ITEM 8-B
Council Mtg: September 19, 2000
TO: Mayor
and City Council
FROM: City
Staff
SUBJECT: Ordinance for Introduction and First
Reading Approving Amendment Number Two and Restatement of the Development
Agreement Between the City of Santa Monica and Santa Monica Community College;
a Resolution Certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report 98-EIR004, a
Resolution Approving Adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations and
Adoption of Mitigation Monitoring Plan. Applicant : Santa Monica Community
College
INTRODUCTION
Proposed
is a Development Agreement Amendment to permit the construction of Parking
Structure B Replacement, which replaces
the parking structure required to be demolished as a result of 1994 Northridge
Earthquake damage. In order to approve the Development Agreement Amendment and
related CEQA analysis, the following City Council actions are required:
1.
Approve the resolution Certifying the Final Environmental
Impact Report evaluating the environmental
impacts of the project proposed in the Development Agreement Amendment
between the City and Santa Monica College Authorizing the Development of
Parking Structure B Replacement.
2.
Approve the Resolution making the CEQA Findings
necessary to approve the Amendment to the Development Agreement concerning
Parking Structure B Replacement, and adopting a Statement of Overriding
Considerations and Mitigation Monitoring Plan.
3.
Introduce for First Reading an ordinance
adopting the proposed Second Amendment to and Restatement of the Development
Agreement between the City and Santa Monica College.
BACKGROUND
The Northridge
Earthquake destroyed Parking Structure B, a 374 space parking structure located
along 16th Street south of Pico Boulevard, and rendered unusable
other structures on the campus.
Following the earthquake, the College initiated a master planning
process to guide the physical reconfiguration of the main campus to best meet
the College’s educational mission. The process culminated in action by the
Santa Monica College Board of Trustees to support the inclusion of a new
Municipal Pool Facility on the College campus. The master planning effort
identified several potential sites for the pool that would meet the College
goal to create a unified and efficient campus layout and also meet the City’s
desire for an expanded aquatics facility that is physically accessible to the
public. It was determined that the relocation of the pool to the 16th
Street site was beneficial to the College and the public, allowing for both a
better pool facility and for a new parking structure to be built on the
interior of the campus, away from the adjacent residential neighborhood that
had been negatively impacted by Parking Structure B before it was demolished.
Since a 1989
Development Agreement between the City and the College governed the 16th
Street site, a Development Agreement amendment was required for the new
Municipal Pool Facility. The City Council approved the First Amendment to the
Development Agreement and certified the EIR for the Municipal Pool Facility in
December 1998 with the understanding that the Development Agreement would have
to be subsequently amended to authorize a replacement parking structure, and to
set in place the standards and conditions for the new structure.
This
second amendment to the Development Agreement establishes the parameters, project description, standards and
conditions, and impact mitigations for the replacement of the parking structure
that was demolished due to the 1994 Northridge Earthquake. This project implements Land Use Element
Objective 1.1, which requires development to improve the quality of life for
all residents by providing a balance of
land uses consistent with protecting the quality of life in all residential
neighborhoods. By replacing the demolished structure with the proposed project,
the Santa Monica College campus will be reconfigured to improve land use and
traffic circulation, improve existing parking conditions and replace the
parking spaces that were lost in the earthquake, and relocate the garage to an
interior site thereby protecting the surrounding residential neighborhoods from
the impacts of being located next to a parking garage, as well as protecting
the neighborhoods from the current college parking spillover which is due to
the shortage of spaces since Parking Structure B was demolished.
Project Description
Proposed
is Amendment Number Two and Restatement of the Development Agreement between
the City of Santa Monica and the Santa Monica Community College District to
allow the construction of a 486 space, 30 foot high, five level parking garage.
The project replaces the former Parking
Structure B, which had 394 parking spaces, and which was demolished due to
damage from the 1994 Northridge Earthquake. The project consists of the removal
of the existing Santa Monica municipal pool and construction on that site of a
five level parking garage of approximately 131,600 square feet. The proposed
project will be located directly adjacent to the eastern end of existing
Parking Structure C, between the Technology building to the north and the
Physical Education building to the south. Attachment A identifies Structures A,
B, C, and the sites for the existing municipal pool and the new Municipal Pool
Facility.
In addition to the structure itself, the project will
include a new driveway access to and from the Pico Boulevard entrance at 17th
Street and a small surface parking lot which includes 19 of the 486
spaces. This surface parking lot will
be accessible only from the proposed parking structure. The existing Pico
Boulevard entrance will be widened to accommodate vehicular access to the new
structure, and will be reconfigured to improve internal campus access to
Parking Structure A and to provide access to the new Municipal Pool Facility.
The project will be connected to the existing Parking Structure C at each
floor. The proposed Development
Agreement , which restates the existing
Development Agreement with minor changes and authorizes the Parking
Structure B Replacement, is included in Attachment B.
More specifically, the proposed Development Agreement
vests the development entitlements for the Parking Structure B Replacement on
the specific site, which is the location of the existing municipal pool. A new
Municipal Pool Facility is under construction on the site of the demolished
Parking Structure B. The Amendment incorporates mitigation measures identified in the EIR, except where
infeasible, locates pedestrian and vehicular access, and requires specific
conditions for the development based on
the schematic design drawings, including landscaping, Department of
Environmental and Public Works Management requirements, and Architectural Review
Board requirements.
Proposed is a five-level parking structure
designed to be compatible with existing Parking Structure C. The project will
be no more than 30 feet above average natural grade, not including the 42 inch
high parapet and the approximately 22 foot high light standards at the roof
parking level. The project will include an elevator tower projecting 14 feet
above the roof level. The project will provide five parking levels, including
one subterranean level, one at grade level incorporating an adjacent surface
lot accessible only from the structure, and three above-grade levels, one of
which is rooftop parking. The project plans are included in Attachment K. The
project will be designed to be visually consistent existing Parking Structure
C. The exterior of the proposed Parking
Structure B Replacement building will be primarily exposed concrete, accented
with silver metallic painted louvers facing the interior of the campus and
galvanized sheet metal cladding on the exterior of the exit stairs. Red brick
is proposed for the retaining walls and drive surface in the below grade entry
plaza. This brick coordinates with the
sidewalk pavers recently installed along Pico Boulevard as part of the
streetscape improvement project. The preliminary landscape plan includes
landscaping at the perimeter of the surface parking lot immediately adjacent to
the structure on the east, and landscaping along the perimeter of the new
driveway. Project Plans are included in Attachment K.
Use
The Parking Structure B Replacement will be operated by the College between the hours of 6 AM and 11 PM; the same hours as the existing campus structures. Users will include college students, faculty, staff, pool users and visitors to the college.
Access
and Circulation
The project will significantly improve the overall vehicular access plan for the campus. The project includes the reconfiguration and widening of the Pico entrance to allow for direct access to the new structure as well as to allow access to Parking Structure A, and the Municipal Pool Facility. Because the new structure will be connected to the existing Parking Structure C, vehicles will be able to enter the new structure, continue through to the existing Structure C if necessary, and exit Structure C at the western end and continue to Structure A as a final parking option. Alternately, vehicles bound for the Business Building or the Municipal Pool Facility may turn right just after entering the campus at Pico and park in Parking Structure A, continue past the pedestrian drop off to the pool and park in Structure C, or if necessary, continue through Structure C to the new structure. These circulation improvements will make it possible for vehicles to look for parking on campus without having to return to city streets.
Pedestrian
Access
Since the new accessway to the Parking Structure B will
traverse a main pedestrian corridor, pedestrian access must be provided across
the new driveway. The project design includes a broad pedestrian bridge that crosses
over the depressed accessway between the Business Building and the Technology
Building. The project also includes an
improved crosswalk from Parking
Structure A, crossing the driveway leading west to the new Municipal Pool
Facility, guiding pedestrians toward the new pedestrian bridge.
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
A
Development Agreement is a contract between the City and a developer, which
authorizes the type and amount of development within a specific period of time.
Typically, in Santa Monica, Development Agreements have provided landowners
with guaranteed development rights in exchange for public benefits. A Development Agreement must comply with the
General Plan and Specific Plans but can supersede zoning regulations by
establishing its own specific set of development standards.
For the purposes of consistency and implementation, the Development Agreement has been revised to include the original Agreement authorizing construction of Structures A and C, the First Amendment governing the new Municipal Pool Facility and the Second Amendment governing the proposed Parking Structure B Replacement. Additional technical changes have also been made to ensure that the document is consistent with the City’s current standards and conditions for Development Agreements.
The Development Agreement is divided into 33 Paragraphs, each describing or authorizing specific elements of the project, and 11 exhibits. The significant elements are discussed in detail in this report. The following summarizes the content of each paragraph, highlighting the amendments and additions which pertain to Parking Structure B Replacement.
Paragraph 1 Description of the Property Lists the defining terms used in the document.
Paragraph 2 Description of the Property Provides the location of all the projects governed by the Development Agreement, adding the location of the Parking Structure B Replacement.
Paragraph 3 Description of the Project Describes the principal components of each of the projects governed by the Development Agreement including height, floor area, number of stories, vehicular and pedestrian access and circulation, and landscaping. This amendment and restatement adds a description of the major components of the Parking Structure B Replacement including the terms of demolition for the existing municipal pool.
Paragraph 4 Approved Uses Describes the approved uses for the projects governed by the Development Agreement, which are parking for the parking structures and aquatic related uses for the Municipal Pool facility.
Paragraph 5 Timing of Construction Establishes the required timing for commencement of construction after adoption of the Development Agreement, and the required time to complete construction. The Parking Structure B Replacement project must begin construction no more than twelve months after the approval of the document, and the structure and the 17th Street entrance must be completed no more than eighteen months after the commencement of construction.
Paragraph 6 Project Mitigation Measures Lists the adopted mitigations for Parking Structures A and C and references the Exhibits that contain the project mitigation measures for the Municipal Pool Facility and the proposed Parking Structure B Replacement.
Paragraph 7 Environmental and Public Lists the specific requirements for each project
Works Department governed by the Development Agreement.
Requirements Specific requirements which pertain to the Parking Structure B Replacement include approval and evaluation of the civil plans for both on-site and off-site improvements to the College entrance at Pico Boulevard.
Paragraph 8 Changes to Parking Pertains only to the original parking structure
Structure A and Parking A and C.
Structure C not
Requiring
Amendment of
Development Agreement
Paragraph 9 Effect of Agreement on Governs the use and development of the
Land Use Regulations Parking Structure B Replacement.
Paragraph 10 Certificate of Occupancy Explains that the College is responsible for obtaining a certificate of occupancy for the Parking Structure B Replacement from the Office of the State Architect.
Paragraph 11 Enforcement: Periodic Describes the process for monitoring the
Review of Compliance compliance of the Development Agreement.
with Agreement
Paragraph 12 Default and Remedies Describes the process for determining and acting on default of the Agreement and the means to remedy default.
Paragraph 13 Notice of Termination Explains that termination of the Agreement must be officially recorded.
Paragraph 15 Duration of Agreement Describes the length of the term of the Agreement. The current length of term is 25 years from the execution of the original Development agreement in 1989.
Paragraphs These paragraphs address legal requirements
16-32 including notices, indemnification, attorney’s fees, and severability.
Exhibit A: Legal description
Exhibit B: Project Location, Landscaping and Architectural Review Board requirements.
Exhibit C: Environmental and Public Works Management requirements.
Exhibit D: Santa Monica Municipal Pool Facility, Access and Circulation Description, Access Diagram, Site Plan and Building Elevations.
Exhibit E: Municipal Pool Mitigation Measures.
Exhibit F: Municipal Pool Standard Conditions.
Exhibit G: Parking Structure B Replacement Access and Circulation Description, Access Diagram, Site Plan, Building Elevations and Floor Plans.
Exhibit H: Parking Structure B Replacement Project Mitigations.
Exhibit I: Parking Structure B Replacement Standard Conditions.
Exhibit J: Definition of Average Natural Grade.
PLANNING
COMMISSION ACTION
On
July 19, 2000 the Planning Commission unanimously voted to recommend that the
City Council certify the Final Environmental Impact Report. However, the Commission did
not recommend approval of the Development Agreement, but chose to identify
issues to be addressed before the City Council considers approving the
Development Agreement Amendment. A copy of the Planning Commission staff report
is included as Attachment C.
In
general, the Planning Commission commented on the lack of information on the Santa Monica College
Masterplan which sets the context for the project. The Commission wanted more information about other parking
alternatives that the College considered. They heard public testimony from the
neighbors on 17th Street who expressed concern about this street
becoming a short cut to the College.
Additionally, they heard public testimony requesting that the timing of
the existing pool closing be delayed until the new pool was open so that
City-sponsored swimming programs would not be interrupted.
The
following lists the specific Planning Commission recommendations together with
staff’s response:
1. Coordinate
construction schedule of the Parking
Structure B Replacement with the opening of the new Municipal Pool
facility to ensure an operational municipal pool during the construction
process.
Santa Monica
College has stated that, due to their funding schedule with the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the costs of delaying the construction
schedule beyond the current November date would be prohibitive. Moreover,
November is the optimal time to begin demolition, as it allows the existing
pool to remain open throughout the summer and early fall months when it is in
high public demand. The new Municipal Pool facility is not scheduled to be
completed until spring of 2001, potentially creating a period of four to five
months when there will be no municipal pool programs. The Community and
Cultural Services Department has approached Santa Monica Malibu Municipal
School District to discuss transferring
programs to the Santa Monica High School swimming pool while the new
facility is under construction.
2. Prohibit north
and south through movements at 17th Street and Pico Boulevard. The only way to enter and exit the structure
would be from Pico Boulevard, rather than directly from 17th Street.
This proposal
had not been studied as part of the environmental review process. Consequently,
the City’s EIR traffic consultant recently reviewed this recommendation to
determine if there would be any additional traffic impacts if vehicles exiting
the College were prohibited from using 17th Street. The analysis
determined that this proposal would result in new significant neighborhood
traffic impacts on 16th and on 20th Streets which could
not be feasibly mitigated. As implementation of this recommendation would cause
significant impacts by rerouting the 17th Street traffic to other
residential streets, staff recommends that the Council approve the project
without incorporating this Planning Commission recommendation. If Council
supports this recommendation, EIR re-circulation would be required. CEQA
requires an EIR to be re-circulated if a new significant impact would result
from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented.
3. Create a
separation between pedestrians and vehicles at the east end of Parking
Structure A on Pico Blvd.
In response to
the Planning Commission’s concern about the interface between pedestrians and
vehicles at the crosswalk on the eastern end of Parking Structure A, the
College has redesigned this crosswalk and the configuration of the right turn
lane. The crosswalk has been moved away from the entrance driveway and is now located
across from the exit on the southern edge of the southeast corner of Structure
A, so that the direct line of pedestrian travel will cross the driveway toward
the new pedestrian bridge. To address possible safety concerns, the College
will locate a “Yield to Pedestrians” sign at the corner, and the roadway has
been designed with a wider sidewalk at the north side of the Business Building
to reduce the width of the roadway where pedestrians cross. The crosswalk is
now located a significant distance from the Pico entry. Staff believes that
this has addressed any earlier concern that cars stopping for pedestrians will
create a stacking problem that could impact traffic on Pico Boulevard.
Attachment D shows the redesign of the entrance and relocation of the sidewalk.
The EIR consultant states that these modifications will not create any new
significant environmental impacts or increase the severity of any identified
environmental impacts.
4. Do not
implement the proposed mitigation of a left turn pocket at Ocean Park and 23rd
Street.
The EIR
identifies a one second delay at the intersection of 23rd Street and
Ocean Park Boulevard, which is considered a significant impact by the City’s
criteria. The EIR proposes a mitigation
to add a left turn pocket on 23rd
Street which would increase the speed of traffic through the intersection and
thereby reduce the impact to a level of insignificance. Staff supports the
Planning Commission’s determination that the mitigation at 23rd Street
and Ocean Park Boulevard is infeasible due to the impacts of increased vehicle
speed on 23rd Street which would be caused by creating a left turn
pocket. 23rd Street is a
residential street, and has been subject to the City’s implementation of
traffic calming measures to reduce the speed of traffic. The proposed
mitigation measure would be contrary to the established City practice on this
street. To implement a mitigation measure which increases traffic speed and
flow on this street would be detrimental to the neighborhood and would create a
greater impact than the impact of the delay at the intersection if the
mitigation were not implemented.
5. Require two
entry lanes and one exit lane at the 17th Street driveway.
The project is
currently designed with one entry lane at the 17th Street
driveway. The project as presented to
the Planning Commission was designed with a two lane entry, to be compatible
with a proposed mitigation measure contained in the EIR consisting of a dual
left turn lane off of Pico Boulevard.
As detailed on page 16 of this staff report, staff has determined that
the duel left turn mitigation measure is not feasible. The Planning commission
agreed. The College informed the
Commission that it preferred a one lane entry design if the two lane left turn
mitigation measure was not required due to its infeasibility.
The Planning
Commission did not support the College’s proposal. The Commission expressed concern about cars entering at the Pico
Boulevard entrance and backing up onto the street, adversely impacting Pico’s traffic
flow. The Commission recommended
maintaining the two lane entrance to allow more cars to enter the campus more
quickly.
Staff believes
that requiring the College to provide a two lane entrance would not effectively
address the Commission’s concern that cars would back up onto Pico
Boulevard. Indeed, staff believes that
a two lane entrance would contribute to this problem since drivers would to slow down due to confusion about which
lane to select.
In an effort
to resolve the Commission’s concern, the College has redesigned the entry to
allow for a 20-foot wide one lane entry, which eliminates the potential for
slowed traffic caused by drivers making a decision between two lanes. This
design also allows enough room that two cars may pull abreast of each
other inside the College campus, and
will not need to stop on Pico Boulevard while waiting for cars to enter the
campus. Since the crosswalk has been moved to a location further inside the
campus to address the Commission’s concern about the interface of vehicles with
pedestrians, (see #3 above) the on-site area provided for vehicles stacking has
also been increased. Staff and the College believe that the Planning
Commission’s concerns about pedestrian interface and potential stacking have
been addressed by improving the entry design with the crosswalk relocation and
the driveway redesign to one 20-foot wide single lane. This design also allows
the coral tree which was identified for relocation to remain at the College
entrance. Exhibit D shows the described
design changes. This revised site plan has been incorporated into the
Development Agreement Amendment.
The City’s EIR
consultant states that this redesign of the entry will not create new
significant environmental impacts or increase the severity of any identified
environmental impacts.
6. Require
installation of a dedicated left turn arrow on westbound Pico at 17th Street.
The protective
left turn arrow at 17th Street for westbound Pico traffic which the
Planning Commission recommended was included in the original EIR mitigation
measures, but inadvertently left out of the final Development Agreement and EIR
Documents. Staff has added it into the
mitigations for the Development Agreement Amendment.
7. Provide more
historical context and evidence that the College has considered alternatives
other than this parking structure to address the parking needs for the campus,
such as off-site parking, payment options, and alternatives to automobile use,
and provide some context for the project in terms of the Santa Monica College
Masterplan.
Attachment E
includes historical information from Santa Monica College that describes the
Master Plan and the alternatives considered in the context for siting the
Parking Structure B Replacement.
CEQA
ANALYSIS
An
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for this project. Copies of the draft EIR were distributed to
the City Council and notices of availability were sent to Planning Commission
members at the beginning of the 45-day public review period, which closed on
December 27, 1999. A total of five
comment letters were received prior to the close of the comment period. These comment letters, as well as the
response to comments, are included in the final EIR. One comment letter from Santa Monica College was submitted after
the close of the comment period. This letter addresses the College’s concerns
regarding mitigations requiring re-striping at the 23rd Street and
Ocean Park Boulevard intersection, and requiring the replacement of public
parking meters on campus.
In addition, the City held
a neighborhood meeting regarding the proposed project on December 8, 1999. Five members of the public were
present. The verbal comments received
at the meeting have been addressed in the Response to Comments section of the
EIR. The central public concern was that the parking garage would become a
potential incentive for people to drive cars instead of using the more
environmentally sound practice of alternative transportation. The response to
comments section of the EIR outlines the alternative transportation incentive
program used by the College.
No significant impacts were
identified in the areas of Geology and Soils, Air Quality, Noise, Aesthetics
and Shadows, or Land Use and Neighborhood Effects. As discussed below, the only
significant impacts that could not be mitigated were in the areas of
Transportation and Traffic. In addition, the EIR recommends mitigation for
three traffic operation impacts that the Planning Commission and staff do not
believe can be feasibly implemented. These infeasible mitigations are discussed
below.
Traffic
Impacts
The
EIR determined that, based upon the projected traffic volumes, the 17th
Street/Santa Monica College Driveway/Pico Boulevard intersection would have
inadequate storage capacity for westbound left turns from Pico Boulevard into
the Santa Monica College Campus. The
EIR further determined that this potentially significant traffic impact could
be mitigated by doubling and extending the westbound left turn pocket on Pico
Boulevard. However, this additional left turn lane would require the removal of
13 metered parking spaces on the south side of Pico Boulevard, east of the
College driveway entrance. The
permanent loss of 13 metered parking spaces would itself create a significant
impact given the high demand for parking in the area for businesses, residents,
and College users. Parking is a premium
use and the loss of any parking that is available to the general public
significantly impacts the community.
Indeed, the removal of 13 public parking spaces would have greater
impacts than the reduction in the level of service if the second left turn lane
were not installed. While the EIR further recommended that the public metered
spaces be replaced on the College Campus along the internal access road between
Structure A and the Business Building, staff believes that given their
location, public metered spaces on private property would result in these
spaces only being used by College users rather than the general public. As
such, the identified impact would not be mitigated even if the spaces could be
relocated. Since the dual left turn
lane mitigation measure results in the permanent loss of 13 public spaces, the
impact of which cannot be mitigated, staff believes the dual left turn lane is
infeasible. Therefore, the Planning
Commission and staff do not recommend that this mitigation be adopted, and
instead the Council adopt a Statement of Overriding Consideration.
Intersection of 20th and Pearl
Streets
The additional
traffic at the intersection of Pearl and 20th Street due to the
project would be limited to 5-10 trips per day during peak hours. While this was
determined to have a significant traffic impact, the implementation of the
mitigation measure of a traffic signal at this intersection would produce
longer queuing in the residential neighborhood, resulting in vehicles avoiding
the intersection and dispersing throughout the neighborhood. This would have a
greater environmental impact than the benefit of a traffic signal since the
queuing impacts could not themselves be mitigated. The proposed mitigation would create an ongoing impact that would be
more detrimental to the neighborhood than the delay at the intersection if the
mitigation is not implemented, and is therefore determined to be an infeasible
mitigation. Therefore, the use of a traffic
signal as a mitigation measure is infeasible.
Staff and the Planning Commission recommend that this mitigation measure
not be adopted, thus requiring a Statement of Overriding Considerations.
Intersection of 23rd Street and Ocean
Park Boulevard
The
EIR recommends re-striping of 23rd Street to create a short,
dedicated left turn pocket on the southbound approach, providing left turn
vehicles a place to wait, to reduce the one second project related delay at
this intersection which is caused by the project. As previously discussed on
page 13 the Planning Commission determined
that this mitigation is infeasible because it would increase the speed
of traffic and therefore the amount of traffic on 23rd Street.
According
to the City’s criteria for evaluating neighborhood traffic impacts, the
addition of one trip per day to a residential street is considered a
neighborhood impact if the street is already functioning at 90% of capacity.
Based on this, the proposed project will generate significant impacts to two
streets, adding 28 daily trips to14th Street north and south of
Pearl Street, and 15 daily trips to 16th Street south of Pearl
Street. Mitigation measures that could
reduce the projected traffic on these streets such as turn restrictions, speed
bumps, and curb extensions would increase the traffic on other local streets,
thus simply shifting impacts from one street to another rather than reducing
these impacts to a less than significant level. Therefore, these mitigation
measures are considered infeasible and a Statement of Overriding Considerations
is recommended for these impacts.
Alternatives
The EIR also considered alternatives to the proposed project, as
follows:
1.
The No Project alternative was not considered a superior
alternative as it would assume the rebuilding of the demolished structure on
its original site, which would have greater neighborhood impacts than the
proposed project location at the interior of the campus.
2.
The Reduced Project alternative would develop a project with
fewer parking spaces with the intention of reducing the overall intensity of
the project. The reduction in parking spaces would not necessarily reduce the
parking structure height. However, the
reduction in parking spaces being a less intensive use could result in fewer
impacts. (Final EIR Table 4-1)
However, a reduced number of spaces would not serve the SMC project
objective of replacing the spaces lost due to the earthquake and ensuring the
current needs of campus users. In addition, supplying fewer parking spaces than
the current demand would encourage students to park on the city streets and
further impact residential neighbors.
3.
Off-site alternative locations were evaluated and considered
infeasible because the act of moving the project off-site would not lessen the
significant environmental impacts. Due to the nature of the project,
significant environmental impacts would also occur at an off-site location.
4.
Several on-site locations were evaluated, but were also
found to be infeasible because the act of relocating the project on site would
not lessen the significant impacts. All other available campus site were closer
to the perimeter of the campus, and would therefore create greater impacts due
to the proximity to surrounding residential neighborhoods.
Recommendation
for a Statement of Overriding Considerations.
The
construction of the Parking Structure B Replacement will provide a significant
public benefit. The parking spaces lost
due to the Northridge earthquake will be replaced, and the College will more
adequately be able to provide parking for their students, reducing parking
impacts on the neighboring streets. The site of the Parking Structure B
Replacement is preferable to the former site of the demolished Parking
Structure B because it is located in the interior of the campus, and will not
impact the surrounding residential neighborhood in terms of noise, glare or
aesthetics. The internal access and circulation will be improved, providing
enhanced pedestrian safety, improving traffic circulation throughout the
campus, and preventing cars looking for parking from exiting the campus and
circulating onto public streets. Staff recommends that a Statement of
Overriding Considerations be adopted because of these public benefits.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 9.48.110, notice of the public hearing was mailed to all owners and residential and commercial tenants of property located within a 500 foot radius of the project site and published in the Our Times section of the Los Angeles Times the at least ten consecutive calendar days prior to the hearing. A copy of the notice is contained in Attachment G. The Planning Commission hearing on July 19, 2000, was similarly noticed, and the City held a public meeting during the public circulation of the EIR on December 8, 1999.
The City bears
no direct financial impact as the College will pay for the construction of this
project. Because of the nature of the project, a parking structure, it will not
create permanent new jobs, nor detract from the current job market. Fees from
the parking structure will be collected by the College but will not impact the
City. As a non-profit entity, the College does create sales tax revenue.
CONCLUSION
It is
recommended that the City Council take the following actions:
1.
Approve the resolution Certifying the Final
Environmental Impact Report evaluating the environmental impacts of the project proposed in the
Development Agreement Amendment between the City and Santa Monica College
Authorizing the Development of Parking Structure B Replacement.
2.
Approve the Resolution making the CEQA Findings
necessary to approve the Amendment to the Development Agreement concerning
Parking Structure B Replacement, and adopting a Statement of Overriding
Considerations and Mitigation Monitoring Plan.
3.
Introduce for First Reading an ordinance
adopting the proposed Second Amendment to and Restatement of the Development
Agreement between the City and Santa Monica College.
1.
The proposed Development Agreement is consistent with the
objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the general
plan and any applicable specific plan, in that the project is consistent with
Land Use Element Policy 1.1
which
requires development to improve the quality of life for all residents by
providing a balance of land uses
consistent with protecting the quality of life in all residential
neighborhoods. By replacing the demolished structure with the proposed project,
the Santa Monica College campus will be reconfigured to improve land use and
traffic circulation, improve existing parking conditions and replace the
parking spaces that were lost in the earthquake, and relocate the garage at an
interior site thereby protecting the surrounding residential neighborhoods from
the impacts of being located near a parking garage as well as protecting
the neighborhoods from the current
college parking spillover which is due to the shortage of spaces since Parking
Structure B was demolished.
Prepared by: Suzanne Frick, Director
Jay M. Trevino, AICP, Planning Manager
Amanda Schachter, Principal Planner
Kimberly Christensen, AICP, Senior
Planner
Sarah
Lejeune, AICP, Associate Planner
City
Planning Division
Planning
and Community Development Department
Attachments:
A. Site map
B. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
Amendment
C.
STAFF REPORT, Planning Commission
Meeting, July 19, 2000
D. Revised Site
Plan (Not available electronically.
Available at City Clerk’s Office and public libraries.)
E. Information
from Santa Monica College related to Master Plan. (Not available
electronically. Available at City Clerk’s
Office and public libraries.)
F. Revised NOTICE
OF PUBLIC HEARING
H. RESOLUTION
OF Statement of Overriding Considerations
I.
ORDINANCE
OF Restatement of Development Agreement
J. Final EIR (Not
available electronically. Available at
City Clerk’s Office and public libraries.)
K. Project Plans (Not
available electronically. Available at
City Clerk’s Office and public libraries.)