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 -