construction vehicles during excavation and construction of the structures. To address the Commission's concern, it is recommended that the Council incorporate the following mitigation requirement under Paragraph - 5 - . . The Development Agreement and EIR revisions do not result in a sUbstantially modified project scope or final EIR. The project is consistent with the intent of the General Plan and will not result in adverse environmental impacts. Prior to and during the Planning commission's hearing, the City received COllllnents from neighbors and technical consultants to them regarding traffic and noise issues associated with the pro- posed parking structures. The city's EIR consultant (PCR) re- sponded to those comments in memoranda dated May 9 and May 15 I 1989, which are attached to this staff report under a cover memo- randum labled Exhibit D. The issues raised included the traffic counts used for the EIR, the traffic study area, potential neigh- borhood intrusion and noise possibly emanating from the struc- tures or created by added traffic. The consultant's memos and oral responses to the Commission responded point by point to these comments. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT The recommendation presented in this report does not have any budget or fiscal impact. RECOMMENDATION It is respectfully recommended that the council 1) Adopt the attached resolution certifying the adequacy of the Environmental Impact Report; - 6 - . . 2) Introduce for first reading an ordinance approving the Development Agreement between the city of Santa Monica and the Santa Monica Community College District subject to the deletion of Paragraph 6 (D) (2) and the addition of Paragraphs 6 (A) (7) , 6(E) (2) as follows: A) add the following language under Paragraph 6(A) (7): The District shall reimburse the City for the cost of in- stalling a raised center median divider along sixteenth Street adjacent to the Lot Four Parking structure exit that will physically prevent left turn exiting onto sixteenth street. B) add the following language under Paragraph G(E) (2): District shall prepare a construction vehicle circulation and daily use plan that specifies the proposed construction routes, hours and dates and indicates the manner by which the college will reasonably seek to minimize noise, vehicle and related impacts caused by construction activities. said plan shall identify one or more designated individuals who will be responsible for coordinating and monitoring the construction vehicle circulation use plan and who will also be available during normal office hours to respond to neighborhood resi- dent complaints regarding construction vehicles. District shall mail a copy of said plan to all current property owners and tenants residing within a 100 foot radius of the college campus boundaries. A copy of the construction vehicle plan shall also be published at least once in a local daily newspaper. 3) Authorize the city Manager to sign the final Development Agreement on behalf of the City based upon the following findings: FINDINGS MUNICIPAL CODE 1. The proposed development Agreement is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the General Plan. The project is consistent with the City's adopted General Plan; no specific plans are applicable to the project area. - 7 - . . 2. That the proposed parking structures project is compatible with the uses authorized in the R2 District and will not result in a detrimental change in the character, scale or style of surrounding development. The 4 story /40 foot height limit is similar to the height of other college campus buildings. The landscaping setbacks and building envelope should ensure that solar access/gain of surround- ing residences is not reduced. 3. That the proposed parking structures project is in confor- mity with the public necessity, public convenience, general welfare, and good land use practices, in that the General Plan encourages the provision of adequate parking to meet the demand of a particUlar land use. The parking structures will ensure that parking and circulation con- flicts are reduced in the surrounding residential neigh- borhood, will not increase noise, light and glare or air pollutants to an acceptable level and will contain a building design that is similar to other college parking facilities. 4. That the proposed parking structures project will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the surrounding neighborhood in that the development agreement contains specific physical mitigation measures and standards that should mitigate any potential health, safety or general welfare impacts. 5. That the proposed parking structures project will not ad- versely affect the orderly development of the property in that the property presently contains college facilities. The proposed parking structures are intended to support existing college uses and will not be used to increase student enrollment. The location of the parking struc- tures and driveway openings will reduce the amount of traffic and circulation in the surrounding residential neighborhood. 6. That the proposed parking structures project will have a positive fiscal impact on the City, in that the city paid operation and maintenance costs associated with the shut- tle bus service will no longer be required. while the preferential parking zone will remain in effect, the spe- cial police and public services associated with enforcing the plan around the college should be reduced, since ille- gal college student and employee parking in the zone will be reduced by the addition of campus parking. GENERAL PLAN FINDINGS 7. That the proposed parking structures project complies with the Land Use Element Public Lands District Objectives 1.11 and 1.12. in that the proj ect will provide an efficient reuse of public lands and will provide an appropriate landscaping transition and building design (LUCE 1.1, 1.2) - 8 - . . 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 Pol icy 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 "D" for arterials. 9. That the proposed development agreement conforms with the goals and intent of the Housing Element in that the proj- ect will not result in the loss or relocation of residen- tial dwelling units. The Housing Element encourages the location of housing in close proximity to public lands and open space uses. 10. That the proposed development agreement conforms with the goals and intent of the Open Space Element in that the college I s open space area will not be substantially re- duced. The open space landscaping provided around both buildings will provide an attractive park like setting near the corner of Sixteenth and pico. 11. That the proposed development agreement conforms with the goals and intent of the Noise Element in that the instal- lation of sound absorbency materials, solid building walls, and other building treatments will ensure that ad- verse noise levels are mitigated to an acceptable range. The approval/implementation of a vehicle alarm plan will ensure that sensitive residents are not unreasonably dis- turbed by vehicle alarms. 12 . That the proposed development agreement conforms to the goals and intent of the Seismic Safety Element in that the structures will not be constructed across an active fault line and will contain adequate emergency exits and roads to transport individuals in the event of an earthquake. - 9 - jj . . 13. That the proposed development agreement conforms to the goals and intent of the Public Safety Element in that the structures will comply with Uniform Building and Safety and Fire Code requirements, and will not result in dan- gerous or hazardous parking conditions. ; 14. That the proposed development agreement conforms to the goals and intent of the Conservation Element in that water conservation techniques will be applied throughout the project area. Exterior and interior energy efficient building lighting will also be installed. Prepared by: Paul Berlant, Director of Planning D. Kenyon Webster, Principal Planner Wanda Williams, Associate Planner Attachments: Exhibi t A- Planning Commission staff Report Including Proposed Development Agreement Exhibit B- Proposed Resolution certifying EIR 888 Exhibit c- Ordinance Approving Development Agreement Exhibit D- May 16, 1988 Memo to Planning Commission PB: DKW:WW PC/ccdr492 06/15/89 - 10 -