SR-820907-8BP7?D : KLd:1V
Council Mtg: 9/7/82
TO: Mayor and City Council
Sa;ita Dlon~ca, Californio
s 7 rsaz
FROM: Gity Staff
SUBJECT: Development Agreement for 2701 Ocean Park Boulevard Project.
Introduction
This report discusses the ehvironsnental impact assessment infor-
mation and the development agreement prepared in connection with
the proposed three-story mixed use office and residential complex
at 2701 Ocean Park Boulevard in Santa Monica.
Documents
Enclosed-for the review:o~ the Gity Council is:
- a copy of the proposed development agreement;
-'a copy of the July 29, 1982 Negative Declaration on
the project; -
-a copy of the June 1982 "Environmental Impact. Assessment
on the project;
-a copy of the "Traffic Impact Study" on the project;
- a copy of a letter commenting upon parking and traffic
issues.
The staff report originally transmitted on May 18, 1982 to the
City Council contains all the pertainent facts concerning-this
project. except as set forth in this supplemental report.
Legal Background on Environmental Analysis
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQAj requires a finding
that there is no potential for significant environmental impacts
SEA v ~o>»
` Mayoc and City Council -2- September 7, 1982
r
as a result of a proposed project before a Negative Declaration
can be certified. If an:Ervironmental 3mpact-Report-(EIR.) is
not prepared, it is incumbent on the applicant to provide sufficient
information in the Environmental Impact Assessment and supporting...
documentation (which together constitute the Initial Study required
by CEQA) to assure that the-decision to adopt a Negative Declara-
Lion is well founded. The applicant has F~-wided this information
in the atcached-reports.
Negative Declaration
Section. 15033 of the Government Code defines a Negative Declara-
tion as followsc
"Negative declaration means a written 'statement by--the.
lead agency briefly describing the reasons that a proposed
project,: :although :,not."otherwise exEmpt,: will"not have a
- significant effect on the environment and therefore does-
not require the preparation of an.EIR."
As stated in the City's Negative Declaration on the project,. the
City staff has ..,determined-that the proposed project doea not
_ _.
have a significant effect cn the environment and that an Environ-
mental Impact"Report is not required."
Comment on the Environmental Analysis
During the July 29, 1982 through August 30, 1982 official comment
period,-only one_.eomment. was received relating to the
.environmental .assessment of the project. _This was. the August Zl, 1982
letter of Ron Newman (attached). In his letter, Mr. Newman outlines
concerns with potential parking problems associated with the develop-
meet. Mr. Newman states "Although the number of parking spaces
provided (378) appears to be sufficient, these spaces will not be
Mayor and City Council -3- September 7, X982
free. Users of this building will therefore have the choice of
paying to park in this building's garage, or parking for free on
adjacent residential streets. Many can be expected to choose the
latter alternative, aggravating an already critical parking problem
on 28th Street." Please note that since the preparation of the
_ _ _
environmental report, the number of parka: ,ram _., been
reduced to 375 to accomodate three oversized handicapped spaces.
the 'Traffic Im "
pact Study prepared on-the project by Mohle, Perry
and Associates provides extensive information regarding traffic,
parking and circulation issues. On page 18 of the Traffic study
it is stated:
'_`On-street parking in the area is presently heavily utilized,
but it should be noted that there will be adequate of€-street
parking provided with the proposed. development, There will
be 378 spaces provided off-street within two.subterranes:n
parking levels. -This amount of .parking results in mere thaa
three spaces per thousand square feet of development. Previous
studies have shown this ratio to be very adequate. This will
be especially true for this project,. considering the prcposed
traffic and emission abatement plan.
The net effect is that tY..ere will probably be no change .in
on-street parking as a result of the proposed development.
The metered parking in front of -the development should, however,
be removed and the street should be posted with "no parking."
This is because parking'in that area would result in a. sight
distance ,problem for._traffic exiting the driveways from t..he
site. Thus., for safety reasons, it is proposed that. the
metered pecking should be removed."'
Further, on page lfi the study notes that the developer has agreed to
t%arious measures to help. reduce traffic in the :.area.. These measures
may also reduce parking demand and include:..
1) Reduced parking rates for car-pools and van-pools.
2) -Free bus tokens,-purchased by Project Owner or its office
tenants. from the Santa Monica Municipal. BUS. Line,('S.M.. Lane'}
and provided to all employees of such office tenants who
live in the S.M. Lne°service area and who desire such
tokens ('Office: Bus. Commuters'), to enable the Office
Bus Commuters to travel between their residences and the
Project cn S.M. Line buses.
3} Readily available bicycle parking..areas.
4} Such other measures as Property Owner determinES will
reduce the traffic impact of the Project.
Mayor and City Council -4-
September 7, 1982
The developer's attorney, Richard Allen, has indicated that the
developer will provide free parking to the occupants of the residential
units. In addition, Mr. Allen stated that as a practical matter,
some kind of validated parking arrangement. for the customers of-the
retail tenants of the building is likely to be established. Givea
the number of parking spaces provided by the development,-the traffic
abatement measures noted in the "Traffic Impact'Study" and Mr. Allen`s
further comments, it appears that on-street parking problems will
not be significantly affected. In light of neighborhood concerns
about potential parking problems, however,. it is recommended that
the City Traffic Engineer monitor the situation. Mr. Allen has
indicated the developer is willing to work with the City regarding
possible establishment of a residential preferential parking
district in the neighborhood, should a need for same arise.
Other Comments on Environmental Analysis
The June 1982 "Environmental Impact Assessment" includes a "Fiscal.
Impact Report." This report was apparently prepared pursuant to
currently available data and procedures.- Acceptance of this analysis
shall. in no way prejudice the City's review of same or prevent the
City from developing new standards far fiscal impact analysis pur-
suant to a study underway by Hamilton, Rabinovitz and Szantonr Inc_
DeveloAment Agreement Background.
Since May 18, 1982- several minor changes were made in the development
agreement concerning tY:e-project. The primary changes concern
technical adjustments-and additions designed to alleviate potential
burdens.
Mayor and City Council
Agreement Changes
-5- September 7, 1982
1. The agreement initially presented to the City Council described
the project in terms of square footage. Normally projects processed
by the City are described in terms of adjusted floor space which
excludes the area-.for walls ..and stairways. Thus, the figures have
been translated into adjusted floor space with minor overall changes.
2. On pages 39 to 41; six additional public work projects are set
forth with the intent to alleviate potential burdens on the City.
3. A prevailing wage clause was-added on page 41.
Analysis of Agreement Changes
The changes made to the development agreement are technical changes.
The additions are designed to alleviate potential burdens on the
City of Santa Monica. The overall project remains basically the same.
Recommendation
The. Initial Study of the 2701 Ocean Park Boulevard project indicates
that there will be no significant impacts as a consequence of the
project. The endironmental impact analysis appears adequate. It
is recommended that the City Council approve the Negative Declara-
tion. It is further recommended. that the revised development
agreement be approved, consistent with the recommendations of the
May 18x.1982- staff report.
Prepared. bp: NF~rk-Tigan.
~Ce3iye3s Webster