The URL can be used to link to this page

SR-0 (58)Ex~?szT ~ REQUI~EMErimS CF TH~ G~N~RAL SERViCES DEPARTMyNT The fo~2ow~ng improvements are de:ive~ fro~~ ~he Envi- ranmen~al Impact Renort far Coiorado Place Phase III prepared by M~cnae3 Brandman Assoclates and additianal improvements requested by the Ci~y o` 5anta Monica General Services Depart- ~ent: ~. Re-stripe the northbaund approach on 20~n Street at Wilsh~re Boulevara to provide two through lanes ;nsteac af one right-~urn only lane and one through lane, ~pg:a~e th~ traf~ic signal controller at this intersection ta a so,~d state controller. 2. W~den Colorado Avenue hy IQ feet on the south- erly side ta create two through traffic lanes eastbound anc westbo~nd an Colorado Avenue betwee~ 20th Street and Clo- verfield Boulevard and one continuous left~tur~ la~e iR the middle af the street. Construc4ion shall include (a~ new curb and gutter, (b} a~l new 8-faot wide sadewa~ks, (c~ eight ~nches af conc:ete pavement an the strEet-widened portion, (d) 20-toot radius curb_reiurns at the 20th and Clov~rfield in~ersec~ian, (e~ relocatlon of existLng traffic sig~als and utilities, (f} handicap~ed ramps, fg? carner cut-off easemen~s for a four-foot clearance ati the rear of each ramn, and {h) ~f left ~urns are prohipited by westbound traffic on Colorado into the east- ernmost Access Point on CQlorado, a median in the continUOUs left-turn ~ane suff~ciently long in City's judgment ta discour- aae suc^ tur~s. If such med~an is required, Property Owner ~av, aL its awn expense and with the pr~or approval of tne C~ty's De~artment of Genera~ 5~rvices, pZace one or more direc- txona3 signs on the me~ian to assist traffic. Such sign ar sig~s shal? be sub3ect to approval ny the City's Department of G~neral Services as to the number, locat~~n and deszg~ and shall co~nly wzth all ap~licable City ord~~ances. Construct~on w111 a~so inc~ude reconstruction of a oortion o~ the eas4bound fast la~e wi4h 1~ inches of A.C. pavement and A.C. overiay of the s~ree~ by heat-=emix metnod to the center ?ine, recons~ruc- t~an o~ exist~ng storm dra~n laterais and :e-stri~ing af the sLree~. Pra~erry ~wner shall grant any easemen~ whic~ may be necessary relati~~ ta the w~dened s~reet and the sidewalk. 3. Establisr a~ additional raqh±-tLrn lane at the eas~boun~ apprQach to t~e Colorado Avenue an~ Cloverfield ~r~eysection. This ~ane shall be at least 20G fee~ in iengt~ measured fr~m the paint where Lhe 20 foot raaius curb r~turn begans on Colorado to the point w~ere such right-LUrn lane begins and wil~ be acded to the lane referre~ to ~n ~tem No. 2. y ~~• ~46 nroperty Owner shal? grant anv necessary easement for ~~zs add,tiona~ ~ane anc the rela~ec ~-foo~ wide sidewal~. ~. Create threE ±u~~ ianes fo: southbounc tra~fic ~: Clove~fieid Boulevard between Calorado Avenue anc Olym~ic Bouleva:d by widening C~overfield Bou~evard 9-i/2 fee~ on the westerly siae. Construct;on is to znc~ude (a) ail new 8-foo* wide sidewalks, curb and gutter, (b? an 8-Inch th_ck P.C.C. widened seetion and slurry seal of Claverfield Boulevard for the remaining wadt~, (c) cons~:uctxon a: a 20-foo~ radius a~ Clove~fi~ld and Olymp~c with new handicapped ramp, aRC {d) re_ocatinc exist~ng traf~ic signals and Utl~itle5 at the inter- sections. If Pranerty Owner desires to place a d„op-o~f zone far tne hotel on Cloverfield, Proner~y Owner sha~l {1) widen Cloverf~eld to the extenc necessary ~o proviae an acd~tiona~ 2 feet fo: one-half of the widLh of a median to ~e ~laced in the center o` Cla~erfield for the length neces~ary to restra~n, a~ana other things, left-turns inta the drop-of~ zane, (lz? pay ane-~a~f of the cost af constructing such me~~an, and (i~i) construct such drop-oLf zone utiliz~ng 8-inch thzc~ P.C.C. Anp su~h drop-ofi zone snall ~aper to and from a wid~h of 12 feet. If such median is required, ?rope:ty Owner may, a~ its own expense and with the priar appro~al af tihe City's Department af Ge~erai Servic~s, pla~e one or mo:e dzrectlona~ signs or tne median to assist ~ra~Fic. Such sign or signs shall be sub~ec~ ~ ~o ap~rova~ by the City's Depa:tment af Ge~eral Servxces as to ~he ~umber, locatian and desigr. and shall ~amply wath all applicable City ordinances, property Owner shaii grant any necessary easements relat~ng to the widened stree*, any drop- of= zone, and the sidewalk. If req~ested by ih~ C~t~T at a~y ~~me o:ior to ten (10) years af~er the executzon o~ ~hzs Aaree- ~er:t, Froperty Ow~er sha11 const~uct a bus sheiter on }he Real Property at ~he intersection af Olymp~c Boulevard and Clo- ver~~e~d Bou~evard, and anotner bus shelter at a szte to be Q°S1G~3}~d by Property Owner, subject to th~ approval of the C~+y's Denar~ment of Generai Services, on 20th StrEet betwee^ ~lympi~ Boulevard a~d Colarado Avenue. Bus shelter design shal~ be sub~ect to the ap~raval of the Architec~ural Review Boar~. 5. Part~cipate in ~~odernizinq ~he trar~ic signal standares, conduits, signal heads anc contro~lers fow the ~ntersections of Cloverfielc w~~~ Coiorado and Olympic. Prop- e:ty Owner shall be ~esponsible for only one ~alf a~ the cost. 6. 4n OZynnic Boulevard, cons~ruc~~ a conven~ional ~ur~ anc an eighteen-incn wide P.C.C, gu4ter ~rom th~ ir:~ersec- txon of Cloverrield and Clympic to a~o~nt 2?0 feet westerly from sucn intersection and a conventianal curb and 30-inch wide P.C.C. gutter from a po,nt 2i0 feet wester~y of c~e - 2 - ~~ 14~ ~ntersec~io~ oF Olympic and C~over~ield ta a~oint in ~he e~st- erly ~oundary of th~ railroad ~ig~t-af-way descr~be~ in Parce_ 6 w~ea~ z± intersects Olymp~c. Provide a sidewalk ~asemen~ a~ the bus stop area to allow~ far a 1Q-foot parkway and sidewalk area irom ~he curb face. Construct a new sidewalk at tne ra.l- road on Oiympic crossing aver Parc~l 6. 7. Widen 20th Street as required to create a right-nand turn lane onto ~astbovnd Colorado Avenue. Such lane shail be at least 200 feet in length measured from the poLr.~ wnere i~ begins to the poi~t where the curb return begins a4 the =nters~CtiOn af 20th Street and Calorado Avenue. Widened stree~ ta be in 8 ahches of P.C, cancrete. All exist~ng side- - wa~ks on 20th Street from Colorado to the southern boundary o~ Par~ei 6 ta be replaced with new 8-foot sidewalks and fihe streec re-surfaced to the center line with one and on~-nalf inch A.C. Prooer~y Owner sha11 grant any necessary easeme~* relat~ng ta the widened stree~ and new sidewalk. Partic:nate zn modernizing the tra£fic signal standards, conduzt, szgnal heads and contro~ler far the intersection of 2Qth Street and Colorado Avenue. Property Owner snall be res~ansible fo~ one-quarter of the cost for such modernizatzons. 8. Pravide new street sections {8-inch P.C,C.? zoY - rig~*-~urn pockets (~50 feet in length) at each ma~or driveway # to the Pro~~ct witn all necessary sidewalk easements. 9. Furnish a hydrology study for the szte and ad~a- ce:^,t stree~s in accor~ance with Department guide~ines. Any work ~o be performed as a result of this study will be ~zmzted to that airectly re~ated to ampacts or the Project on drainage ~n the area. 10. Civil engineerinq p~ans sha11 be prepared to Ci~y standards for all aff-site improvements and subrn~tted to ~he Office o~ the City Engineer for review and approval. I~. Design and constrUC4 high pressure sadium street ~ight~ng on the south side af Coloraao Avenue from 20th to Clo- verfiel~, on th2 west s~de af C~aver~ield from Colorado to Olympic, and an the north s~de af Olymp~c from C~overf~eld to tre east side of ~he ra7~r~ad right-af-way descri~ed in Parcel E, anc on the easterly side ot 20tn Street from th~ nar~herly bou~dary of Parc~i 6 to tne ~n*e_sect~on of 20th Stree~ and Calorado. Lighting design to be consis~ent with Colorado Piace Phase : and Phase II ~nder ~greement for Street L~g~~ing Instailat~on and Maintenance between Co~orado Place ~imited and the C~ty af Santa Monica dated May 31, 1983. - 3 - q • ~ ~ ~ 12. Furnish and ins~a „_ s~reet trees ar~ (a? 20~h Stree~ fram the no:ther3y boundary ot *he railraad riqnt-of-way desc=ibed in Parce' b~a Cola:ado, tb) Co~orado ~rom 2~~~ SireeL Lo C~ove~fie~d, (~) Claver~aeld from Colaraao to Oly~- ~x~, and (d? Dlyrr~pic from C~overfieZd to the eas~erly boundarv of ~h~ rai?road right-of-way des~ri~ed in Parcei 6. Type, spacing and planting specifacat~ons will be parL of ~he pro~ec~ landscaping plans ta be approved hy the Arehite~tural Review Baard and sub~ect to the satzsfaction of the Director o_` Recr~- a*ian and Parks. 13. 5hor~ng plans, wnere sharing may ~e ~e~u,~e~, wil? be submitted to the engzneering civislon for review anC apprioval. T~e fee for tiebacks in the pubiic right-of-way w~'_1 be 5I50 per tieb~ck or soldier beam encraac7~ng ~n ~~e stree~ right-ot-way. 14, in lieu of the water connec~ion fees tor both domestic and f~re protect~on services, Property Owner will ins*all a 14 inc~ water line irom 19th 5~reet to Clove:rie~d an Olympic and a 1Z znc~ water Zane or 20th Street be*_ween Co~orado and O~ympic. These wate~ lines w~Zl provide ~ne req~ared fire servzce for the Pro~ewt. Installa~.on will znclude f~re hydrants as requ~rea by the F~re Depar~ment, a 12 x I2 t~e o~ ~olorada at 2~th Stree~ and a 14 x 12 crass on Clo- ~ verfaeid at O~ympic with a tie-in of the existzng l~nes ar Olymp~L to the new li~es, work to be done ln accor~ance w~th Santa Mon~ca standaras. Because the new water lx~es ~e be ~nsta~ied pursuant to th~s garagraph wi~l b~nefit propert~es o~her than the Real Property, the C~ty will reimburse PrOD~r~y Owner for a pra rata portion of ~he cost of such installation, whien reimbursement shall na~ be required unt~l Ci~y collecfs appropriate fees from subsequent develapments on real property benefitting from sucn instal~atian. i5. Install a sewage re5ulating =ank, ~f reasdnabiy deemed necessary by "the Genera~ Services Department based upon availabie sewaae capac~ty and other ~mprovements, o~ suff~cient size for the Pro~ec~. I~ addition to tne fo~Egoing, the C~ty may require Property Ow~er to iRC~udp in the Dr~]~Ct a sewage treatmen~ sys*~m des~gned to ~lean and rec~rcuiate water and o~her mate- rzGl from sinks, dr~n~ina founta~ns, ta~~ets and sim:la~ sources into the tailet system and for ~rriga~ion, sub~e~t ~o the fo~lowing cond~~~ans: (a) sucn requ~remenL is imposed pursuan~ 4o a valid ordi~ance duly adopted which (~) im~os~s a s~m~lar requ~rement upon al~ new com~er~ial bu~idings compaYa- b~e to the individual build~ngs can~e~plated to be pa_t of ~he Pro~ect, and (~i) a~lows a cred~t to Property Owner against the - 4 - ~~ 149 nor~al sewer connection fees and montnly sewer usaae fees in an amaur,t propor~ionate ~o ~he reduct~on in ~se of t~e sewer sys- ~em; {b) the sys~e,~ to be required has demonstrated the techno- ~o~~Cal and practical abzlity to significan~ly and eff~cien4~y reduce the amQUnt af sewage in~eeted by the Pra~ect i~to the City's sewer system and the amount of water cons~med by ~omrne:- cia~ pra~ects of comparab~e size ta the Pra~ect; (c} the system can be safelp and convenaently located on the Real Proper4y; and (d) there are na federal, state, or local laws or regula- tzons which would require Property Owner to obtain a license or perm~~ to aperate such a system, classify Property Owner as a gene:ator of hazardous waste, or otherwise expose Proper4y Owner o~ any cenant of Property Owner to any liabili~y or othe~ burden as a result of the ~nstallat~on or use of the sys~em at~er t~an licenses and per~i~s normally required of a cflmmer- cial development similar to the Pro~ect. Natwz~hstandin~ the Loregaing, no such requirement shall be imposed on any ~uzlding constituting a part of the Pra3ect for which plans su~fic~ent,y camplete for zssuance of a buiZding permxt are submitted ta the City wi~hin~six ~onths after the effective date af such ordz- nance. Prior to the adoption of an_v ordinance referred to in (a) a~ave, the City shall have canducted a study regarainq the - sewage capacity ava~~able to it by the C2ty of Las Angeles and ~ the varzous options for processing any excess sewage, zncluding the construction anc opera~EOn o~ a sewage treat~ent facility by the City. The GeReral Services Depar4ment and Property Owner ~ay agree upan su~stitute improvements for any of the faregoing wnich are designed to improve traf~ic, utility or drainage con- dzt~ons related to the Pro~e~t so long as the total cost a~ sach substitute impravemen~s does not exceed the to~al esti- mated cost of the deleted requarements, comp~ted on the date ~~on wh~cn a can~ract ~s entered into for the subsiitute impravements. - ~ - ~~ ~~~ ~~i AT~ 0: Ct~:~ Z~QI~1~ I t~ I ) SrJ. COU:~"_'Y Or LJS AI~IGELES ) pn tt~is 16tY: day of De~ember, in the year 1987, be~o. e me, the undersigned Natary Public in and far sa~d Councy anc State, nersonally appeared ~~h 3a~~~~ and Da.~-~.~~-:'espect ively of the City of Santa Monica and known to me to ne the persons who exec~steu ~he within anstrumen~ on behalf of said pali~~ca~ sub- division, and acknowledged ~o me that such polit~cai subdiv~- s ion executed ±he sar~e . QFFIG'~Ai. SEAL JA~QC D GAeii~lBt ~C o^+~'~. ~ ~'~~ ~ . Nosaa~r pueuc ' fJ11JFORHIA Ndta4- v Pu~ 1 i~ i n a nd f o r s a i d L06 A~~ COUlfiY ~y m.,., acp~+a. Nor a, i9es , ~ Cour~ty and State _ _ S': ATF' OF CAL I FORN I A ) ~ 5S. COUNT~' Or LOS A:'dGLLES 1 ;• On this 16th day o€ Decer~ber~ in the year 1987, beiore me, the undersigned Natary Publi~ in aRd far saad County and State, per5bna?ly appeared paul G~ur,tin~., known ~o me, ar proved to me ar_ rhe basis of satisfactory evidence, to be ~he Presiden~ o~ So?ac Propert~es, Inc., ~ne corparataon that executed the withir. instrument, anc a~knowiedged to me thai stach corporation expcuted the same pursuar.t to i~s by-laws ar a resolution or ~~s Boa.d af Dzrectors. OlFiCLAI. SEAL G5R:AGMT022EXD - IAiCK p GAS~DN k'~t ~ ' r.~ NOTAfiY Ptl9l.IC - CALIFORMIA ~ '~~ ~as ae+c~~s coUr+n ;~ ~- Fey caan~ e+cPEres ~fOY 6. I9B9 I~ rt ~ ~i ~-~r_ ~ .~.,...~t-- No~~y Publl~ ~n and for sa~d County an~ State ~~ ~~ ~ RECORDING REQUESTED BY ANB WHEN RECORDED MATL TO: L~~Iick MeHose & Char~es 725 Figueraa St., Suite ~.200 Los Angeles, Ga~ift~r~ia 9a(317 Att'n.: Thomas R. Larmore, Esq. Amendmen~ g9 c, ",~fri AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ~ ~~~ 1' ~ti.w` ~tir ; n~ ~r J~,~ ~~ ~ Rs'~~ This Amendment Number One to Development Agreem~nt is entered intQ as of the .,~~~c;.~,. day of ~ecem~er, ~985, by and between THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA, a Charter City org~nized and existing under the laws of the State of Cailfornia (the "City"), and SOPAC PROPERTIES, INC., a DeZaware corporation ("Property Owne~"}, with reference to the fol~owing facts: A. The City and Property Owner enter~d into ~hat certain DeveZopment Agreement dated as of December 16, Z987 and recorded Decemher 17, 1987 in the Off~cia~ Records of the County of Los Angeles as Instrument Number 87-1996737 (the "Deve~.opment Agreement") relating to that certain rea~ property ].ocated in the Czty of 5anta Monica, State of CaZifornia more particular~.y described in Exh~bit A attached hereta and cammanly known as "Colorada P].ace Phase ~II" (the "Property"}. B. Under Section 9(g)(vii] o~ the Deve~.opment Agreement, Property Owner agreed to a~fer the use of the Property to the City for overflow park~ng for Santa Monzca CaZlege {the "College") in con~unctYOn wzth any shuttle system that may be implemented by the College or the City subject to certain condztions, including the°~ab~li.ty of Property ~wner to terminate 4he use of the parking upon n~nety (90) days p~-ior wr~tten notice. C. ~n addition, at the City's request, Property Owner, by letter dated December ~6, 1987 (the "Parking Lette~"), agreed ta make approx~mate~.y 400 parking spaces avail~bie to the City and the CoZleg~ until Jun~, 1989. The City made this specza~. request outside the provisians of the Development Agreement because the ability of Praperty Owner ta tenainate the use af the parkzng facil~ties upon 90 days notice created uncertainties for the City with respect ta its need to rep~.ace parking an public streets surrounding the ColZege eliminated by the creata.on of a preferential parking dzstrzct. D. Because of certain limitations on expansion of parking space hy t3~e Gollege and the desire of the City to continue ta make parking avai~abie ta the Cnllege and its student5, the City des~re~ to amend the De~elapment Agreement in order to extend the period of tYme durzng which ~he Praperty can be used for Col~ege A~" ~52 ~~ ~ 0 •~ ~, ~ ~ •~ ~~~~ , ~~~t ti - ,,c ~,~,~'~ ':,~, parking in conjunction w~th the current shutt.le systert from June, -`' ~ 19$9 to January 3~, ?9~2 under the terrns set forth a.n ~he Park~ng ~ Letter. J E. Property awner is agreeable to such extensian and to such amendment ta the Development Agreement subject to the xight to relocate tne parking on the Property a.n order to faczlitate develapment of the Property and to extend the date for initial coinmenc~nt of construction. F. Property Owner has submitted an applicatlon to the City Planning Department for review and approval of the f~rst phase of construct~on an the Property in accordance with the Development Agreem~nt and has been diligently seeking all necessary permits~ agprovals and financing needed to co~unence such canstruction. In return for Property Owner`s wzll~ngness to amend the Development Agreement and assure the availabzlity of parking on the Property as speci.fzed herezn, the City is wiZ~~ng to specificaZ~y extend the date by wh~ch excavatian must be co~nenced on the Property to January 31, 1992. NOW, TKEREF4RE, IN CDNSIDERATION of the foregoing facts and the mutual covenants set f orth herein , the parties hereby agree as foZlows: 1. The follawing shall be added to Section 9(g}(vii) of the Deve~opment Agreement: Property Owner also agrees to make auai3able to the City and the Co].lege parking tor appraximately 40o cars an the Real Property until January 31, 1992. Until January 31, ~989, such parkang will be at no cost to ~h~ City or the ~Callege except for insurance premiu~ns and app~opriate indemnzficata.ons. Bega.nn~ng on Februar~ 1, 1989r the City shall pay for a~l costs of operat~on and maintenance of the parking site including, without limitatinnf security, ~nsurance, repairs and utiliti.es. Propezty owner shall. have the right frvm time to time to relacate the parking on the Real Property with Property Owner be~ng responsible for the cost of any demolit~on and pav~.ng at the new ].ocatian. 2. Section 5(a) of the Development Agreement shall be madified to read as fol~ows: (a) Beainnina Excavation. Property Owner agrees to commence excavation for the init~aZ building of the Praject by January 31, 1992, provid~d that all necessary perm~.ts, approvals and financing are obta~ned for such bui~dzng. '~'~ 15 3 t / ~ -~T o~ caLrFaRxzA ~ ~~ - ~ _-,~,n,T~ Y OF L05 ANGELES ~'~`~~. ~ On this 'Z$'~ day ~,~~'~ ~~;e uaderSigned Notary ~t~~ ~erso~ally appeared Mon~ca and knawn tia me ' ~r.sLrument on behalf of acknow3edged to me that same. ~ ) S5. ) of December, in the year 1988, before me, Public in and for said county and state, ~f]~~ '3'~L.IL t ~ , respect.~vely, of the City of Santa to be the persons who executed th~ within said po~itical subd~vision, and such political subc~ivision executed ~he QF"r+Cl:.1~.+ S=.A~ `~ .r•• ~]~~~~ T UURTQ~ , ;~ - ~lotary Putl~c-Ga~;fom:a ~ ~ ~ .~ ;~~ !p LOS AFiG~~.ES CAUNTY ~ N ary Publi~ n and for said ~. ,. ., uv caTrr ~ oac.sQ. i~1 aunty and ~State - ~..--.- --- Y-- - STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) } ss. COC]NTY OF ~05 ANGELES ] Cn tY:is :,~`~•L~--day of ~ecember, in the year 1988, before m~, the un~ersignea No~ary Publ~c ~n and for said county and state, gerscnai?y a~peared Pau~ J. Giuntini, known tv me, or proved to me on ~he bas~s oF satisfa~tory evidence, to be the PY'~Slbe::~ of SoPac P,opert~es, Inc., the corporatlan that exe~uted the within _ns4r~:men~, ar.a acknow],edge~_ ~o me that such cornoration executed ~he same ~Ursuant to its by-~aws or a~esolt~tion of its Boa~d of ~Jiaecto~s. ~~= »-.-r=.~~.~~~.~~ _-~?rr»~a~- '?' . ~ f r-~\~ ~~~r'~i...-l ~~. Y`L~,~'r ~ __`~.-- - .C~ °r Y _ .. . l'-.,,•Jt. ~ ~ `~~' ~f Car~rr's5a~ ~rJ rCS ;~' '~ :o ~ _.2.~......".~"'."._~cc' :~ =e-:~G:.~ :~ - ~~ 1 ~ ~~~G~-c G~r~ Natary Public ~~ ~~ ~~ in and for said 5tate ~~• 154 LEG~L DESCRIPTSONS PIIRC£L 1 i THAT PORTION OF LQTZ, OF TR11CT 977i, IN TH CDUHTY flF LOS ANGEL£5, bT14TE OF CJ~LIFOR~lI1~~ ~i5 140 P~IGES ~4 THRQUGH 66 INCLUSIVE OF I~fAPS ~ 3~1 REGORDER OF S~ID COUNTY, DESCRIDED 1~S FOLLOWSs ~~ ~G ` 4 G ~~~ ~ E ~ITY OF SANTA NONI~A~ PER HAP AECORDED I~ 9ppx THE OFFICE OF THE CDI1i~Ty DEGINNING ~lT TRE M05T HORTHERLY CORNER Qf SAID LOTt THENCE SDUTH 44 DE- GREES 0~ MINUTES afl SECONDS E~!&T JILONG THE NORTF~EASTEALY LSNE OF SAID LOT, I1 DISTANC£ OF 545.~7 FEET-, MORE OR LESS TO l~ PDINT; THEKCE SOUTk! 9 DEGR~ES S~ MINUTES C9 SECDNDS WEST ~3.51 FEET, TO fiN£ BEGINNING OF A CURVE, CONCI~VE SOUTHERLY HAVING 11 RADIUS OF 11,778.48 FEET~ THENCE SOUTHWEST£RLY AL~N~ 6AID C~RVE, T#iROUGH A C£NTRAL 1~NGLE OF a DEGREES 33 l3INJTEa~ 17 S£CONDS, AN ~IRC DISTANCE ~F 111.OZ FEET TO THE $EGINNING DF 11 COMP0~7ND Ct}RVE CDNCAVE SdUTHERLY HAyZNG A RADIUS aF 945.OQ FEETj T~3El~CE S~C3THERLY P.LONG THE LAST l~ENT3QNED CIJRVE. AN ~-RC QISTANCE OF ~93.60 FEET~ THENCE NORTH 44 DEGREES 45 MINi7TE~ 25 SECONaS WEST ~83,68 FEET TO THE N~RTHWESTERLY LIN~ OF SAID LOT= T13ENCE N4RTH£ASTERLY ALONG fiAID NORT~ih'ESTERLY LINE ~1?.1~ FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. £xCEQT THEREFRaM, THAT PDRTIDN CF SAID LDT ~, DESCRIBED AS FDLLDWS: BEGINNING AT TNE NQRTHERLY CORNER OF FsAID LOT~ THENCE SOUTH ~~ DE~REES Ob MINUTES ~D SECDNiSS EAST, ALONG THE N~RTHEASTERLY LINE bF SAID LDT. A DISTANCE OF 545.~? F£ETi M4RE OR LE55, TO !! FOI~T QISTANT TEiE~tEJN ZQ FEET NORTrIWESTERLY FROM THE PRODUCED NDRTHWESTERLY LINE OF pLYMPIC BOULEvARD. 1X0 FEED wIDE~ THENCE SOUTi~ 4 D£CREES 51 HINE3TES Q9 SEC~NDS WEST ~3.SI FEET TO 11 P4INT ON SAID NQRTHWESTERLY LNE DI5rANT TH~R£ON 20 FEET SDUTNWESTERLY FRO1~i T}3E PRDDUCED SAID NORTHEASTERLY LINE~ SAID HaRT~iw£STERLY LxNE BEiNG a CURVE CONCAVE SOUTiiERLY HAVYNG h RADILIS OF 11,778.~8 FEET~ SHENCE SQUTiiWESTERLY ?-LQNG SAID NORTHWESTERLY LII~E, THROUGH ~~ENTRAL ANGLE DF O DEGREES QS 1~3~NUTES 3~ SECONDSr AN ARC DISTANCE OF 22.i~ FEET Tfl T}~,~ SE~INN~NG 0~ 71 TANGENT CURVE CDN~AV£ WESTERLY HAVING A RADIUS 4F Z4.70 FEET; THENCE NQRTHERLY ALQNG THE iAST ?~!E?r'TIONED CURVE Ai~ 7~RG DZSTANCE DF ~6.5D FEET TO 11 POXNT OF TANGENCY ON ~1 LYNE PP-RALLEL WITB AND DISTANT a F£ET SOUTHWEST£RLY, MEASURED AT RIGHT XNGLES, FROM SAID I~ORTHEASTERLY LINEj TH~NCE [~aRTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE 1! DISTANCE flP 519.10 FEET TO THE HEGINNING OF A T~hG£NT C[3RVE C~i~CAVE SOUTHERLY HAVING A RADYUS OF 14 F££T, TliE~CE WESTERLY ~ILONG THE LAST MENTIONED Ct~RVE AN ~RC DISSANCE QF ~5.7I FEET; NORE DR LESS. TO 1~ PaINT IN THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT, DISTANT THEitEDN ~8 FEET 50UT~1WESTERLY FRO?S S~ID N~RT3~£RLY CORNERS T}3ENCE NDRTHEASTERLY ~1LQNG S+~1ID NORTH~+'ESTERLY LINE ~F SAID LOT TO THE P~INT flF SE~INNING. ExxYe~T ~ F~qe 1 of ~ ~•• ~.~J~ ~ p~RCEL Zt ~EGIt~NING ~IT THE HOST WESTERLY CORNER 0~ LOT ~ CF TR11CT 977~, ~-S PER riAP RECORDED IN SOOK 140 P~1CES 6~ TO 6£ INCLUSIVE 8F MAPS, IN THE pFFICE OF Tli£ C~UN'I`X AECORDER OF S~ID CGUNTY t TH£NCL HORT~3 ~ 5 DEGREES 11 !~lINUTES 35 bECONDS EAST. 11LONG THE NORTHWESTERI.Y LIN£ OF &AID LOT 2. SEING ALSD THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE QF COLORADO JIVENLTE te0 FEET WIDE), ~- DZ5T1l~CE OF a00.OC ~'EET TO A POINT= THEHCE SOUTH 4; DEGREES ~5 MINUTES Z5 SEC~NDS FJ1ST 483.6$ FEET TO A POINT YI~ THE NDRTHWESTERLY LINE OF Tif~-T CERT~-IN TRIaNGI]LARLY 51i~,.PED PARCEL OF L11ND D~SCRIBED AS PARCEL 3 IN THE FIHAL ORDEA QF CQNDEMN7~TION N0. 4R6551, FILED JULY 23. 19~5 11:~D ENTEREO JULY 2~ ~ I915 IN JUDGEl~lENT H00lC 1553 PAGE ~7, SVPERIOR COURT, RECORDS OF STATE OF CALIFpRNI~f LAST 1~lENTIONEO POINT BEING ON 1- CDRVE, COI~C~IVE SOi]THEASTERLY HAVING A AAL?IUS OF 405.G4 FEET= THENCE SOUTHWE5TERLY ~1LONG 5AID NORTNWESTERLY LINB OF P~-RCEL 3[CHORD OF SAID CLIRVE BEARS SOUTH 41 DEGRBES 2~ NIHUTES 05 SECONDS W~5T 91.9~ FEET) AN 1~RC DISTANCE Of 91.98 FEET TO 7~ POItdT IN THE NORTHWE5TERLY LXNE OF TiiE SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAIL~tOAD COMPANY'S RIGHT aF WAY ~1G0 FEET WIDE). AS RECORDED IN BDOX ~D PAGE 28Z DF nEED5, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF fiAID COUNTY= THENC~ SDUTHWEST£RLY ~LQNG SAID NQRT~iwESTERLY LINE OF THE RIGHT OF WAY 1~00 FEET WIDE) SEING ON ~ CURVE CONCAVE SOUTliEASTERLY, HAVING l1 RAnIUS OF 1~,703.~0 FEET {CHDRD DF 5~-ID CURVE BEARS SOI~TH 59 DEGREES 24 MINUTES 21 SECONDS WEST 524.~~ FEET}, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 52~ .45 FEET, MOFtE OR LESS, TO THE SOLITF~£RLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 2J THENCE NORTH 4~ DEGREES 45 NI3VUTE5 25 SECDND5 idEST, ALONG SOUTHWESTERI~Y LINE OF 5AIQ LOT Z, !1 DISTANCE 4F 360,9Q FEET TO TH£ POINT OF BEGINitiZNG. EXHIBIT A Z of 4 ~~~ ~~L7 P1IRCEL 3 ~ THE NORTHWESTERLY 175 ~E£T O~ LdT 1 IN BLOCK "~1' 4F TH£ TILDE~i TRAC~ ` Itd THE CITY OF ~ANTA ~SQN~CA+ CDUNTY pF LOS 11~lGELES, 6TATE QF CALIFQRNIA 115 PER HAP RECQRDED IN B4QK Z~ Pl1GE 93 OF MAPS, IN THE OF~'ICE OF TH~, tDUNTY RECOROER Ql~ S1tID CGUNTY. ' ~XCEPT Ti3E NORTH£14STERLY S2 ~EES Tf3ERE0?. EXCEPT THEREFRQMt THE SOUTHWESTERLY EIGHT t8) FEET OF THE N~RTHWESTERLY 275 FEET OF LDT 1, nLDCK 1~~ GF TILDEN TRACT~ IN THE CITX QF B~NT~- MONICA, Ct~UNTY dF LOS AHGEL£S, STATE OF CALIFORNII-~ AS PEA Ma1P RECaRDED ~N SOOK 2, pI~CE 93 4F I~SAPS iN gHE ~FFICE OF THE RECORDER 0~ S11~D COUNTY 1~NU THAT PORTION GF sAID LOT 1 BEGIN~ING J~T ~1 POINT ZN THE NORTHWE5TERLY LINE OF SAID LOT BEING DISTANT 13 FEET N~RTH~ASTERLY~ ALONG SAfD NQRT~iM?ESTERLY L~NE, FROM THE M~ST WESTERLY CORt~ER ~F S~ID L~Tt THENCE SO~THWESTERLY ALONG SAID NORTHWESTERLY ~INE S FEET: THEHCE SOUTHEASTERLY PARALLEL WITH Ti~E SDUT~4W£STERLY L3NE OF SAID LOT 1~ DI5TANCE CF S F££Tf TH£NCE IN A DIAECT LINE TO T#iE POINT OF BEGIN~iING, CONTRINING li~G.00 SQ[~ARE FEET. AS CONDEMf~ED TO THE CITY QF SANT~ MONICII IN JLIUGEMENT FILED MAY 1~, I963 IN CA5E ND. i~EC-5~33~ SUPERIDR CDURT. pARCEL 4: LOT 2~N BLOCK ~- OF THE TILDEN TR1~CT, IN THE CITY ~F S~i~TA MDNICA, C~UNTY OF L05 ANG£LES, STJITE ~F CALIF4R[~31~-, h5 PER MAP RECOR~~D IN HOQK 2 PAGE ~3 DF MAPS, IN THE DFF~CE OF THE CQi1NTY AECORDER OF 5AIfl CQUNTY. E3CCEFT THE NOATHwEST I7S FEE2 THEREaF. JILSQ E?iCEPT THE SOUTHWESTERLX B FEET TIi£REOF. 11N EASEMENT, I~ITH RI~HT OF ENTRYf FQR TH~ PORPO$E OF LAYING AN~ l~AIyTAI1~It~G pUBLIC UTILITY S£RVIC£5, ~vER THE NORTilEASTERLY 8 FEET OF TH£ l~flATHW£5TEALY 175 FEET E3~' LOT S IH SLOCK A OF THE TIZDEN TRACT, IN THE CITY QF SANTA HONICA, IH THE CQUt3TY Of LOS Al~GEL£S, STRTE 4F CALYFORI~I~1, I~1.S p£R l~iJ+,p RECQRDED IN $O~K 2 PAGE 93 OF ldAPS, IN THE OFFICE QF TNE C~UNTY RECOA~ER QF SAID COUNTY. PARCEL 5t TIiE N4RT#~EASTERLY S2 F£ET OF THE NQRTHWEST£RLY 175 FEET OF i.QT 1 IN ~LOClC 'A" OF THE TILAEN TRACT~ IN THE CITY OF SAI~TI! MaNICA, COU~ITY QF LOS J~N~ELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA~ I1S P~R MAP RECORDED ZN H40K 2 PAG£ 93 Of l+~A.PB, IN THE t~FFICE ~F THE COUNTY RECORDER QF SaID COUNTY. EXHIBIT ~ 3 of 4 ~ ~ • ~. 5 7 s~ ; .~; h p11RCEL 6: r~ ynJ~ THE LESSEE' S INTEREST ONLY IN LEAS$ Or TI~E REAL PROPERTY BELOw, D71TED '~~" M~RCH 12, 1979 BETw'EEN SOUTHERH PACIFIC TRANSPORTA-TION C4l~iPANY !-5 A LES50R ~IND P11RlCER 1dANilFJ~CTURING COMPANY 11S LE5SEE IIH5TR~]MENT H0. 16-18~89py, HELD BY SOPAC PROPERTIES. INC., {FORMERLY ](HOWN~ ]~-S 71NA~3EI~3 SII.LS DEVELOPMENT COAP.~ FOLLOWING !'EBRUARY 11~ 1986 11SSIGNMENT ay ~ P]ilRlCER liANUFACTURING COMPPINY TO i1N11HEIM HILLS DEVELOPMENT CORP. LIHSTRUMENT N0. ~6-1848901. T87~T pORTIQN 4~ THE RIGHT-Of-WAY. 100.C0 FEET WIDE OF THE bOUTHERN PACYFIC RalILROAD COMP1~-NY IN THE CITY OF SANTA MDNICJI, COUNTY ~F LOS ~INGELES~ &TATE OF C~LIFORNIII, AS RECORDED IH 8QDlC ~0 PAGE ?BZ ~F DEEDS IN THE QFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF b~1ID COUNTY, DESCRI9ED A5 lOLLOwS: BEGINNING ~T TIi£ ~NTER5ECTION pF THE CURVED NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID RIGNT-OF-WAY, 200.00 FEET i~TIDE WITH TH£ CURVED NDRTHWESTERLY LINE OF THE LAND DESCRIBED IN PhRCEL 3 OF THE FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION N0. i95~51, F~LED JULY Z3. 19#S 1~ND ENTERED JULY 24, 1945, IN JUQGEMEHT 80QK 1553 FAGE 2~, SUPEAIOR COURT, RECOR~S OF SAID STATEi SAID LA5T MENTIONED CLIAVE BEING CONCAVE SDUTH£ASTERLY 7lND HAVI~IG A RADIIJ5 OF 905.00 FEET~ A RADIAL LINE OF S~ID CLIRYE TO SAID INTERSECTION HEARS HdRTH 3I DEGREES 3~ MIHUTES 36 SECDNDS WE5T THENCE 50C1THWESTERLY AND CONTI NI3ING ALDNG SAID CURV£ 9~. Z5 FEET Tf~ROLIGH ~1 CENTRAL 11NGLE OF 5 DEGREES S$ MINUTES 02 SEC~3~DS TO J~ POINT IN 11 C[IRVED LINE SEING CONCENTAIC WITH AND DISTANT SOUTHEASTERLY 40.00 FEET MEASURED RADIALLY FROM, SAID NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF 51~ID RIGHT-QF-WAY, 1C0.00 FEET WIDE~ SAID LAST DESCRISED ~URVE BEING COi~CAVE SOUTHEASTEALY 7~ND HAVING A R.~-DIUS OF 1I,563.10 !'EET~ ~- RADIAL LINE OF SJ1ID CURVE T~ SAID POINT BEARS NORTH Z9 DEGREES 38 l3INI7TE5 ~3 &ECONDS WEST1 THENCE bOUTHWESTERLY 636.55 FEET ~L~HG SP-ID CONCENTRIC CURVE THROUGH ~- CENTRAL IINGLE QF 3 DEGREES 07 MINUTES 39 SECONDS, TO THE N~RTHEASTERLY LINE OF TWENTIETH STREET~ 70.00 FEET wIDE !~S SHOWN ~N THE 1~lAP OF TRACT N0. 977~ IN SAID CITY J1ND RECDRDED IN BODK ~40 PAGES 6i lIND b5 DF l~i11PS. IN TH£ OFFICE ~F THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAI~ COUNSYf THENCE 11LONG SI-ID LAST DESCRIBED NQRTHEASTERLY LINE NDRTH 44 DEGREES 15 MINUTES ~5 SECONDS WEST, 40.88 FEET TO ITS INTERSECTION WITN SAID CURVED NORTHW£STERLY LINE DF SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY, 100.Q0 FEET WIDE~ SAID LAST I~lENTIONED CURVE BEING CONCAVc. SOUTHEASTERLY 1~-ND H~,VING lil RADIUS OF 11.703 .~0 FEET; 11 RADIAL LINE OF S1~ID CURVE TO SJ1ID INTERSECTIDN HEARS NORTH 32 DEGREES ~8 MINUTES 53 SECONbS ~r'EST~ TbENCE NDRTHEAST~RLY 732.79 FEET J~L~NG SAID CURVE, THR~UGH 11 CENTRI~,L ANGLE DF 3 DEGREES 35 MINVTES 15 SECONDS TD THE PDINT OF BEGINNING. EXHIBIT A ~ of ~ ~5~ AT~'AC~IMEN~' D P&Z DKW DB plan/share/pc/strpt/arboda Santa Momca, California Plann~ng Commission Mtg. October 19. 1994 TO The Honorable Planning Commission FROM Planrung Staff SUBJECT Amenc~nent to Existmg Arboretum De~~elopment A~reement (Development Agreement 93-0OS), Environmental Impact Repart 93-043, Re~Tiew of Specific Bi.uldxngs {Development Re~~ew Permrt 94-OD6); Zonmg Admimstratar Determinahon to AIIo~ SupermariCet Under Existing Development Agreement Address 20Q0-2200 Colorado A~~enue (a 12 7 acre s~te ~~th frontage on Cioverfield Boulevard, Oiympic Boule~~ard, T~~entie~h Street, and Colorado Avenue) Applicant Arboretum De~~elopment Partners INTRODG'CTIO~T Summar~~ The proposal t~~ould amend the de~~elopment standards contained v~~ithin the existing Arbaretum Development Agreement in order to allo~~ the construction of a supermarket, neighborhood commercxal uses, and mult~family residential uses at the site, DA 93-005 would result also m~-arious other chan~es to the existxng Developmerrt A~reement, includmg a modification to allo~~~ vehicular access to the srte from Clo~~erfield Boule<<ard, ~~hzch is currently prohzbited The Plannin~ Cammission is also requested to recomrnend actzon on a Zoning Admm~strator Determ~nation that the proposed supermarket ~s a perrmtted use under the existing DA Finally, the Planning Commisszon is requested to reti~e«~ the supermarket pursuant to the pro~-isions of the existing and amended Development Agreernent Action The fallo~ing applications are before the Flanning Commission 1 Application to amend the existing Arboretum Development Agreement (DA 93- 005) 2 Recommendation to Crt~ Council regardmg Zorung Admimstrator Determination to allo~c~r supermarket use under exlstmg Developrnent Agreernent 3 Recommendation to City Council regardmg Final En~~ronmental Impact Report (EIR) 93-003 evaluating the en~~ronmental impacts of the proposed amendment and Zoning Admimstrator Determination 4 Re~~e«~ of Specific Build~ngs {De~eloprnent Review Permit 94-Op6), as required by the existmg and amended Develapment Agreement, to allow the canstruction of a 49,6~6 sg ft supermarket at the srte - 1 - N~ ~~J9 Recommendation Approval Perimt Streaml~nm~ Expiration Date No Permit Streamlming Act deadline appl~es to the DA or Zoning Admmistrator Determination applications Pursuant to Sectian 9{1){vii) af the existing De~=elopment Agreement, Plamm~g Commission reviev~ of DR 94-006 is required w~thin 60 days of that pro~ect bemg deemed complete (by December 6. 1994} SIT'E LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION The subject property is an approxirnately 12 7 acre site located between Colorado Avenue, Ol;~mpic Boulevard, 20th Street and Claverfield Boule~ard Surroundmg uses consist of the Department of 'Vlotor Vehicles, industnal uses, and a church m the C5 {Special Office} District and M1/RD Interim District to the north, industrial uses m the C5 Disfr~ct and M11RD Intenm District to the ~outh, the V6Tater Garden office develapment in the C5 District across Cloverfield to the east, and the Outlook Ne~~spaper buzldmg across 20th Street in the CS District and ~I1/RD Interim District to the RTest Existing on-site uses mclude the 96,408 square foot Sony Muszc Campus office building and approximatelv 74,884 square feet of industrial buildings utilized for soundstage, office, school, artist studio, retail, starage and telephone ser~~ice purposes, w7th an additional 46,000 square feet of vacant space ~l~he Sonjt Music Campus ~s Iocated on a 1 7 acre parcel (Lot 7) on the ~~esternmost port~on of the site and is under the o~.~nership of Santa Monica Number Se~ren Associates Nane of the proposed Development Agreement arnendments wauld change the development standards which apply to Lot 7 Zon~ng District C5 (Special Office) District Land Use D~str~ct Spec~al Office Distr~ct PROJECT DESCRIPTION The exisung Development Agreement allo~rs a maximum of 1,040;49a square feet of floor area to be constructed at the site, mcludin~ a 27D,000 square foot hotel and up to 770.490 square feet of general office space. the office use may be substituted v-~th up to 25,aoa square feet af resta.urant uses, up to 10,000 square feet of office-ser~~g retail uses, a health club of up to 60,4D0 square feet, medical office of up to 35,000 square feet, and/or banks and sa~~~ngs and loans of up to 20,000 square feet The follo«mg is praposed a Deve~apment Agreemeut A~endraent The proposed amendment would retain the existing 1;~40,490 sq ft ma~imum and ~vonld not modify the existing pro~zsions for restaurant, office-serving retail, health club. medical office or bank/savu3~s and loan uses, howe`~er, it would reduce the rn~Fmum permitted office space to 720,490 square feet A market of up to a 54,000 square faot supermarket u~auld be explicitl~~ permitted b}~ the amendment The amendment ~4ould aiso allaw- the fle~bilrty to substitute the office square footage ~r-ith up to - 2 - ~4 ] ~0 70,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial space, and up to 894,082 square feet (approxunatel~ 760 unrts} of residential space at the site The 70,000 square feet of neighborhood retail uses would be allo~~~ed only if at Ieast I04 residential unrts were constructed on-site Mas~ existing hexght and setback requirements would also be retained under the proposal, but the 2~,000 square foot open space requirement at the intersection of Olympic and Glo~~erfield would be amended to allo«~ ~ Iandscaped surface parking area to caunt toward the 2~,000 square feet if a supermarket ~s constructed at the site. The m~imum height at the eastern portion of the site (the °Hatel Zone"} «~ould be reduced from a m~imum hezght of 96' and 9 stories to a maxannum of 84' and 6 stories The aznendment v4ould also delete the sectian allowmg a hotel and ~=ould include a provision to alloE~~ ~ ehicular access off of Cloverfield Boulevard. «~hich is prohibited in the existmg Development Agreement o Zoning Administrator Determination. As an alternat~ve to a~nending the Deveiopment Agreement, the applicant seeks a determination, under pro~risions of the existing Development Agxeement, that a supermarket is an acceptable use in- lieu of an equal square footage of off ce use Such a deterrnination wauld not authonze residential or neighborhoad retail uses, or authanze Cloverfield Boule~ard access to the srte o Ref iew of Specxf c Buildings. LTnder the ex~sting and amended De~elopment Agreement, the applicant must get Plann~ng Commission appro~=al of specif c buiidmgs which are proposed for the srte Such approval is sought for the proposed supermarket at the site The applican# has submitted t«o alternate site plans the "ZA Plan" mcludes no access off of Clo~?erfield and could be approved if the ~rty Council adopts the Zomng Admmistrator Determ~nation, the "Amendment Plan" includes Clo~-erfield access and could only be constructed if the praposed Dei~elopment Agreement amendment is appro~ed by the City Council PUBLIC 1`TOTIFICATION Pursuant to Mumcipal Cade Sectian 9 04 20 20 OSO. v~-ithm 30 days after the sub~ect application ~~~as deemed complete, the applicant posted a sign on the propertr~ statin~ the following information Pro~ect case number, brief pro~ect description, name and telephone number of applicant, srte address, date, time and locat~an of public hearing, and the Flanning and Zoxung Dn~~sion phone number It is the appl~cant's responsibilit~- to update the hearing date if it is chan~ed after posting In addrtian; pursuant to Municipal Code Section 9 04 2Q 22 050 and Section 9 48 110, notice of the public hearmg was mailed to all o~ners and resident~al and commercial tenants of property located within a ~40' rad~us of the pro~ect at least ten consecutive calendar da~ s prfor to the heanng A copy af the notice is contained in Attachanent B. - 3 - ~- ~ ~ s ~ The de~=eloper held a total of nxne neighborhood meetings on this matter. as follov~~s Date of Meeting Neighborhood Group Topic 11/24/92 Pico Neighborhood Proposed DA amendments Assoc~ation 12/7/92 Mid-C~ty Neighbors Proposed DA amendrnents Earl~ 1993 Sunset Park Area l~eighbors Praposed DA amendrnents 4I15/93 Pico Boulevard Committee Proposed DA amendrnents 9/8/93 Fr~ends of Sunset Park Propased DA amendments G/$/94 Mid-Crty Neighbors Forthcoming Draft EIR and DR (supernaarket) applicat~on 6/28/9~ Pico Neighborhood Forthcoming Draft EIR and Associat~on DR (superniarket} applicat~on 8/8/94 Sunset Park Area Neighbors Draft EIR and proposed DR applicataon for supermarket S!18/94 Friends of Sunset Park Draft EIR and proposed DR applicat~on for 511permc~rkeT In rts Julp meeting, the Pico Ne~~hbarhood Association vated unanimousl~- "rts over~i~helming support and commrtment to the de~relopment of a supermarket on the Arboretum srte " {Comment number one, page A-3 of EIR ) Staff also received correspondence from Friends of Sunset Park express~ng concern regarduig the traffic impacts of the pro~ect and the t}rpe of market proposed (Comment number eight, page A- 39 af EIR ) ANALYSI S Background Existin~ De~~elopment A~reement The existing De~~e~opment Agreement at the srte ~~as executed by the City on December i7, ~~ ~62 - 4 - 1987 {Attachment D) At tha~ t~ne, the property was owned b;T Southmark Pacific (AKA SOPAC Propert~es} and was known as Colorado Place Phase III On October 25. 1988, the Cit~~ Council appro~red Amendment Number One to the Colorado Place Phase III Development Agreement to allow temporar~ parkmg for Santa Momca College at the srte az~d to extend the deadline b~~ ~~hicl~ a biuldmg permrt ~~as required ta commence construction at t1~e srte. The exist~n~ De~Telopment Agreement allo«~s a maximum floor area of 1;04Q,490 square feet, broken doi~~n into m~imum floor areas for the foilo~r-uig uses Use Hotel Restaurants, including fast food Reta~l (to serve employeeslvisrtors) Health Club ~l~edical Office Banks and Savings and Loans Maxnnum Floor Area 27~,OOQ sq ft 25,00~ sq ft 1 Q,40~ sq. ft ~d,440 sq ft ~5,000 sq ft 20,00~ sq, ft. General Cornmercial Off ce (and any suriilar use ar any other uses that the Zoning Admirustrator deems acceptable for the zone except for mo~~ie theaters ) The maximum Floar Area permitted for the pro~ect site less 270,000 sq, ft for the hotel and less the Floar Area utilized for other uses Based on the above pro~nsion. the maaimum amount of general affice permitted at the srte ~s 770,49~ square feet, which reflects the total permitted (1,440,490 sq ft} minus the 274,~00 square feet which can only be allocated toward the hatel The above list also pro~~ides a rnaximum square footage far each of the other explicrtly permit~ed uses (a maxirnurn of 25,000 square feet for restaurants, a maa~~murn af 10,004 square feet of office- ser~-mg retail, etc ) Based on the praviso for general offce, any square footage utilized for restaurant, retatl. health club, or medical office use must be subtracted from the maximurn of 770;490 square feet allow~ed for general office {~ e,~f all of these uses «~ere constructed ta their maYimum, a total of 620,49a square feet would be a~~ailable for general office use) In exchange for these development rights, the Cih- required a nurnber of fees, mitigations and amenities be provided b<< the developer The followmg 1s a summary of the primary measures required in the existrng De~•~elopment Agreement• - Traffic Impror-emen# Fee. The property ov~~er ti~~as required to pay a total of ~5 mxllion to the Crty for costs associated «~th a Crty-w~de traffic s5rstems management ordinance, traffic improvements in, around or affecting the Special Office District or Hospital Area Specific Plan, and the acq~.usrtivn of land related to these improvements Four million dollazs has been paid tol~~ard tlus purpose and an - 5 - ~''' ~ 6 3 addrtional $1 million will be due priar to issuance of the next builduig permrt pulled for the pro~ect (Section 12(b)} - Housing and Par~ Fee. The property o~~ner was required to pay a Housang and Parks fee in the amount (priar ta CPI ad~ustment} of $2 2~ per square foot far the f~rst 15,400 square feet of office space and $5 00 per square fQOt for the remaining office space Pursuant to Section 12(a) of the Development Agreement, $2 2 million of this amount v~Jas required at the time the agreernent was executed, to be credrted toward the office de~~elapment as it «-as constructed Because only 9fi,40$ square feet has been constructed, a credit remams ~vith the City for this pzupose - Child Care. Froperty Ow-ner was required to make a$250,oao contr2but~on to child care services ben~fitting the Pico Neighborhood and Mid-Crty Neighborhood. This obliga~ion has been ent~zely satisfied through payments ta Connect~ons for Children (Section 9(k)(vn)) - Open Space. The Development Agreernent required an aggregate of 4D,404 square feet of open space to be "used for pubhe viewshed purposes" includin~ a mmunum of 3,000 square feet of open space at Colorada A~~enue and 20th Street, at least 3,000 square feet at the corner of Colorada Avenue and Cloverfield Boule~-ard and at least 25,400 square feet at the corner of Oiymp~c Boule~ard and Clo~erfield Boule~~ard In addrtion, the existing Development Agreement pra~ides for a maximiun of 50% lat coverage at the srte (Sections 13(b} and Section 9(c)} - Art. The Development Agreement required a minimum of $2~0,000 to be spent "far the acquisition of artw-ork to be placed in the public areas of the Pra~ect," as follou~s "Follov~~~ng executian of this Agreement, a committee (the °Art Select~on Committee") will be formed consistmg of representatives of Property Ovvner, the Santa Monica Arts Commissian (the "Cammission") and the Foundation Withm one year follov4ing the c~ate of tlus Agreement, the Art Selection Committee, v~~rth the approval of the Property 04i-ner, «~11 establzsh a plan consisting of general guidelmes for the t5-pe, size, cost and iocation of variaus art~~-arks azound the pro~ect The Art Selection Committee shall establish procedures for compet~tion among aYL15t5 for production of the desired pieces and up to $25,000 of Propertti Owner's pledge may be expended for admimstrative ctuatorial and promotional costs related to the competition For each piece, Prapert~~ Ov4~ner shall be entitled to select a group of artists ~rho «~ill submit proposals to make the final competrtion and the Art Selection Committee shall make the final selection of the artist ta prod~ce the particular piece of work " To date no documentation has been provided that th~s condition has been satisfied. - s - M"' 1~4 {Section I3(c)) - General Services/Public Works/Parking and Traffic. In addit~on to meeting energy conservation requirements based on Califorrua Ti#~e 24 regulations in ef#'ect at the time the onginal Development Agreement ~~as executed (Section 15}, the propert~r o~~ner w°as required to perform a number of improvements ~vhich ~~=ere "derived from the Environmental Impact Report for Colarada Place Phase III prepared by Michael Brandman Associates and addihonal improt~ements requested bv the Cit~- of Santa Momca General Services Department," as follov4s re-sn-ipe a portion of 20th Street, ~-~den a portaon of 20th Street, widen a portaon of Colorado Avenue, esta~lish an additionai nght-turn lane at Coloradn Avenue and 20th Street; contribute to the cast of modernizing traffic signals at the intersect~ons of Clo~-erfield Boule~ard with Colorado Ati~enue and Olvmpic Boulevard; pay far curb and gutter construction on Olympic Boulevard, create nght-turn pockets for each major driti-ew~ay to the pro~ect, mstall street lights along portians of Colorado Avenue, Cloverfield Boulevard and Olympic Boulevard, provide street trees along portions of 20th Street, Colorado Ati~enue. Cloverfield Boulevard, and O~~~npic Boule~tard, installation of new vvater lines and fire hydrants on Olympic Boule~~ard and 20th Street, and the provisian of an on-srte seE~age treatment facillty similar to that required for the Water Garden proaect {sub~ect to approval of a Crty ardinance on tlus matter } These rec~zurements «~11 be completed as the pro~ect is built out (Requirements listed ~n Exhib~t D of existuig De~ elopment Agreement ) Previously-Approved Buildm~s at the Srte Section 9(1) of the Development Agreement ("Revie~ of Specific Buildings"} requires Planning Cflmm~ssion rev~ew of spec~fic developrnen~ proposal for the site based on the findings contained in Sect~on 9{1)(viii) of the Development Agreement This approval is appealable to Crt~- Council. Section 17(c) further requires Arclutectural Re~~iew Board re~~ie~~~ of specific development proposals after Plann~ng Commissian approval has been obtamed In February of 1990, the Plannmg Commission approved Development Review 89-012 to ailol~- the constr~ction of a 252,aoo square foot, ~-story commercial office building w~th t~~o ler•els of subterranean parking far 855 cars Of the 252,$00 square feet appro~ed for this pro~ect, 8,700 square feet ~~ould have been devoted to restaurant use and 3,500 square feet ~~~ould have been for office-related retail uses That development «as never commenced by the then-prapertv aw~er On Ma~~ 1. 1991, the Plannmg Cammission appra<<ed DR 41-002 to allow the construction of the Son~~ Music Campus at the site At #hat time. the property was ovvned by Santa ~lonica Lo«°e Partners and was renamed The Arboretum The approt>ed pro~ect, ~~hich has since been canstructed. consists of three structures t«~o-to-three stories tall and 39' to ~b' in height These structures are constructed a~~er a one-level, 232-space subterranean parkmg - ~ - ~~ ts5 garage t~th an additianal 114-space tem}~orary surface parking lot far the Sonv Music Campus located to the ~~est af Lot 7 Zonin~ Admimstrator Determination In 1993. Ari~oretum Development Partners purchased the entire srte v~~th the exception of Lot 7, «~~uch is the 1 69-acre 1ot accupied by the Sany Music Campus and now ou~ned by Santa Monica Number Seven Associates, a Delaware Limited Partnership. DA 93-005, the application currently under re~~iew b~~ the Planiung Cornmission reyuest~ng a second amendment to the Arboretum/Colorada Place Phase III De~~elopment Agreement, ~.iras filed by Arboretum De~-elapment Partners on Ma~~ 21. 1993 Santa Mon~ca Number Se~'en Associates contends that rts approval is nec~ssar}~ to effectuate the proposed amendment to the Development Agreement Arboretum De~elopment Partners disputes this contention and has filed lit~gat~on, which ~s currently pending, to seek ~udicial resolution of this issue The City has not taken a posrtion on this matter; but the application ~~~11 be v~~thheld frorn cansideration by City Council until a court determination or a settlement Because the applicant is preparmg for the possib~litr that the proposed DA amendments may not be adopted by the Citt- Council due to the pending lit~gat~an, the applicant has requested a Zoning Admmistrator Determination that the proposed supermarket is a permrtted use under the existing DA This Determination w°ould be based on the clause in Section 9(g)i of the Development Agreement. which states that perm~tted uses shall mclude "anv similar use or an~- other uses that the Zamng Administrator deems acceptable for the zone except that theater use shall not be permitted " Although the DA pro«des that tlus Determinat~on ma~~ be made by the Zorung Admmistrator, at the time of application for the Determination, the Zoning Admimstratar e~ected to have the decision ~nade by the City Council after recommendatian from tlle Plann~ng Commissian. Although the Zoning Ordinance does not include a supermarket as a permitted use u~thin the CS (Special Office) Distnct, the City does not believe that the Zoning Administratar~s discretion to approve other acceptable uses granted under Section 9 of the Develapment Agreement is lirruted tQ uses specified far the CS District of the Zamng Ordinance The De~~elopment Agreement grants the Zonmg Adm~mstratar the authorrty to approve other uses deemed acceptable for the "zone " The De~Telopment Agreement sets forth a map of ~rarious "zones" and the development standards applicable to each Thus, the Zomng Admznistrator ma~r approve uses inconsxstent ir~-~th the C~ zoning, as long as the uses are deemed acceptabie for the "zone" as that term is used in the Development Agreement The Zone Diagram. which is attached as Exhibit B of the existmg Development Agreement, establishes four zones, as follo~;~s the 2Qth Street Zone. the Colorado Avenue Zone, the Ol~=mpic Boulevard Zone, and the Hotel Zone Each zone establishes a maximum building height and number of stories, but does not include any provisions as to use Pursuant to Section 9{b)(i); structures are permitted to cross a zone baundary "if the Building Hexght of that portion of such building situated in an~ zane does not exceed the Building Height "~ ~ 6fi -s- permrtted in that zone " Althaugh the Hatel Zone contams a reference to use, nothmg i~ Section 9(b) indtcates that this reference is intenc~ed to restrict the use of that zone To the contrar~-, Section 9(b}(iii) indfcates that ather uses are permitted v~~thin the Hotel Zone by stat~ng that "no build~ng other than the hotel may have a Btuldmg Height in excess of 84 feet " The De~relopment Agreement allows general office and "any s~riular use or any other uses that the Zoning Administrator deems acceptable for the zone" (emphasis added} Thus, an acceptahle use is not requ~red to be similaf~ to general of~ce uses Staff believes that, based an the wide discretion for use allowed in the indi~ndual zones at the site, it is approprzate for the Zamng Admimstratar and Ciry Cauncil to "deem acceptable" a supermarket occup~~ing a portion of the Hatel and Ol~znpic Bouleti~ard Zones, as proposed, given that a supermarket ~~.~Il have no ad~ erse impact on the ather uses permitted at the srte Staff can see no operational or safet~- haza~rd created b~~ allo~3~mg a supermarke~ on a site v~~ith office: restaurant, office-reiated zetail, medical office. and/or health club uses Furthermore, as indicated belo~v, the proposed market camplies u~rth the height standards established for the Hotel and Olympic Boule~~ard Zones and is compatihle ~~zth the General Plan and ~-~th the surraunding neighborhood For these reasons; it is recommended that the Plamm~~ COri1Iri15510~'1 find that a supermarket is a perm~tted use under the authority granted by Section 9{~} of the De~~elopment Agreement Proposed Amendments to Land Uses Permitted tn the Exist~ng Development Agreement The applicant xs xequesting a number of changes to the existing Development Agreement The most s~gmficant of these changes ~i~ouid amend Section 9{g}i to allov~~ a supermarket, neighbarhood retail and residential uses at the site. The applicant is also proposing to amend the deve~oper requ~rements relaring to mlmmum pro~~sian of on-s2te open space, mclusion of an on-site seu~age treatment facility, access ofF of Cla~-erfield Boule~ard, and the parameters by which an alcohol permit ma~~ be granted In regard to permitted uses at the property. the follow•mg list is proposed to substrtute for Section 9(g)i of the existmg DA (pp 9-11 of DA amendment) L se General Market/Grocery FASF Not to Exceed Sd,000 I~'eighbarhood Commercial Uses other than 7a,000 General Market/Grocery Health Club 60,000 Medical Office 3 5,000 -~- "'' l6~ Banks and sa~ings and loans 20,000 Restaurants {includmg fast food but not 25,040 including cafetenas and dining rooms, designed ta pr~marily serve the emplo~~ees of a single tenant and not open to the general public and not including General l~Iarket~Grocer}r) General Commercial Office (includzng 720,490 less the FASF cafeterias and dtn~ng rooms designed for uses other than to primaril~- ser~e the emplo~~ees of a General MarketJGrocery single tenant and not apen to the and Mu1tF-Famtly general public} and any sirnilar use Residential determined by the Zomng Admmistrator to be not more disturbing or disruptive than any specificail~ permitted use except that theatre use shall not be permitted Retail (other than Neighbarhood 10,000 Commercial) to serve primaril~~ emplo~ ees of, or visrtors to, busmesses located on the Real Property ?Vlult~-~amily Res~den#ial Housing 990,490 less the FASF util~zed for all other uses Regardless of the actual mix of uses developed under the proposed amendments, the maxnnum floor area would rema~n at the 1,040,49Q square feet (including the Sony Music Campus) established fn the current De~~elopment Agreement The ma~mum net~~ office square footage permitted v~~ould be 720,490 square feet, «~luch is 50,000 square feet less than the ma~czmum general office floor area permitted under the existin~ Development Agreement The 270,aoa square fee# allo«ed for the hotel in the existmg Develapment Agreement «ould be a~~ailable only for multifamil~ residential use under the amendment The 50,000 square feet permitted for the supermarket u.ould not be transferrable to an~~ other use and the additional 70,000 square feet of neig_hborhood retail uses would be a~iotived on1~• af a- - af 100 residential unrts ~~~ere constructed on-srte The follov~~ing chart compares the uses permrtted under the existing Development Agreement and the uses w°hich would be permitted under the praposal Uses Existing Development Proposed Development Agreement Agreement Amendments - so - M" I~$ Maaimurn Total Flaor 1, ~~0, 490 square feet 1, D~Q, 49p square feer Area Supermarket Sub~ect to Zomng Up to a~O,ODO sqft super- Admirustrator market permitted, square Determination regarding footage not transferable to Section 9(g)i any ather use Multifamily~ Residential Not Permitted Permrtted for up to 990, ~90 sq f~ {v~~hen the 96,490 sq ft Sony Music Campus is subtracted from this figure, a total of $94;082 sq ft of residential uses may be constructed}; sq ft transferable to office use Neighborhood Not Permitted Up to ?0, D00 sq ft if at Commercial (other than least 100 residemial unrts superm~rket) are constructed on-site, sq ft transferable to office use General Office Up to ,'•'0. 490 sq ft , nunus Up to 720, ~90 sq ft , muius square foota~e used for square footage used for other uses other uses Hotel Up to 2?0, OOD sq ft Not Permitted. Office Retail ~ 0, 000 sq fir maximum 10, 000 sq fr m~imum Health Club Up ta 60, ~00 sq ft Up to 60, 000 sq ft Medical Off ce Up to 3~, 000 sq ft Up to 35, DQO sq ft BankslSa~rings & Loans Up ta 20, 000 sq ft Up to 20, 000 sq ft Restaurants Up to 2~, 000 sq ft Up to 2~, 000 sq ft The amendment contains a very specific definition of "neighborhood commercial uses" to include general market and grocery stores; spec~alt~- foad stares, drug stores up to 30,0~0 sq ft. and o~her specif ed neighborhood uses including hard«~are stores, plant nurseries, ~~ideo rental stores, shoe repair shops, cleaners. photocop~~ stores, and sporting goods retailers t~~hich do not exceed 10,000 sq ft in area R~'hen the deduct~on for the supermarket and existing office development is taken ~nto account, a maxirnum af 894,082 square feet of nev~~ residential use svould be permitted - ~~ - ~f .~5~ The DA amendment does not specif~= a m~imum nu~nber af uruts allo~i~ed v~7thin this area. but if rt is assumed that the a~-erage size of units is slightly less than 1,200 square feet, a total of 760 umts could be constructed at the srte if no ather new uses {other than a supermarket) ~~~ere constructed The proposed amendment would allo~~~ commercial use ~~~thm residential un~ts proi~ded that the portion to be utilized commerczally is counted to«ard the total commercial uses permitted on the property, if this provision. ~ere appIied to a particular unit, the use of the commercial space «~rth~n the unrt would not be sub~ect to the Home Occupation Perm~t requirements contained in the Santa Monica Murucipal Code (SVIMC) B}~ enacting t~iis change to the standard Home Occupation Pertnrt reqiurements, the applicarnt intends to enhance the opportututies for live/work situations at the praject Other land use-related changes include - A pro~~sion exempting the applicant from a Condrtional Use Permrt reqiurement for a residential condominium subdzvision (Amendment to Section 14 of existm~ Development Agreement. p 11 of DA amendment ) - An amendment to the park~ng shared-use parkmg formula established in the existing Development A~reement i~hich «-ould delete the existmg reference to hotel uses, establish existing code parking reqzurements for newly permitted reszdential and neighborhaod commercial (~ncluding supermarket) uses, and pro~-ides that, w~th Plannmg Commission appro~~al, further amendments to the shared use formula may be rnade w°hich incorporate residential and neighbarhood commercial uses {Amen~nent #o Section 9{~i of the existing DA, p 8-9 of DA amendment } - Up to 25,000 sc~uare feet of restaurant uses are permrtted at the s~te ~ander the existing Development Agreement and no change is proposed to this amount However, the applicant proposes an amendment «hich wauld allow a ininimum of three restaurants u-~th alcohol at the srte pro~=~ded a Condrtional Use Permit ~~~ere obtained for each one and all relevant findings ~~ere made (Pages 1$-19 of DA amendment ) - A further alcohol-related amendrnent ~nould allow an off-sale alcohol license at the supermarket wrthout the issuance of a Conditional Use Permrt This condrtion prohibits the sale of fartified v4lnes at the supermarket and requires a Condi~tonal Use Permit if the shelf space for alcohol at the market is increased beyond 950 Zmear feet {Page 18 af DA amendment ) Proposed Amendments to Amemties and Fees Required by the Existing De~~elopment A~reement An~~ multifamilv umts constructed at the srte would be required to comply «,~ith Prapositiol~ R The proposed Development Agreement amendment requires the appl~cant to pay an in- - ~2 - ~'~ 17 0 lieu fee in accordance ~vith the adopted affordable housmg fee for lovv mcome uruts (p 12- 13 of DA amendment) All requued moderate income units ~~~ould be required on-srte A further pro~~isiQn ~iould allotiv the ~2 2 miltion housing and parks pre-parment {required under the existing Development Agreement) to be applied ta any required Proposition R fee, before the existing credrt is used for office development This condit~on differs from the requirements of the Cit}~ Ordinance implement~ng Propositian R for the low income uruts, m that rt allows an in-lieu fee to be paid ~f more than 20 unrts are constructed, whereas the Santa Monica Municipai Code requires on-site pro~~~sion of all inclusionary ur~ts for pro~ects af 20 unrts or more The proposed amendment requires that moderate mcome units shall be built on-site Staff has evaluated this proposal and determined tha~, althaugh rt differs ~~zth ~rdinance 1615, rt is m compliance v~~ith Proposrtion R, and may act to fac~lrtate housing de~elopment a~ this skte In arder to facilrtate the proposed market and associated surface parking, the applicant praposes an amendr~ent to Sechan 13(b) ("Open Space") of the ex~sting Developmer~t Agreement in order to ailo~~ surface parkmg to satisfy a port~on of the 25;000 square-foot open space requirement at the corner of Cloverfield and Oly~mpic Boule~rards anl;~ if the pro~ect zncludes a supermarket and if the follo«~ing measures are taken {Exhibit C to DA amendment) - The apphcant must work ~~~ith surroundmg property~ ov~~ners to develop a uniform landscape and streetscape theme for the area - A 20"-w~de landscaped area, m compliance ~~rth landscape mam~enance and xeriscape requirements, shall be provided betv~~een the public rights-of ~~ay and the surface park~ng, except for the areas that are taken ~p by entn~ drives or right turn pockets af deemed necessary by the Park~ng and I'raffic Diti~ision - At the interiar edge of the 20~-~~de landscaped strip, the applicant shall provide a 3'-high concrete wail shali pro~-ide screemng of the parkmg area - The perimeter parking area shall be partiall~ screened b~- a landscaped trellis - A minimum of 10% af the paved ~~ehicular shall be devoted to landscaped islands, penu~sulas or anedians distributed throughout the paved area ~ - A mimmum of one tree for each 1,200 square feet of ~rehicular pa~~ed area shatl be pra~ided - Light~ng shall be pravided and ma~ntained in accordance ~~Trth Sect~an 9 ~4 10 02 270 of the Zor~ng ~rdinance Staff belie~-es that the proposed standards do not adequatel~~ compensate for the replacement - 13 - k~' ~ ~~ of open space w7th surface parkmg At a mirurnum, the amended Develapment Agreement should include a requirement that at least 1 ~% of the pa~Jed area be landscaped (as compared vs~ith the standard code requirement requ~ring landscaping of at least 10% of the paved area, and as compared to the appraximatel~ 3% landscaped area proposed as a part of the DR application for the supermarket building} and that a 3~-high landscaped buffer (as compazed v~ntii the proposed 3" cancrete ~~al1j surround the parking area (DA Conditians 1 and 2) The applicant also seeks to amend the condrtion of the existing Development Agreement ~~; hich reqwres that the appl~cant provide on-site se~~ age treatment {Sect~on 1 ~ of Exh~bit D} The proposed amendment ~~~ould not requir~ the construction of an on-site treatment facilit}~ if the applicant pays the ~enerali~~ applicable se«er connection fee plus $ 25 per square foot of ~eneral off ce use constructed The amendment also establishes that the applicant ma}= utilize the existing on-site treatment facil~ty at the 5ony iVlusic Campus if the applicant pays a sev~~er connection fee equal to 10% of the generally applicable connection fee Non-office uses w-ould be charged the generally applicable sewer connectian fees Proposed Amendments to Vehicular Access Pro~ isions of the Existing De~-elopment A~reement Sect~an 9(i) of the existing Development Agr~ement allo~~s no more than fi~:e ~~elucular access pomts off of Colorado Avenue (includFng up to three for general autamobile access), no mare than three access paints off of ~lympic Boule~°ard {including up to two for general automobile access), up to one service access aff af 20th Street, and no access points off of Cloti-erfield Boulevard (other than a loading zone for the hotel} The appl~cant proposes ta delete the reference to the hotei m Section 9{i)(u) and allo~v up to one access point an Clo~~erfield Boule~-ard "u~hich shall be for access exclusively to and from portions of the Pro~ect utilized for multifamily Residentzal Housmg and Neighborhood Commercial (paragraph 5 p 11 of DA amendrnent} Th~s access point shall be right-turn m and right- turn out only, proti-ided, hov~Tever, that the Access Point ma~ also mclude left-turns mto and out of the pro~ect ~vith the approval of the City Parking and Traff'ic Engineer and an such conditions as such Engineer rnay require " This condit~on is consistent w~th the mztigatian measure recomznended on page 13 of the EIR General Plan Compliance Pursuant to the terms of the existing De~-elopment Agreement. de~~elopment at the srte must be in comp~~ance with the Genera~ P~an ~hich ~~~as in effect at the trme the agreement ~~as executed in 1987 The current Land Use and Circulation E~ement {LUCE) of the General Plan «Tas adopted in 19$4 and re~-ised in 1987 {prior ~o execut~on of the Development Agreement} In that the praposed amendment allows a supermarket use. neighborhaod commercial uses, and multifamily resident~al uses «°h~ch were not permitted when the existing Development Agreement was executed, these new-ly perm~tted uses must be evaluated far General Plan conforrnance - I4 - ~~~ The subject property is located ti~rthin the Special Office Districf of the General P1an General affice is the primar~; use envisioned for this area, as stated m Ob~ective 1 8 Cansistent ~~~ith tlus polic~~, a nurnber of lar~e office pro~ects ha~e been approved within the District; mcludmg MGM Plaza, the Wa#er Garden; Nahonal Medical Enterprises, the Son}~ Music Campus, and ather office projects Staff belie~~es that the polic5r encoura~ing office development has been successfull~~ aclueti~ed, and that this policy does not preclude the de~elopment of other uses ~vithin the District or on the subaect parcel The proposed SO,OOQ square foot supermarket use is consistent with Policy 1.7 ~ of the LUCE, wh~ch s~ates that the Crty shal~ "encourage the develapment of full-service supermarkets m areas not currently ser~~ed," and policy 1 7 7, ~i~hich further states that the Crty shall "encourage the development of grocerfes ti~~thin a fire-to-ten-rmnute walking distance of areas not currentlyr ser~~ed " The Pica Neighborhood. v~-hich extends to the north~rn (Calorada Avenue) boundary of the sub~ect property, is Fdentified on page 29 of the LUCE as bemg inadequately sen-ed b~ anyr ma~ar supermarket The proposed arnendment allowing up to 70,000 square feet of neighbarhood retail uses (in add~tion to the supermarket) at the srte is condrtioned an a requirement that, neighborhood commercial uses may only be developed if at least 100 residential untts are constructed By linkmg these retail uses to residential uses on the site, the amendment is consistent «;ith Ob~ective 1 7 of the LUCE, urhich states that the City shall " expand uses that pro~ide for day-to-day shoppmg and serviee needs of nearby residents The City shall encourage the pro~~sion of neighborhood commercial serti~ices u:ithm walk~ng distance of all neighbarhoods " The neighborhood retail uses would also be ~7thm ~~•allung distance of some residential areas, includmg the existing residential neighborhood east of 26th Street The mult~family residentzal use proposed in the amendment is cons~stent u~th Pol~c~~ 1.10.2 of the LUCE, «~hich states that the Cit~~ shall "allow residential use m all commercial C115tI'1Ct5 " Policy 1 2 1 further states that the Citti shall "encaurage residential mixed use of appropriate commercially zoned parcels in arder to provide a better transition bet«~een cammercial and ad~acent residential uses, to enhance security, and to increase the hours of use of inetropolitan areas " CEQA COMPLIANCE Original Environmental Re~ ie~v The existing Dej-elopment Agreement v~-as approved after the preparanan of an Environmental Impact Report for that pro~ect That EIR found that the pro~ect w•ouid have sign~ficant unai~oidable impacts related to transportat~on and circuiation, even w-~th several mitigat~on measures, all ott~er areas studied lay the EIR ~~ere found to haae either an insignificant impact after mrtigation or a beneficial impact The CrtS% Council adopted a Statement of O~=erriding Considerat~ons related to the traffic irripacts of the pro~ect, finding that "as substantiall~~ rnit~gated by the specified requirements, the potential impact on - ~s - ~~" 173 circulation is acceptable." The appro~ed Development Agreement contained various mrtigat~on measures in addrtion to the payment af ~~ milhon tn fund traffic improvements in or the Special Office District C~u-rent Environmental Re~new After preparation of an Initial Study, the Crty's Environmental Review Committee determined that the proposed De~~elopment Agreement amendment and Zoning Administratar Deternunation would require the certification of an En~-ironmental Impact Report {EIR 93-U03, Attachment I} The 45-dayr comment period for the EIR expired on September 14. 1994, b~~ .~ihich time a total of 9 comment letters were recei~ed The responses to comrnents are mcluded m the final draft of the EIR, «~hich ~ias made available to the public on Octaber 10, 1994 EIR 93-Od3 Methodology The EIR evaluated the environmental effects of the pro~ect as compared to build-out of the existing appro~~ed Development Agreement For mstance, traffic impacts were analyzed l~ti comparing the future impacts of the approved pro~ect with ~he future impacts of the proposed pro~ect; if the ditterence bet~i~een build-aut of the existing Development Agreement and build-aut of the proposed pro~ect resulted in a significant change in #he delay at a particular intersection, that impact would be found to be significant In order to encompass the range o€ uses which ~~~ould be permitted erther under the amendment or the Zomng Admmistrator Determination, the EIR (described in detail on pages 46 through 51 of that document} analyzed four separate schemes, as fallo~r~s - Scheme A- No Residential Developrnent. Under this scheme, the pro~ect site w~ould l~e de~eloped wrth a~0,000 square-foot grocery store, 40~,490 square feet of commercial office space, a 60,000 square-foot health club, 10,000 square feet of site-sen~mg retail, 35,0000 square feet of inedical office; 20,000 square feet of bank space, 2~,004 square feet af restaurants and 70,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial uses - Scheme B- Residential/Office Development Under this scheme, the ~roject srte ~~ould be developed ~vrth a ~0,~00 square-foot grocery store, 62~,490 square feet of commercial office space, and 270,000 square feet of residentiai space, housing approxixnately 216 dw~elling umts - Scheme C- No Nec~- Office Development Under this scheme> the pro~ect site ~z~ould be developed ~vrth a 50,000 square-foat gracery• store and 895,490 square feet of residential space, housing approximately 760 du~elling unrts - Scheme D- No Amendment ta Exist~ng Development Agreement Under thzs scheme, the 50,000 square-foot grocer~- store ti~vould be dei-eloped on the pro~ect - z6 - ~~ 1?4 srte under a Zomng Admimstrator Deternunat~on allow2ng this use under the existing development agreement ~ro amendment to the development agreement would be made under this scheme, total de~~elopznent on the pro~ect sate would mc~ude the SO,DQO square-foot grocery store, 47~,490 square feet of commerciai office space, a 60,040 square-foot health club, 14,000 square feet af site-ser<<ing retail, ;5,000 square feet of inedical office, 20,OOD square feet of bank space, and 2~,400 square feet af restaurants Scheme D does not include a hotel use because the applicant agreed not to construct a hotel at the site if a market is developed Based on this anal}~ sis, the EIR ident~fied that the Recreation and Open Space adverse ~mpact associated ti~7th the proposed multifamily residential use {as analyzed ~n Schemes B and C} could not be reduced to belo«- a sigmficant level. For traffic, energy, light and glare, and police protecuon impacts, mit~~ation measures w=ere identified v~~hich would reduce the associated impacts to betow the level of stgruficance The remauun~ environmental issues anal} zed in the EIR were found to have no significant adverse impacts w~hen compared to the e~stmg Development Agreement Recreation and Open Space Impacts According to the adopted ~oal of the Santa Momca Recreation and Parks Comrnission, 2 5 acres of open space should be pro~ided for e~~ery 1,000 resic~ents of the Crt~ Santa Monica's open space ratio of 1 5 acres per 1,000 residents currently falls short of this park and open space goal The creation of new residential umts creates a greater strain on the City park and recreation s<<stem than affice development; m addition, the standard parks fEE5 generated b~~ residential unrts ($200 per umt} is far lower than that generated by standard commercial office fees {$2 25 for the first 1~,000 sq ft and $~ 00 for e~~ery addit~anal s~ ft.) The $200/un2t fee uas establ7shed m 1973 and has been the standard fee for all multifam~ly residential development since that time The Cammunity and Cultural Sen~ices Department plans to mrtiate revie«~ of a change to this fee Based on these fees, the existmg De~-elopment Agreement cvould generate a total of approximatelSr $2 8 rnillion Schemes A and D, «~hich both include no residential development, ~~ouid generate a total of approximately $2 16 million and $2 5 million, respectivel;~. as compared to a total af $152,000 generated b}T Scheme C, «-1uch includes only ne~.~- residential and supermarket uses (this assumes a$20D per unrt parks fee) Scheme B, vs~hich analyzes a mixed-use pro~ect «~th res~dential and offce uses, ~.iould generate a total of approximately $3 l~ million, ti~~hich; although a higher amount than the e~isting Deti-elopment Agreement, still does not adequateiy meet the additional recreation needs created b~~ the approximately ~44 persons tiirho ti~~ould li~~e at the site The applicant has proposed to douhle the residential cantribution to $4Q0 per unrt Ho«rever, given the increased park demand created by the resadential unrts and the subs#antial deficrt betti~~een the fees generated bti- the approved hotel/office development and that generated b~~ a fee of $4D0 per unit (ivhich «~ould result in a total of ~304,000 under - ~~ - "~ ~ 75 scheme C), staff believes that the zncrease fee proposed by the applicant w~ii not adequatel3~ mrtigate the impacts, and, absent further ~nitigatian, a significant impact «~ould remam, and a Statement of Overrid~ng Considerations ~.~~ould be nec~ssary Staff conducted a prelixmnary surve~~ of other ~urisdictions ta determine an appropnate fee to mrtigate the impact on parks. Based on a sur~:ey of se~~en jurzsdictions, parks fees ran~ed from $500 to ~7,~d0 per unit Although the $400 fee praposed by the applicant attempts ta reduce the lmpact, siaff is recommending a mit~gauon fee closer to $1,040 per umt The applicant has ind~cated that the imposition of further costs on the residential component ma~~ make residential de~-elopment less feasible, and that ~f residential de~~elapment did not occur, substantially greater negat~te traffie and ~obs/1lousing impacts ~vould result Traffic Impacts The EIR evaluated the future cumulatzve traffic impacts of the DA amendments and the future cumulative impacts of the Zonmg - Determinatxon as campared to the future cumulative impacts of the approved pro~ect A total of 39 key intersect~ons were chosen far analysis They represent locations that could experience a significant increase m traffic due to the proposed amendment or determination Tlurty-seven of the uitersections are signalized and ri~~o are unsignalized Existing traffic caunts from the 1993 Santa Monuca Master Em-~ronmental Assessment (MEA} database u~ere used far 38 mtersections, traffic count data for the remaimng mtersect~on ~~las talcen d~rectly from the 5anta ~ionica College Expansion Traff c Analysis, conducted in October, 1993. A complete list of the study ~ntersection is contamed within Table 4 2-1 on pages ?4-75 of the EIR Consistent ~~ith City of Santa Momca guidelmes far EIR traffic impact analyses, traffic operating conditions were anal<<zed using mtersection delay-based methodolagy This merhadology ~s kno~~n as the "Highu~aS~ Capac2ty Manual 1985 Delay Based MetY~odology" and utilizes per~od af dela~r as the standard b~~ «~h~ch a sigmficant fmpact ~s determined unless an intersection is already operating a an F level of service, in «:hich case an}- ~n.crease in the ~~olume/capacrty ratio is considered a sigmficant impact Compared to buildout under the appro~~ed DA. the EIR identified three potentially-impacted intersections using this methodology 1~Ieas~ares «~ere identified to mrtigate each of these impacts, as illustrated Ln the followmg chart ~"' ~~6 - 18 - Scheme Impacted Level of Additional Summary of Inter- Senice Under Period of Recammend- section(s); AM Approved Delay ed Mitigation or PM D.A. and Identified Measures (See Under p. 11-12 of Progosed EIR far Project complete descri~tian.} A 20th St / Appro~ed D 15 6 Seconds Updated (Amended DA Braadway- PM Proposed E intersectian w/ no signal residenti~l equipment development} Centmela/ Appraved F N/A ( 024 Make Colorado- PM Proposed F mcrease in ~-/c} permanent the temporary ~~estbound left turn lane B 20th/Wilshire- Approved F N/A { 021 Restripe (ResidentiaU AM Proposed F increase in v/c) northbound office approach on development} 20th at Wilshire C None Identified N/A N/A N/A {No new office de~ elopment) D 20th/W~ishire- Appro~~ed F N/A { 003 Restripe {Na PM Proposed: F mcrease m ti=/c} northbound amendment to approach on existing 2Qth at Development Wilshire Agreement} After mrtigation, the abo~~e impacts tii~ere found to be reduced to below the level of significance The EIR also idenhfied se~~eral intersections «~hich «~ould hat-e impro<<ed traffic flov~° under the proposal Scheme A«°auld result in 27 intersections (listed on p 98 of the EIR} ti~~th impro~~ed future operating conditions as compared to impacts created under the existing ~~ 17? - ~s - Development Agreement. Schemes B and C v~o~d each result in 34 impro~-ed mtersectians (not the same 34 intersections for each scheme), as shor~~n on pages 10~ and 106 of the EIR Scheme D wauld result in 28 impro~~ed intersections, as shov4-n on pages 113 and 120 of the EIR In ~eneral terms, the EIR found residential use, as represented in Schemes B and C, ta ha~~e the lo«~est traffic impacts of an~- of the proposed uses The supermarket use was found to have a relativel}T high impact an peak-hour traffic. as indicated by Scheme D, ~rhich found one impacted intersection as compared to the appro<<ed pro~ect, even though Scheme D deleted the hotel square footage and the supermarket square footage was subtracted from the tatal allo~jed for ofFice use However, «~hen the mtersections wnth reduced impacts are taken mto account, the overall traffic impacts of all of the schemes is lo«Ter than the approved pro~ect In adduian to the impacts of traffic created b~ the new uses an the srte, the EIR evaluated the impact of the proposed access off of Cla~~erfeld Boule~-ard The applicant or~gmally proposed Ieft tums in and out of this access point, «~hich the EIR states "may mterfere ~ith the efficient operation of the left turning movement at Clo~~erfield and Olympic and therefare the intersechon operation as a v~~hole " Hov~~ever, the EIR concludes that "left turn mo~~ement from Cloverfield mto the pro~ect is feas~ble because the road«ay geometrics can be designed to allow this movement «~th minimal impact on Cloverfield Bouievard " A mitigation measure is recommended prolubittng left turns from the pro~ect site onto Cloverfield and allow~ng left turns onto the pro~ect srte anly~ if the roadv~ray geornetrics are acceptable to the City Parkmg and Traffic Engineer, if left turns are allo~i~ed, but create problems in the future, the Cit~' Parkmg and Traffic Engineer ~~~11 ha~~e the right to res~'iCt or prohibit left turns at this location {p 130 of EIR} Other Potential Impacts and Recommended Miti~ation Measures Identified in the EIR The EIR idencifies potentially significant ~mpacts from energy consumption {Schemes A and C}, light and glare {5chemes B and C), and police protection (Schemes B and C) Recommended mrtigation measures are identifi~d to reduce each of these potential impacts to belo~~ the level of significance Recommended energy mrtigation measwes are contamed on pages 19-20 of the EIR, recommended light and glare mitigations are recommended on pages 23-24, and recommended police protection measures are contained on page 30 A number of minor differences exist bet~~~een the recommended m~tigation measures «rthin the EIR and the condrtrons reqiured in the Development Agreement amendment. as follo«s - The mitigat~on measure recommended for parl~ng (p 13 of EIR) has been revised in the DA amendment ta allo«~ the existzng shared use fortnula to be used for all pe~tnrtted uses except res~dential and neighborhood commercial (includmg supermarket) uses (pp S-9 of DA amendment) ADP is entrtled to establish a new shaxed use formula far these uses at a future date, sub~ect to ~~ ~78 - ZD - Plannin~ Commission approval - In-lieu of the various construct~on mitigation measures on pages 20-21 af the EIR, the DA amendment requires submission af a construction mrtigation plan under the customar5° City pracedure (p 1 b, paragraph 19 of DA amendment) - The language for the Propositian R requirement noted on page 27 of the EIR has been revised as shown ui paragraph 8, pages I2-I3, of the DA amendment - The F~re Department re~-iew mrt~gation on page 29 af the EIR ~s not included as a condrtion of the DA am~ndment However, Fire Department re~~ew u~~ll be required durmg the plan check stage regardless of whether rt is called out as a DA condition or nat - The w•ater mitigation measure relating to hy~drant flo~;~ testing on page 3 3 of the EIR is not mcluded in the amendment because rt is already sat~sfied by paragraph 9 of exhibit D of the existing Development Agreement - The two se~~er-related measures nated on page 35 of the EIR are not included in the DA amendment because they are nat required to mrtigate an identified significant impact - Paragraph 26 on page 17 af the DA amendment is a recy~cling mzt~gation measure whzch is no~ ~ncluded as a miti~ation measure in the EIR REVIEW OF SPECIFIC BUILDINGS Backgraund of De~elopment Re~~e«~ Permrt 94-OD6 Section 9{1) ("Reviev~= of Specific Buzldin~s") of the ex~sting Develapment Agreement establishes procedures for re~~ie~v of specific buildmgs As no changes are praposed ta this section, the same process applies under the Zonmg Administratar Determmation and under the De~lelopment Agreerrient amendment Section 9{I} requires the Plamm~g Commission to make the DR findmgs 1 through 7 cantained in thts report These include findings related to harmonious placement of the building on the srte, an adequate access and internal circulatian plan, and compliance «zth development and parking standards conta~ned in the Development Agreement. The Planiung Commission~ s decision is appealable to the City Councrl Section 17(c) of the existmg De~elopment Agreement further requrres Architectuxal Revieti~~ Board approval of building design and landsca~ing prior to issuance of a building perm~t. The applicant has submitted tv4~o alternative proposals for DR 94-006 Both alternatives propase a 49,~56 square foot supermarket ~v-~th 104 surface parkmg spaces and 105 subterranean parking spaces The anly difference zs that the "ZA Plan" includes na access r~ 179 - 21 - off of Cloverfield Boulevard and could be adopted if the proposed Zomng Admimstrator Determ~nation is approved by the Cit~- Council The "Amendment Plan" mcl~des access off of Cloverfield Boulevard and therefore is contmgent on the approval of Development Agreement 93-403 to arnend the exisring De~~elopment Agreement Pro~ect Desi~n af DR 44-006 The applicant praposes a one-stozy supermarket ~~-~th approximately &,616 square feet of v~~arehouse area and 41.D4~ square feet of display, administrati~ e, and service area The customer entry w-ould face Cloverfield Boulevard and the ser~~ice entry would be located off of a drn~e~i~a<< on Olympic Boule~Tard Betv~~een the supermarket and Cloz~erfield Boulevard the site ~-ould contain a surface parl~ng lot v~~th 104 parking spaces T~~o elevators and t~~~o ramps would lead fram the market entrance to a subterranean garage containing an additional 10~ paricin~ spaces The extenor of the supermarket «rould be finished «-~th a polished block rnaterial The entry~ would feature a metal canoptiT, a porcelain tile element, clear glass, and pauited metal claddzng The shape of the structure u~auld reflect standard supermarket design, ~~th a 188"-long blank ~i°all facing Olympic Boulevard {the south elevation} Staff believes that the Architectural Revieti~ Board should u~ark ti~~ith the applicant to create a design whzch better relates ta Qlympic Boule~ard (Condrtion 2} The proposed supermarket must comply 4~~ith the standards set farth in Section 9 of the existing De~~elopment Agreement Section 9(a), to «~hich no a~nendment is praposed; establishes a maximum Floor Area Ratio of 1 85 and a states that the tatal floor area the srte may not exceed 1,040,490 sc~uare feet If the proposed market uere constructed, a total af 229.574 s~ ft of floor area Ll•'Ollld exist on the 12 7 acre srte, ~n compliance with this requirement Thus floor area would mclude the 96,408 sq ft Sony Music Campus and $3,~ 1$ sq ft of miscellaneous exfsting uses ~~~hich have not been redeveloped Height standards are established thi-ough a"Zone Diagram" ~~hich is referenced in Sections 9(b)i and 9{b)ii attached as E~i~zt B to the Development Agreement Under the Zoning Administratar Determination, th~ market ~~ould be located ~~7thin the Hotel Zone {maximum height 96~, 9 stories} and 41~mpic Boulerard Zone (ma~imum height 84~; 6 floors} If the Development Agreement amendment is approved, the entire market vy-auld be ~ocated wrthin a"Vlarket Zone" v4nth a m~~nurn height of $4' Whether exastmg ar proposed standards are applied, the market complies ti~zth a height of 31 ~b° (at the highest pamt) and one story Section 9{c) of the Development Agreement {as existing and proposed} establishes a maximum 50% iot coverage of the "aggregate square footage of the at-grade footprint of all buildings" at the 12 7 acre srte TI~e Son~~ Music Campus encompasses lot coverage of 37,334 sq_ft and other buildmgs at the stte, excluding any buildings ~,~.~hich vvould be demolished as a result of the market construction, co~~er a total of 120,848 sq ft With the - 22 - ~~~ ~~4 additian of the market, «~hich co<<ers a total of 50,346 sq ft af lot area, the lot co~-erage at the srte ~~°ould be 30%, in compliance w°ith Section 9(c) of the De~elopment Agreement Sectians 9(d) and (e) of the Development Agreement, to tii~hich no amendments are proposed, address mirumum setbacks required Subsectian (d} establishes a mimmum 20' setback to the "Setback Base Line" for all buildings In Section ~{k}, the Setback Base L~ne is defined as "the inter~or boundar~~ of the side~;~alk adjolmng a public right-of-«-ay" «~ith certaui exceptions which are not applxcable m the sub~ect applieatian At rts closest point to any public right-of-way, the proposed market is at least 20' from the propertt- Iine ad~acent ta Ol~znpic Boule~ard, m compliance ~~~th the requirements of Section 4(d) Section 9(e) establishes a building volume en~~elope requiring addrtianal setbacks for structures over 31 ' in height Most of the market ~~ould be 25' 6" high, the only portian to exceed 31" «~ould be a to~}er element at the front en~rance, more than ~b' from the closest propert~~ l~ne Therefore, the proposed pro~ect is in compiiance ~~~th Section 9(e) Landscape Desi~n of DR 94-006 Section 13(b) af the existmg De~~elopment Agreement establishes open space requirements for the pro~ect Under the existmg provision, a mirumum of 25,000 square feet af open space "developed and used for viewshed purposes" and "landscaped in a pedestrian-ariented manner" must be provided at the corner of Oly~npic and Cloverfield Boulevards, ti~Yuch is called out as the "Olympic Cloverfield Gate«~ay " The document does not identify th~ precise boundaries of the requxred open space, except to say that rt must be located at the comer of ~l~~mpic and Clo~rerfield Boulevards Staff interprets that this requirement cannot be met v~~th surface parkxng, «~hich is clearl~c~ not "pedestr~an friendly," unless the proposed amendment is adopfed Under botli the ZA Plar~ and the Amendment Plan, the praposed landscapin~ includes a 20'- v+,~ide landscaped strip along bath the Oly~npic and Clo~-erfield Boule~~ard frantages. The pa~~ed area of the surFace park~ng lot ~vould mclude 1,551 square feet of landscaping, ar 3 3% of the tatal paved area (this figure nses to 4 5°/a of the total paved area in ZA Plan, whtch includes landscapmg in the area ti~here the Clo~~erfield driE~eway is proposed for Amendment Plan) Under the proposed Zamng ~dm~mstrator Determination, only existing De~eloprnent flgreement landscaping standards ~i~ould appl}~. no mimrnum landscape standard is esta.bl~shed for surface park~ng Hov~-ever. Secnon 17{c} requires Architectural Revie~~ Board appra~~al of the landscap~ng plans The praposed market ~~~ould not compl}~ w°ith the 25,000 square foot "Cloverfield/Olympic Gate~~Tay" requirernent contained in Section 13(b} of the Develapment Agreement. In addition to the surface parking located ~.;~itlun the 25,000 square foot area, much of the landscaping along the Cloverfield frontage is steeply sloped in a manner which is not "pedestrian friendly," as requ~red Far this reason_ staff recommends that this proposal be redesigned and return to the Plamm~g Commission for ~ +~ ~ 81 - 23 - further revie~v at a later date With the amended De~~elopment Agreement, u~luch is represented on the Amendment Plan, surface parking may count toward the open space reqiurement and the City Council ti~~ll have the opportunrty to adapt minimum landscaping standards for surface parkmg Staff recommends that a standard be adopted requiring that at least 15% of the paved area be landscaped, and a landscape buffer at least 3' in height ad~acent to the public nght-of-way surraundmg the surface parking, wl~ich ~ti~ould require amendment to the plans (Reference DA Cond~hons 1 and 2 and DR Condrtion 1 of tYus report ) ~arkin~ and Circulation of DR 94-006 Qn bath plans, 104 parkmg spaces «~ould be provided at ground let el and 1.45 parkmg spaces v,,~ould be proti~~ded at the subterranean level Vehicular access ta the subterranean parkmg ~~~ould be pravided through a circular ramp at the southeastern corner of the srte A loading area ti~~ould be provided aff of Oli~npic Boule~~ard, at the rear of the market On the ZA Plan, the only access to the parking area «~ould be off of Oly~mpic Boulevard, where a right-turn oniy, ti~o lane driveway would be located. On the Amendment Plan, ~:ehicular access to the parking area ~.~ould be pro~~ided through an addrtional douhle drir~~eway at Clo~~erfield Boulevard The Parking and Traffic Engineer has only approved nght turns at the Cloverfield access, although the appiicant intends to submit a propasal indicating the impro~ ements ti~hich ~~~ould be necessar3~ to allow left turns into the srte off of the northhound lane of Clo~=erfield Boulel~ard The amended Development Agreement «~ould allow such turns off af Clo~~erfield Baulevard subject to re~iew and approval b~~ the Cit~~ Parking and Traffic Eng~neer if rt is determmed that such turns are feasibie and safe Ho~~e~rer, the amendnrzent ~~auid prohibrt left turns from the site onto Cloverfield Baule~ard Under the shared use formula of the existu~g Development Agreement, a total of 83 parking spaces c~ould be required for the praposed retail use, w-~th no m~imum number of compact spaces established This figure is taken from the shared ~se foz~nula contained in Exhibit C and ~.~ould appl~~ if the Zor~ng Admimstrator Determination is adopted v~~ithout an amendment to tne Development Agreemeni If the Development Agreement amendment is adopted, ho~~~e~-er, the pro~ect ~~~ould be required to compiy~ 1~~th current minimum code parlcing requirements for retail uses, uniess a shared use #'ormula is approved by the Planning Commissian at a later date Current code «~ould require a xmmmum of 173 parlcing spaces for the propased market, based an a req~urement of 1 space per 250 square feet of d~splay, ser~-ice and administrati~te area. and one space per 1,000 square feet of ti~,~arehouse/storage area A maximum of 40% of the reqtured spaces may be compact In addition to the vehicular parking requirement, the applicant is required to pra~~ide 9 bicycle parking spaces and one electrical outlet tivhich shall be accessible to the parktng area for the purpose of rechargmg electr~c vehicles The 209 standard-sized vehiculax parkmg spaces provided conform ~~=ith erther the approved or amended De~elopment Agreement Bicycle w~ I82 - 24 - parking spaces and the requ~red electrical outlet have not been show°n for the Amendment Plan, wluch is addressed in condition 4 of this staff report Neighborhood Compatibility of DR 94-006 As indicated in Figure 4 1-1 an page 55 of the EiR, the project srte is located in a primarily industrial area, wrth se~~eral new affice developments in the tincimty, in addition ta residential neighborhoads to the north and north~~est Surrounding land uses mclude the Water Garden, MGM Plaza, severa~ other office developments, vazious indusmal uses, and retail and residential uses to the north and north«~est Several churches and schools are also located ~~rthin the pro~ect ~~icinrt}' Under the proposed Zomng Admimstrator Determination. the supermarket would be located i~:ithin a srte appro~~ed pnmarily for office de<<elapment ti~~hich, as specified in Section 9(g)i of the existing Development Agreement, ma~~ mclude up to 10,Q0~ sc~.ft of office- supporting retail uses and up to 25,000 square feet of restaurant uses Lrnder the proposed De~~elopment Agreement amendment, tlae supermarket would he located «7thin a pro~ect 1~°hich rnay include residential, office or addztional neighborhood retail uses. Although different from most of the surrounding uses. the proposed supermarket is compatible w°rth the neighborhood in ~i~hECh it ~vould be lacated as a retail use thac ti~Till serve both the surroundmg residential and commercial/mdustrFal uses and as a use in an area that is inadequatel~ served by a ma~or supermarket. Conclusion The Plann~ng Carnmission xs rec~uested to make a number of dec~stons and recommendations ~~zth tlus applzcatian If the Counctl appro~~es the Zor~ng Adm~rustrator Determination, the applicant will be allo~~ed to estabiish a supermarket use at the s~te «~thout an amendment to the existing De~-elapment Agreement The EIR concluded that if a supermarket E~-ere developed at the site under the approved Development Agreement (Scheme D), one mtersection {20th and Broadu~av) ~~ould be negativel~ xmpacted, but that mitigat~on measures could reduce this impact to belo~i~ the level of significance On the positive side, an approval of the Zomng Admimstrator Determination ~~ould allow the development of a needed use in the Pico ~e~ghborhood, and the propased use is campatible ~~~th the approved office, restaurant, office retail and ather miscellaneous uses already allo~~Ted at the srte The Development Agreement amendment u-ould explicitly allo« several uses identified as positive uses in the General Plan, including tl~e supermarket itself addrtional neighborhood- servmg retail uses. and residential uses The EIR ident~fied three mtersections which could passibly be unpacted by these amendments, but mitigat~on measures were specified to reduce all of these impacts to below the ~e~~el of sigmficance Other environmental impacts to light and glare, ener~~ consumption, and palice protection may also be mrtigated to the M•• 183 - 25 - level of insigrnficance The oniy impact v~~hich remains signkficant after miti~ation is the parks and open space impact; ~Thich ~~ill require a Statement of Overriding Cansiderat~ons by the City Council unless adequate rnitigation measures are provided The EIR ~~w°as processed in accordance «~ith all the rele~ant provisians of CEQA and therefore l~arrants certificatian b~- the City~ CounciI The ZA Plan aption of DR 94-006, submitted pursuant to the Zarun~ Admimstrator Determination and subaect to the existing D~velopment Agreement, should not be appro~red at this time because rt does not conform to Sectfon 13{b) of the Agreement regarding the pro~~sion af open space Staff recommen~s that this proposal be redesigned in conformance «~ith Section 13(b} and be resubmitted ta the Plaiuun~ Commission at a later date The Amendment Plan option of DR 94-006, submitted pursuant to the proposed Development Agreement amend~nents, should be appro~~ed s~b~ect to the approval of the De~ elopment Agreement amendments Hou-ever, staff recommends a condition that the area of landscaping on this pian be significantl~ inereased, in order to bruig in inta compliance wrth Condition 13(b} as amended RECOMMENDATION It is recominended that the Plamm~g Commission da the follou-~ng 1 Recommend Council approval of the Zoning Administrator Determination based on the reasons stated u~ this staff report 2 Recommend approval of the proposed Deveiopment Agreement (DA 93-005) pursuant to tl~e fnc~n~s and cond2t2ons contazned belo~~ 3 Recommend Gouncil certification of ETR 93-003. If the Planrung Commission recommends approval of the Zonmg Admm~stratar Determination. staff recommends the follo«~ing 1 Direction to the applicant to return u~~th a redesign of the proposed market "ZA Flan" of DR 94-006 ~irhich conforms with the open space requirements of the existing Development Agreement If the Planning Commassion also recommends approval af the Development Agreement amendment by C~ty Council, staff recommends the follo~ving 1 Appro~~al of the praposed "Amendment Plan" af DR 94-006 subject to the follo~~ing findin~s and condit~ons (including a condrtion that no buxlding permit shall be issued unless the Crty Couneil approves DA 93-005) ~~ 184 - 26 - DEVELOPME~?T AGREEMENT AMENDMENT FINDINGS (DA 93-005) 1 The proposed Development A~reement amendment ~s consistent v~7ith the ob~ectives, policies, general land uses and programs specifed in the general plan and any applicable specific plan, m that no specific plan applies to the pra~ect and that the proposed supermarket use is consistent v~~ith Land Use and Circulation Element Policxes 1 75 and 1 77, the farmer of ~;~hich states that the Crty shall encourage "the development of full-service supermarkets in areas not currently served " The need for supermarkets at the proposed location is confirmed on page 29 of the LUCE, w~here rt states that the Pico neighbarhood, w7thm which the project is located, is inadequatel~ served b5T any ma~or supermarket. The proposed addrtional neighborhood commercial uses. w~hich would be permrtted anly if at ~east 100 residential uruts 1~~ere constructed on-srte, are consistent ~~th Ob~ectn~e 1 7 af the LUCE, ~rhich states that the Crty shall "expand uses that proti~de for dar -to-da~~ shoppmg and service needs of nearby residents The City shall encourage neighborhood commercial services which are ti~~th~n ~~r~alking distance of all residential neighbarhoods " The proposed residential use is conszstent ~~~ith Po~icies 1 10 2 and 1 2 1 of the Ge~eral Plan, v~~hach sEate that the e~ty shall "ailati~ residenhal use m ail commercial districts;" and that the Crty shall "encourage residential mixed use af appropriate cornmerciall~~ zoned parcels ," respecti~ el}' 2 The proposed De~~elopment Agreement amendment is compatible wrth the uses author~zed in the district in v~Thich the real propert`; is located, rn that the sub~ect praperty is a 12 7-acre Slt~ bi~hich is currentl~~ governed not b~~ Zaning Ordmance standards, but b~ the pro~7sions of a De~elopment Agreennent which was executed on December 16, 1987, and wh~ch primarily a11ov4~ed office uses and a hotel at the s~te Furthermore, the praposed amendments to sa~d Des~eIopment Agreement ~~~11 allotir the establishment of resident~al, supermarket, and neighborhood commercial (r`~i~h the construction of at least 100 umts} at th~ sate, in addrtion to the ~eneral office uses already permitted there, and none of these uses are incompatible 3 The praposed Development Agreement amendment is m conformit~- v~~~th the public necessitti~, public comrenien.ce, general ~relfare, and good land use practices, m that rt v~~il1 ~ allow the development of residential, neighborhood commercial, and supermarket uses at the site, mstead of a~la~°ing pnmaril~ general office uses, which is consistent u-~th General Plan and other po~icies «-hich encourage the deveiopment of residential, neighborhood commercial and supermarket uses because these uses pro~ide housing and ser~~ices «~hich are needed in the COrilrilUriliy 4 The proposed De~elopment Agreement amendment will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general «~elfare, tn that it «~ill allo~~ ne~~: uses whrch are cornpatzble ti~~th the permitted uses at the site and ~vhich are not in conflict with the ~~ Z~~ -- 2 7 - permitted uses in the general v~cinity, and that EIR-identified mit~gation measures ~~-~11 be adopted to reduce mast en~ ironmental impacts belou~ the level of significance 5 The proposed Development Agreement amendment ~~ll not ad~~ersely affect the orderly development of the praperty, in that the amendment ~~zIi prohibit hotel use and alloti~~ a«~der range af mixed uses at the propez~ty than is currently allowed. ~cluding residential and neighborhood retail uses ~~~hich are compatible «~th such uses as general office, restaurant, medical office, office-related retail, and medi~al office, u-hich are explicrtl~ permitted under the existing Development Agreement Furthermore, no significant change is proposed to the development standards (i.e , height, setback, lot co~~erage, maximum floor area) established by the existing De~~elopment Agreement 6 The proposed Development Agreement amendment vvill ha~e a posrtive fiscal ~mpact on the C~ty. m that the completed pro~ect w-~11 be subject to all standard fees and t~es, including but nat limited to propert~~ tax. business license ta~c, utility tax, and to other fees included in the Agreement ~~hich va~ill generate substantial revenues for the Crty If the parks impacts of the pro~ect are not sufficiently mitigated thraugh provision of park space or thraugh the pati~nent of an in-lieu fee. the proaect ma~~ have a ne~ative fiscal irnpact on the Cit~~ ENVIRON~VIENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINDINGS 1 The Plannmg Commissian has revie~~~ed and considered the Fulal Environmental Impact Report on ~e Arboretum Development Agreement Arnendment located ~t ZODfl Colorado Avenue (~;rhich includes the 12 7 acre srte ~enerally bounded by 20th Street, Clo~erfield Boule~ard, Colorado Avenue and Olympic Baulevard) prior #o act~ng an tl~e pro~ect 2 The PlanYUng Commission recommends that the Crty Council certif~~ that the environmental revie~~ for the pro~ect «~as conducted in full compliance ~ith State and C~tv CEQA Guidel~nes, that there was adequate public revFew of the Draft Environmental Impact Report, that it has cons~dered all comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report and responses to comments, that the Final Environmental Impact Report adequatel~~ discusses all significant environmental ~ssues, that the F~nal En~~iranmental Impact Report reflects the independent ~udgement of ~he Cit~~, and that the Pianning Commisslon and Gity Council has cons~dered the cantents of the Final En~~uonmental Impact Report in its decision- making process DEVELOPNiENT REVIEW PER:~IIT FINDINGS (DR 94-006), AMENDMENT PLAN 1 The placement of each proposed building on the Real Property and the locat~on of - 2~ - ~~ ~ss the proposed uses wrtlun each such building are compatibie w-~th, and relate harmaniously to, surroundin~ srtes and neighborhoods, in fhat the surrounding office atid industrial uses w•ill m no i~~ay be negati~~ely impacted by the proposed supermarket, and that, bti pra~ idmg a ser~~ice which is ident~fied as needed m the General Plan, the supermarket w~Il be a positive enhancement for the residenual neighborhoods to the north and south of the pro~ect 2 The Access Points and internal circulation plan are adequate ta accommodate anticipated automobile and pedestrian traffic far each propased building, in that the plan has been carefull~° re~7e~~~ed b~~ the Parking and Traff c Engineer and has been found to be in adequate ~ ~ The Buiiding Height of each proposed buildin~ daes not exceed tha# permitted by Section 9(b), in that the proposed building ~~Tould be 31'6" and one story zn height, and located wrthin the Mar~et Zone shown in ExYub~t B of the proposed atr~endment, which permits a ma~Yimum height of $4' and six staries in height. 4 The setback requirements of Section 9(d) are cornplied ~r-~th far each proposed biuldin~ and the placement of each proposed buildmg is compat~ble v~-~th and relates harmoruously to, the open space required by Sect~on 13(b), in that, as conditioned, the applicant ~~~11 be required to si~mficantly enhance the landscapmg of the proposed parking area in a manner consistent vvrth the amendments proposed to e~chib~t 13{b} 5 Each proposed buildmg ~ti~ill comply w~th the Building Valurrte Envelope restrictions of Section 9(e), in that the praposed structure contalns anl~~ one partion wh~ch exceeds 31 "~n he~ght and ~s therefore sublert to the Building Volume Enti-elope requirements,a nd this portion of the build~ng is located more than 60~ from the nearest propert~T line, ~~-here as only a 37' at~erage setback is required 6 The number of parking spaces required by Section 9(fl and Exh~brt C are bemg pra~~ided, xn that, as amended, Section 9(~ requires that standard code requirements for retail uses be applied to the srte, which results in a mirumum requirernent of 173 veh~cular parking spaces. one electrical stub for electric veh~cies, and 8 bacy cle parking spaces, which shall b~ met with the 209 ~~ehicular parking spaces show•n on the pians and the electrical outlet and 8 bic~~cle parking spaces required pursuant to Condrtion 4 of this report 7 The aggregate FASF for each use on the Real Property in all buildmgs pre~~iously appra~:ed under this Sect~on 9(1}, and then heing proposed; is m compliance «~th Section 9(g), and {z) ~~th respect to the last building to be submrtted for review, the provisions of Sections 9(a) and 9(c} will be camplied ~trth follo~~~ng complet~on of such buildmg, ~n that the propased structure ~~11 bring the total square footage at the site ta 228, 166 square feet and the total lot coverage to 30% - 29 - ~~ 18? of the parcel area {includmg all biuldings ~hich vvill remain at the srte) DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT CO~'DITIONS (DA 93-00~) 1 E~ibrt C of the proposed amendment shall include a provision requiring that a mirumum of 15% of the total extenor af such surface pa~~ed area that accommodates vehicuiar traffic, including the surface parking lot, accessways and driveways (including ramps to such parking lot), loading areas. service areas and parkmg stalis shall be devoted to landscaped ~slands, pemnsulas or mec~rans distributed thraughout the paved area 2 Exhibit C af the proposed amendment sha~l include a pro~ision requiring that a level landscaped strip shall be pro~-ided and mamtained betvti-een the surface parking area and the public right-of-~vay, except m a requ~red drrveway Qr other access area, that is not less than 3' in ~r~dth rneasured from the propert~~ line adjacent to the public ri~ht-of-way Wrtlun this 3'- ~~ide area, the applicant shall provide and mamtain permanent, opaque landscaping at a height of not less than 3' above the ad~acent sidewalk level CONDITIONS TO DR 94-006 (AMENDMENT PLAN~ 1 Prior to submission of the sub~ect plans to the Architectural Re~rlew Baard, the applicant shall rev~se tlie surface parktng plans #o sho~~~ complete compliance ~~7th tl3e pro~-isions of E~ibrt G of DA 93-0~5 (the amendment to the existing De~Teiopment Agreement), includ~ng lar~dscap~ng of at least 1S% of the pat~ed area and a landscape buffer of at least 3' in height above sidev~~alk le~el around the perimeter of the surface parking area 2 Prior to su~mission of the sub~ect plans to the Architectural Revie«- Board, the applicant shall redesi~n the structure such that; in addxtion to the Clo~~erfield Boulevard facade, the Olympic Boulevard facade becomes a focus of design This redesign rna<< include, but shall not be l~mrted to, addrtional fenestration at the Olympic Boulevard eletiTation, additional articulahon throughout the buildxng, and addrtional architecturaI details, coiors and materials throughout the building, v4~th a focus on the Ol;~znpic elevation in particular ~ Priar to issuance of a building perznit for the pro~ect, the apphcant must obtain approE~al of DA 93-4a5 ta amend the existing Development Agreement which applies to the site 4 Prior to issuance of a buildmg permit for the pro~ect, the applicant shall demonstrate that a minimum of eight secure bicr cle parking spaces are provided on-site, w~thm ciase proximity ta the entrance of the structure Addi#ionally, the applicant shall modifi~ plans to indicate the location af the required electrical outlet M ~' 18 ~ - 30 - for the purposes of recharging electric ~-ehicles Prepared by Drummond Buckley, Associate Planner Attachments A Murucipal Code and General Plan Conformance B Notice of Publxc Hearing C Radius and Location Map D Existing Develapment A~reement u-~th Amendment One E Proposed Amendment Two to Arboretum De~~elopment Agreement F Cor~respondence from Applicant Explairung Reasons Amendment is Proposed G Photographs of Srte and Surrounding Fropertaes H Plat Plan. Flaor Plans and Ele~~atio:ns I Final EIR DB f lplanlsharelpclstrptlarboda - 33 - ~"' ~89 P&Z DKW:DB plan/share/pc/strpt/arboda3 Santa Monica, Cal~fornia PI&F1I1111~ COIT1I111551021 Mtg Noti~ember 9, 1994 TO The Honorable Planning Comm~ssion FRQM Planruzlg Staff SUBJECT Supplemental Report Regarding Amendment to Ex~stin.g Arbaretum Development Agreement (Development Agreement 93-005), Revie~~- of Specific Biuldings (De~~eloprnent Review Permrt 94-046} Address- 2000-2200 Colorado Avenue {a 12 7 acre srte ~~th fronta~e on Cloverfield Boule~ard, Oly~rnpic Boulevard, T~~~entieth Street, and Colorado Avenue) Applicant Arboretum De~.~elopment Partners INTRODUCTION Summarj~ On Octaber 19, 1994, the Planrung Commission conducted a Public Hearing on the Arboretum pro~ect and recoinmended Council certsficat~on of the EIR for the project, recommended Council appra~al of the Zoning r~.dm~~ustrator Determznation, and denied the "ZA Plan" for a supermarket at the srte T«o rtems currentlti- before the Gornmission ~ ere continued from the October 19 hearin~ a proposal to arnend the development standards contained ti~~ithin the existmg Arbaretum Develapment Agreement in arder ta allow the construction of a supermarket, neighborhoad cammercial uses, and multafamily residential uses at the srte and trarious other changes to the exist~ng DA, and a request to revie~i~ the "Amendinent Plan" for the supermarket pursuant to the Re~ie~- of Specific Buildings process required by the DA The Public Hearing vvas closed on October 19, and the remaimng items are pend~ng hefore the Commission far deliberation and act~on Action The follotiving apphcations are befare the Planrung Commissaon 1 Application to amend the existing Arboretum De~elopment Agreement (DA 93- 0~5) 2 Review of Specific Buildings (Development Review Pernut 94-006), as required b~ the Development Agreement. to allow #he construct~on of a 49,656 sq ft supermarket at the site based on the standards es~ablished by~ the amended Development Agreement Recammendatzon Approval PROJECT DESCRIPTION ~ +~ ~. 9 0 ~ The existuig De~~elaprnent Agreement allo~~s a maximum of 1,040,490 square feet of floor area to be constructed at the site, including a 270,0~0 square foot hatel and up to 770,490 square feet of general office space, the office use ma3~ be substituted u~th up to 25,000 square feet of restaurant uses, up to 10,000 square feet of office-serving retarl uses, a health club of up to 60.000 square feet, med~cal office af up to 3~,040 square feet, and/or banks and sa~~ngs and loans of up to 20.404 square feet The follo«~ing ~s proposed o Development Agreennent Amendmen~ The proposed amendment would retain the e~sting 1,040,490 sq ft maximum and uuauld not rnodify the existing provisions for restaurant, office-sen~in~ retail, health club, medacal o#f'xce ar hank/sa~mgs and loan uses, ho~-et~er, rt~~ould reduce the maximum permitted office space ta 720,490 square feet A rnarket of up to a 54.000 square foot supermarket ti~~auld be explicrtl~~ permrtted by the amendment The amendment w°ould also allau the flexibility to substitute thE office square foatage ~i~ith up to 70,040 squar~ feet of nei~hborhood commercial space, and up to 894,082 square feet (approximately 76U umts) of residential space at the srte The 70,004 square feet af ne~ghborhood retail uses ~vould be ailoi~~ed only if at least 100 residential units ~~~ere canstructed on-s~te Most existmg height and setback requirements v~~auld also be retamed under the proposal, but the 25,000 square foot open space requirement at the intersection of Olympic and Cloverfield would be amended to allov~~ a landscaped surface parkmg area to courit towarc~ the 25,OOD square feet if a supermarket is constructed at the site The maximum height at the eastern portion of the site (the "Hotel Zone") ~~~ould be reduced from a max~mum height of 96' and 9 stories to a maximum of 84' and 6 stories The amendment would also delete the section allowing a hotel and v~~ould include a pro~ision to allo~~v vehicular access off of Cloverfield Baulevard; «-hich is prohibited in the exist~ng De~Telopment Agreement o Re~ie~; of Specific Buildings. Under the De~~elopment Agreement, the applicant must get Planiung Commission approval of specific buildings «hich are proposed for the srte Such approval is sought for the proposed "Amendment Plan" far a supermarket at the srte and could only be constructed if the praposed Development Agreement amendment is approved by the City Council AN Ai.YSIS Prior Actions On October 19 the Plamm~g Commission <<oted to recommend Cauncil certification of EIR 93-003 and to recammend approyal of a Zon~ng Administrator Determmat~on which would allo« the construction of a supermarket at the srte In addition, the Planning Cornmission derued a plan for a supermarket at the srte because rt did not conform to the requirement m the existmg DA for a minimum of 25.D04 square feet of open space at the intersection of Olympic and Cloverfield Tv~~o other matters ~vere continued by the Plannmg Commission on October 19 A vote on ~~ ls~ Z the proposed DA Amendments ~vas contmued based on concerns regardmg a"rnaster plan" for the Arboretum site, specificrt4~ regarding ener~y impact mltigation for the pra~ect, the possible inclusion of "Sustainable Cit}'" conditions, the possible deletion of a right-turn- pocket condition ~~ithin the e~stuig DA. further infarmat~~n regarding the modification to the on-site sewage trea#ment reqturemeni, a need far residential-specific standards m the prapasal, the basis of the Crt~-"s mclusionarti~ housmg in-lieu fee requirement, a concern regardmg the home occupation pernnrt pro~isions of the praposal; and a concern regardmg the allo~vance for fast faod restaurants on the srte A vote on the proposed "Amendment ~lan" for a supermarket at the site ~iras contmued based on concerns regarding the proposed design's pedestrian onentation and relat~onship to other patential buildings on the srte Scope of Current Review of DA Amendment The current proposal is an amendment to an existmg approved Development Agreement rather than a brand neti~ Development Agreement As such, the Plannmg Commission should consider the proposed amendments «-~thin the hasic structure of the development rights granted under the exist~ng DA The Plamm~g Commission should be looking for constructrve changes to the existing DA while acknowledging that the applicant currentl~~ has the right to build aver one million square feet of commercial office space at the site. Plamm~~ Cammission Concerns Regarc~ng the Proposed Amendments to the Exisrin~ Development Agreement The follav~-~ng is a summary of DA amendment concerns raised by the Plamm~g Commission at the 4ctober 19 public hearing Specificrty regardmg energy requirements The Plannmg Cammission asked staff to look mto more specific ~an~uage regarding energy-sa~~ng requirements Staff researched this issue w7th the Califarnia Energy Commission and recommends the following language be mco~porated into the Development Agreement Prior to issuance of a buildmg permrt for any portion of the pro~ect, the applicant shall provide an analysis to the Department of Environmental and Public Works Management demonstrating that the design of the pzopased structure(s) w~ll result in a 1 Q percent ener~y efficiency increase over the life of the pro~ect above Trtle 24 requirements, on a cost-effective basis The apphcant argues that this requirement should not appl~~ because the Final EIR for the pra~ect identified onl}T one patential increase m on-site energy consumption based on the four schemes studied, that bemg a potential fncrease in natural gas consumption under Scheme C{~~hich analyzed a 50,000 square foot supermarket, 95,000 square feet af ~eneral office space, and 895,490 square feet af residential space} If the Planning Commission recommends to Council that this language be added ta the DA, it rnay be sub~ect to further rev~sion prior to Council based an Califorma Energy Commissian requirements Staff belieti es that the 14% ob~ective is reasonable and feasible, and that thXs ~- 192 3 condition is appropnate for a pro~ect of this size 2 ~ustaxnable Crty Conditions The Plamm~g Commission asked staff to establ~sh DA condiuons ~l~xch t~~ould be consistent 4~~rth the Sustainable City program being developed by the Department of En~-ironmental and Public Vv orks Management After consulting with tha# Department, staff recommends the fa~iow-u~g condrtians Prior to issuance of an~T demolition permrts. a demalitXOn matenals recycling plan shall be filed for appro~-a1 by the Department af Environmental and Public Works Management ~~~hich seeks to maximize the reuse/recyclrng of existing building materials Prior to issuance af an~r building permits, a construction mater~als recycling plan shall be ~iled for the appraval of the Department of En~ ironmental and Public Works Nianagement «hich seeks to maacirnize the reuse/recyclmg Qf constructFOn waste Prior to issuance of any building permits, a plan shall be filed for the appra~al of the Departrnent of En~~iranmental and Public Works Management ~~~huch seeks to maximize the use af recycled and lou--impact materials in b~ulding canstruction The applicant has ~dicated a preference that these conditions not be added to the DA amendments. Staff believes that these condrtions are nat onerous, and that they should be required 3, On-srte Waste Treatment The Plamm~g Co~ntnission expressed concern regarding the proposed revisions to the on-site «~aste treatment requ~rement o~ the existing Develapment Agreement The praposed amendment would permit, but not require, the construction of an an-srte treatment facility if the appl~cant pays the generally applicable sev~ er connection fee plus $ 25 per square foot of general off ce use constructed The amendment also establishes that the applicant may utilize the existmg on-srte treatment facilrty at the Sony Music Campus if the applicant pa}js a sev4~er connection fee equal to 10% of the generally ap~licable cannection fee Non-office uses would be charged the ~enerall}~ applicable sewer connection fees These amendrrients were established through extenszve consultation and negotiation with the Department of Em-ironmental and Publ~c Works Management and adequate~y~ mit~gate the impact of the pro~ect if no ne« on-site treatment faciZity= is constructed Therefore; staff recommends that this amendment be maintamed as presented at the October 19 hearmg 4 ResidentFal Development Standards Based or~ Plamm~g Commission and staff concerns, the applicant has agreed to add a number of developrnent standards ~~hich would either app1~- directl~ to the residential component of the pro~ect or ~auld apply to the ~~ay the commercial components relate to the reszden#aal portions of the pro~ect ~'rth the exception of a children's play area requirement, these standards are taken from the Santa Mon~ca Zotung Ordinance {E~iibit E of ~~ 193 4 the DA Amendment) Included are mimmum pri~~ate and common open space requirements for residential units, standards related to refuselrecycling facilitaes, the requirement of an an-site large fanuly day care home if 100 or more umts are constructed at the site, and standards related to glare, noise and signage ~~-~thtn the pro~ect's commercial component ~ Home Occupat~on Permrt standards A Commissioner expressed concern relating to the proposed exclusion of a Home Occupation Permrt requirement far unrts which contain designated commercxal space The propased arr~endment would allo~v cornrnercial use v~zthin residential unrts provided that the portion to be utilized commercially is counted ta~~ard the total commercial uses permitted on the propert~~, if this pror~ision ~~~ere applied to a particular umt, the use of the commercial space «~rtlun the umt «~ould not be sub~ect to the Home Occupation Permit reqi.urernents contamed m the Santa Monica Municipal Code (SMMC} and the resident w-ould be permitted ta have employees work ~~itlun that commercial space B~ enacting this change to the standard Home Occupation Fermit requirements, the applicant mtends to enhance the opportunrties for live/vu~ork srtuatians at the pro~ect It should be noted that if a particular ~inrt was constructed «,~ithaut any designated cammercial sgace, the resident «-ould be required to abtain a Home Occupat~on Pernut {and be sub~ect to the apphcable regu.lations) ta operate a busmess at that ~ocation Staff recommends that this amendment be maintained as presented at the October 19 hear~ng 6 Right Turn Pockets The Comrriission suggested that the exishng DA condrtions relatzn~ ta right turn pockets sh~uld be elimmated The existin~ DA provides for ri~ht-turn lanes to be constructed at the intersectjons of Colorado and 20th {which has already been cc~nsrructed) and Colora~~ and Cloi~erfield. Paragraph 8 of ExYubrt D of the existing DA also requires the applicant to "provide new street sections (8-inch P C C} for right turn pockets (1~4 feet in length) at each ma~or drnTev4=a} to the pro~ect «~th all necessar~~ sidewalk easements " Because these conditions af approval were included in the env~ronmental analysis of the project, staff daes not recommend the~r deletxon It shouid be noted that rt is at the d~scret~on of the Cit~- Parking and Traffic Engineer to determine if a driveway is "ma~or" m scope, any decision relatmg to right-hand turn pockets for dri~eways mto the site ~~~ll be made after ~~~eighing the n.eed for smooth velucular traffic flo~~ uzth the need for bic~~cle and pedestrian-friendly streets 7 Master P~an The Planning Commissran questioned ~~~netY~er a"Master P1an" shauld be de~eloped for the srte in a manner similar to that developed for the Cnrvic Center pro~ect Staff believes that the situation of this pro~ect is quite different than that of other sites without pre-ex~st~ng development approvals The existmg Development Agreement establishes the parameters far review of specific buildings at the srte and does not require the provisian of a comprehensiti e plan for all future buildmgs on the propert}' The abilrty to de~~elop any af a range of land uses is a central feature of the existing De~elopment Agreement, and was the basis for the methodolo~y utilized in the en~~iranmental anal}-sis of the proaect The "Revie~~ of Spec~fic Buildings" section of the existmg De~elopment Agreernent contains ~ ~. ~~~ 5 number of required findings ~-hich re~ate to the placement, size and massing ~f individual buildrngs on the srte The applicant has agreed to add two new findmgs ~-hich ~~~auld appiy to the permitted supermarket, neighborhood commercial and residential components of the pro~ect, as follows The placement of each use on the ADP Property is compatible v~~ith, and relates harmomously «-~th, all other uses on the ADP property~ The pri~ acy of all residents in any 144ultifamil~ Residenhal Housing shall be appropriately protected by the proposed design through screening and buffering of the different us~s In adc~tion, staff recommends the follov~~mg be added as a requ~red fmding to be made ~~-hen the Planning Comm~ssion (or Council an appeai) revie~vs specific buildings on the property The desagn of each building on the propertt~ is pedestrian-oriented and relates harmoruausly to the surrounding sidet~~alks and streets The design of setback and open-space areas ~~sible from the public sidewalks and streets features design elements «-hich enhance and encourage visual connectian ~~-~th the public streetscape The design provides appropriate ~nternal pedestrian-oriented design features and appropnate pedestnan circulatian between related buildings on the propert~~. 8 Inclus~onary Housmg In-L~eu Fee The Plann~ng Gommission asked s~aff to report an the methodologyr used ~~hen the in-iieu fee was established b~~ the Crty Council The ~n-lieu fee of $51,000 {plus CPI adjustments) per lo« mcome unrt not constructed on-site ~ti-as based on a study conducted by the Housing Division ~~luch determined that this was an adequate City~ contributian wluch, when combined ~~rith ather financing sources such as the federal govemment, would finance the constructian of a loti~=-income unit off-site 9 Fast Food The Plannmg Commiss~on expressed concern regarding the existing Development Agreement language allo~~~ng fast food outlets at the site. The DA allo~~~s up to 2~,040 square feet of restaurant space "includ~ng fast food " It does not allo~i~ dri~-e-through fast food estabhshments Because this is a permr~ted use under the existmg DA, and because anST desi~n concerns of specific establishments could be revie~~~ed by the Planning Commission during the required Revieu° af Specific Buildmgs phase and b~~ the Architectural Re~~iew Board, and since this t}~pe of restaurant v~~ould serve offices ~i~orkers, staff does not recommend that the fast food allo~~~ance be deleted. 10 Arts Fee The Planning Co~ssion expressed concern regarding the apphcant's compliance v~1th the art requirement of the existing Development Ag~-eement {Sect~on 13(c)} The required process v~~as imtiated bv the former property° ow=ner 6 "' - Z95 but it appears «as not contmued by subseyuenf o~ners Staff is wTorking «-~th the Santa Monica Arts Cammission and the applicant #o establish a new tune line by ~~luch to resolve this issue (i e,«~thm si~ months to one year of the execution af the proposed Development Agreement amendment}, and this language will be presented in the Cxty Council staff report an this pro~ect ~ 1 Bus Sheiter The Plannrng Commission suggested that a bus shelter should be required on 0lympic Boule~~ard near the intersection c~ith Cloverfield This is already required pursuant to Paragraph 4 of Exhibrt D of the existmg Development Agreement No change is proposed to this requirement Plannin~ Commissian Concerns Regardin~ the Proposed "Amendment Plan" for a Supermarket at the Srte On October I9 the Planning Commiss~on denied the "ZA Plan" for a supermarket at the site based on findings that the propased design daes not comply ~rith the 25,000 square fooi "Olympic Clo~.~erfield Gatewa~.~" requirement The proposed "Amendment Plan" ~vas continued because of Plantung Commission concerns about the proposed bui~dm~'s pedestrian or~entation, massmg and design, and a lack of adequate landscaping ~i~thui the s~xrface parkin~ area The applicant has presented to staff a prelimmary site plan and elevation which appear to address some of the Flanning Commission and staff concerns, including a pedestrian walkway through the landscaped portion of the site, a d~rect pedestrian connection bet~~een the ad~acent bus stop and the market, a pedestrian w~alkway from Clo~ erfield Boulevard to one af the market entrywai-s, further articulation of the structure, and an outdoar du~mg area attached to the market at the northern boundary of #he site As of the v~~ntmg af this staff report, the design had not been finalized m arder for staff to conduct a code/DA corr~pliance review~ or to ~nclude the p~ans uith the packets The applicant indicates that a pian ~i~ill be mdependently del~vered to the Planrung Commissioners pnor to the November 9 hearing date Absent a t~mely submittal of the final design. st~ff cannot make a recommendation on t~us aspect of the pro~ect Conclusion `y'rthm the short period of txme since the October 19 hearing, the appl~cant has responded to a number of cancerns voiced by the Plamm~g Commission In add~.tzon, staff is recommending several other new candrtions ~~hich ma~~ be added to the DA amendments Because ~he applicant has fiat pra~•~ded finalized plans for re~-~ew~ af the proposed supertnarket at the srte, staff cannot make a recommendation on this issue at this time Ho~~ever, if Comm~ssion does vote to approve a~~ersion of this plan, staff recommends that the conditions and findings contamed m the October 19 staff report be adopted RECOMMEVDATIOI~` It is recommended ~hat the Planning Commission do the follov~~ing 1 Recommend approl~al of the proposed Develapment A~reement (DA 93-005} ~ ~ tQ~ p~arsuant to ihe findings and with recommended amendments contained belo~~~ If the Planning Commission has had sufficient time to re~~iev~~ a nevs~ ~erszon of the market design and finds it to be acceptable, staff recommends the follo~~~ng 1 Approval of the proposed "Amendment Plan" of DR 94-OQ6 sub~ect to the findings and cand~tions contained in the October 19, i 994 staff repart DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AME~IDMENT FINDINGS (DA 93-~Q~} The proposed Develapment Agreement aanendment is cans~stent ~~7th the objecti~~es, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the general plan and any applicable specific plan, in that no spec~fic plan applies to the pro~ect and that the proposed supermarket use is consistent ~4-~th Land Use and Circulatian Element Policies 1 75 and 1 77, the former of ~~hich states that the City shall encourage "ihe deti~elapment of full-service superrr~arkets in areas not currently served " The need for supermarkets at the proposed locat~on is confirmed on page 29 af the LUCE, 1~here it states that the Pico neighborhood, «7th~n wh~ch the pro~ect is lacated, is madec~uately served b~T anv ma~or supermarket The proposed addrtional neighborhaod co~nercial uses, ~:h~ch would be permitted only if at least 1~0 residential unrts v~~ere constructed on-srte, are consistent w~th Ob~ectxve 1 7 of the LUCE. ~zhich states that the Crty shal~ "expand ll5~5 tYl~t ~?TOVlCl~ for day-to-day shopping and ser~-ice needs of nearby residents The Crt~~ shall encourage neighborhoad commercial sen~ices which are tizzthm walking distance of all residential neighbarhoods " The proposed residential use is consistent ~~-rth Policies 1 10 2 and 1 2 1 of ~e General PIan, ti~hich state that rhe Crty shall "allau° residential use ~n all commercial districts." and that the Crty shall "encoura~e residential mixed use of appropriate co~amercially zoned parcels ," respectively_ 2 The propased Development Agreement amendment is compatible with the uses authorized in the district in «hich the zeal property ~s located, in that the sub~ect property is a 12 7-acre site whrch is currently governed not by Zomng ~rdinance standards, but by the provisions of a Development Agreement ~vh~ch was executed on December 16, 1987, and «~1uch pnmarilti allow°ed of~ce uses and a hotet at the stte Furthermore, the proposed amendments to said I]evelopment Agreement «-~ll allo~~~ the establishment of residential, supermarket, and neighborhood commerciai {~~~ith the construchon of at least 1~0 urutsj at the sfte. m addrtian to the general office uses a~ready permrtted there, and nane of these uses are ~ncampatible 3 The proposed De~~elapment Agreement amendment is in conformxty ~~~th the public necess~ty, public canvenience, general welfare, and goad land use practices, m that it ~vill allo~~ the develapment of residential, neighborhood commercial, and supermarket uses at the site, instead of aliov~~~ng primarily general office uses, «~hich is consistent v4~rth General Plan and other po~~c~es which encourage the development of residential, neighborhood commercial and supermarket uses 8 "' ° i ~ 7 because these uses pro~7de housing and services which are needed in the community~ 4 The proposed De~-eloprnent Agreement amen~ment will not he detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare, in that ~t w ill a11ow ne« 115~5 ~~~hich are compatible w-ith the permrtted uses at the site and «~hich are not in conflict with the permitted uses in the general vicinity, and that EIR-~dentified mitigation measures w~ll be adopted to reduce most enr°ironmental impacts belo~~~ the level of significance 5 The proposed De~-elopment Agreement amendment «ill not adversely affect the orderly de~-elopment of the praperttr, in that the amendment w~i11 prohibrt hotel use and allov~~ a ti}~ider range of mixed uses at the propert}~ than is currentl~ allawed. mcluding residential and neighbarhood retail uses ~~hich are compatible u~th such uses as general affice, restaurant; meci~cal office, office-related retail, and medical affice, which are explicitly permitted under the existuig De~ elopment AgreemenC Furthermore, no sigmficant change ~s propased ta the developrn~ent standards (i e, height. setback, lat coverage, maximum floor area) established b<< the e~sting Develapment Agreement b The propased Development Agreement amendment w-~ll have a positive fiscal unpact on the City, in that the completed pro~ect r~~ill be subject to all standard fees and taxes, including but not lxmited to prapert~ t~, business license tax, utility t~, and to other fees included m the Agreement which wi11 ~enerate substantial revenues for the Crt~ If the parks impacts of the project are not suffcienth mrtigated through provxszan of park space or through the pa~~ment of an in-lieu fee; the pro~ect may have a negatlve fisc~ impact on the Crty~. DEVELOPMENT AGREE'VIENT AMENDMENT CaI`TDITIONS (DA 93-005~ 1 Exhibit C of the proposed amendment shall include a provision requiring that a minimum of 15% of the total exteriar of such surface paved area that accommadates ~~ehicular traffic, including the surface parlc~ng lot, accessways and dri~~eways (~ncluding ramps ta such parking lot}, loading areas, seryice areas and parking stalls shall be devoted ta landscaped islands, penmsulas or medians d~stributed throughout the paved area 2 Exhibit C of the proposed amendment shaii incdude a proti~sion requirulg that a level landscaped strip shall be pra~~ided and mainta~ned betu~een the surface parkmg area and the public ri~ht-of-u-ay, except ~n a requirec~ drive~~ay or other access area; that is not less than 3' in ~y-~dth measUred from the propem= line ad~ acent to the public right-of v~ay V4'ithm this 3'- «7de area, the applicant shall provide and maintain permanent, opaque landscaping at a height of not less than 3' above the ad~acent side"~aik leti~el 3 Paragraph 21 an page 1 b of the DA amendment shall be rev~sed to require a parks fee of $1,OD0 per umt • 196 9 4 The follfluzng language shall be added to Exhibrt D of the existmg Development Agreement Prior to 2ssuance of a bu~lding permit for any portion of the project, the applicant shall prov~de an anal~-sis to the Department af En~iranmental and Pul~lic V~'orks Nfanagement demonstrating that the design of the proposed structure(s) i~,~ll result in a 10 percent energy efficiency increase over the l~fe of the pro~ect abave Trtle 24 requirements, an a cost-effechr-e basis Prior to issuance of any demolrtion permFts, a demolit~an materials recy~clxng plan shall be filed for approti-al b~~ the Department of Environmental and Publ~c VL~arks Management «~hich seeks to maxirruze the reuselrecycling of existing building materials. Priar to ~ssuance of any building permits, a construction materials recyclmg plan shall be filed far the appra<<al of the Departrnent of Environmental and Public Works Management w~hich seeks to m~imize the reuse/recyclmg of construction ~~aste Priar to issuance of any building permrts, a plan shall be filed for the approval of the Department of Environmental and Public Warks Management which seeks ta maximi~e the use of recy~cled and lov~~-impact materials in building construct~an 5 The fallo~~~ng language shall be added to the required findings for Re~~~e~v of Specific Buildings The design of each buildmg on the property is pedestrian-ariented and relates harmomouslr to the surrounding sidewalks and streets The design of setback and apen-space areas ~risible from the publfc sidewalks and streets features design elements v~hich enhance and encourage visual connection w-~th the public streetscape The design pra~ides appropriate mternal pedestrian-oriented design features and appropriate pedestnan circulation bettiveen related lauildings on the property Prepared by- Drummond Buckley, Associate Planner Attachments r~ October 19, 1994 Staff Report (Wrthaut Attachments) B Proposed Amendment T«-o to Arboretum Development Agreement (V~jith Changes from October 19, 1994 Version Noted} DB ' f lplanlsharelpclstrptlarboda3 - ~~n ~o ' P&Z DKW DB plan/share/pc/strpt/arbada4 Santa Monica, Califortua Plann~ng Commission Mtg• December 14, 1994 TO The Honorable Planning Commission FROM Plasuung Staff SUBJECT. Supplemental Report Regarding Reviev~~ of Speci~ic Buildmgs (Development Review Permit 94-006} Pursuant to Arhoretum Development Agreement Address 2000-220~ Colorado A~~enue (a 12 7 acre szte v~~th frontage on Cloverfield Boulevard, Oly~npic Boule~~ard, T~~~entieth Street, and Colarado Avenue} Applicant Arboretum Development Partners INTRODUCTION Summarv On October 19, 1994, the Planrung Commission conducted a Publ~c Hearing on the Arboretum pro~ect and recommended Gounczl certification af the EIR for the pro~ect, recommended Council appra~al of the Zomng Administrator Determinat~on, and derued the "ZA Plan" for a supermarket at the srte On ~lovember 9, the Plann~ng Comrnission recornrnended Council approval («=itn canditions) af a proposal to amend the de~-elopnaent standards contamed w~thzn the existing Arboretum De~~elopment Agreement At the November 9 hearing, the applicant presented the "Amendment Plan" far the supermarket and «~thdrew the application for redesign after a d~scussion of the desi~n by the Planning Commission The remaining rtem is pending before the Commission for deliberation and actian Act~on The follo~~ng application is before the Plannmg Commtssion 1 Reviev~~ of Specific Buildmgs (De~elopment Re<<ie~~ Perm~t 94-~46}, as required by the Arboretum De~~elopment Agreement, to allow the construction of a 49,656 sq ft_ supermarket at the srte based on the standards established by the amended Development Agreement Recom~nendation Approti-al PRO~ECT DESCRIPTION Under the Development Agreement, the applicant must get Pianning Commission approval of specific buildings wh~ch are praposed for the srte Such approval ~s sought for the proposed "Amendment Plan" for a supermarket at the srte and could only be constructed if the proposed De~-elopment Agreement amendment is approved by the Crty Council ~' 20{~ ~ ANALYSI S Prior Actions On Octaber 19 the Planmng Commission demed the "ZA Plan" for a supermarket at the site based on findx~gs that the proposed design does not comply ~zth the 25.00~ square foo~ "Olympic CIoverfield Gate~~ray" requirement The proposed "Amendment P~an" ~~~as cont~nued to November 9 because af Planning Commission concerns about the proposed buildmg's pedestr~an arientation, massing and design, ar~d a lack of adequate landscaping u-~~hin the surface parlcing area After re~ iew~ng the proposed Amendment Plan on November 9, the design ~:as cont~nued a second time in arder for the applicant to fiirther respond to Platming Comm~ssion concerns and to provide greater details regarding the design and landscaping af the supermarket On No~~ember 9, the Planrung Commissian recommended Council approval of a DA amendment ~°hzch «~ould retain the existing 1,040,490 sq ft m~imum and ~°ould not mod~fy existmg provisions for restaurant, office-serving retail, health cluh, mec~cal office or bank~sa~zngs and loan uses, however, rt«~ould reduce the rnaximum permitted office space to 724,490 square feet A SO,D00 square foot supermarket w-ould be explicrtl~ perxnrtted by the amendment The amendment «-ould also allow the flexibilitv to substrtute the office square footage wrth up to 74,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial space, and up to 894,082 square feet (approximatel~~ 760 units} of residential space at the srte The 70,000 square feet of neighborhoad retail uses would be allowed only if at least 100 residential umts v~~ere constructed on-srte Most existing height and setback requirements u~ould also be retained under the proposal, but the 2~,000 square faot open space reqturement at the mtersection of Olympic and Clo~~erfield would be amended to allo~~ a landscaped surface park}n~ area to cc~unt tauard the 25,000 sguare feet ~f a s~permarket ~s constructed at the srte The maxxmum hezght at the eastern portion of the site (~he "Hotel Zone"} w-ould be reduced from a m~imum height af 96' and 9 stones to a maa~imum of $4' and 6 stories The arnendment ~.3~ould also delete the section allati~ng a hotel and ~vould include a provzsion to allvw vehicular access aff of Cloti-erfield Boule~~ard, v~~Yuch is prohtbrted in the existing Der~elapment Agreement Plannmg Commissian Concerns Re~ardmg the Proposed "Amendment Plan" for a Supermarket at the Srte The follavving concerns regarding the Amendment Plan ~~ ere raised b~~ the Plar~nmg Ct~mmzssian at the November 9 hearing• ~ 1 Adequate Scale The Flaruiing Commission eapressed concerns regardmg the scale and level of detail of the plans The appl~cant has subrn.itted elevations and a parking plan which are draw-n to 1/8 scale However, as of the uTiting oF tlus report. no landscape plans or outdoar dxmng plans greater than 1/16 scale have been submitted b~.I the applicant Z Skylights The Planning Commtssion suggested that skylights may be aiz apprapriate design feature far the building wl~ch would also result in lower energy 2 ~ ~ ~~ ~ usage The applicant has nat incorparated this feature into the design, although there ~i-~11 be a sk~~light at the entr~- to the buildin~. 3 Interior/exterior relat~onship The Planrung Cornmissian suggested that a better relationship should be establishec~ beriveen the intenor and exterior of the supermarket through new ~~mdai~~ or door apenmgs. In particular, the Cornmission su~gested that the outdoor dining area be luiked to the market interior va-~th doors and ti~,~indo~~s at the northeast corner of the b~ld~ng The applican# has responded that any additional openings on the build~ng would result in operational changes which are not feasible and therefore has not amended the plans as suggested by the Commission However, the applicant has added faux w-~ndows to the elevations ~~•hich would be backlrt during rught time hours ~ Landscapmg The Commissian stated that parking lot landscaping and the landscaping at the southern ec~ge of the parkmg lot should nat be counted toward the 25,000 square foot Ol}Tmp~c/Cloverfield Gateti;~ay requirement In that these landscaped areas ti~ili be vislble froFn the corner of Ol~mpic and Clo~erfield Boule~ ards, and are part of a coardinated landscape plan at that corner, staff belie~~es that all the proposed landscaping should count toward the gatewa3~ requirement The Plann~ng Commission also asked for more details and a square footage breakdov~~n of the landscaping praposed As af the writing of this report, this u~formation has not been pro~ided by~ the appl~cant 5 Pedestrian access The Commission requested additional details regar~ng pedestrian access to and around the srte The applicant has provided a srte plan ~~~hich shows a side~alk around the entire perimeter of the site, and which mcludes the parkmg area {and assoc~ate ti~-alk«~ays) at l/$ scale The proposed "people mover" ar moving sidewalk is intended to transport shoppers and their shopping carts to and from the subterranean level of the parlcin~ structure, this method has been successfully~ used at other supermarkets An ele~ator w-~11 provide access to the subterranean level for d~sabled patrons Conclusion The applicant has responded to a number of concerns i-oiced byT the Planning Commission Further design revie~ «~ill be requtred b~~ the Archrtectural Re~ ieu~ Board Staff recommends that the condrtions and findings contamed in the October 19 staff report be adopted RECOMMENDATIOlri It is recommended that the Planning Coznnnxssion appro~~e the proposed "Amendment Plan" of DR 94-a0b sub~ect to the findings and conditions contamed below- DEVELOPMENT' REVIE~ti PERMIT FINDINGS (DR 94-046). AiVIENDMENT PLAN 1 T'he placemen~ of each proposed building on the Real Propert}~ and the locat~on of 3 - • ?n~ the proposed uses wrthin each such bi.uld~ng are compatible w~th, and relate harmomously ta, surrounding sites and neighborhoods, m that the surrounding office and ~ndustrial uses v4~11 m na w-ay be negatiael~~ impacted by the proposed supermarket, and that, by pro~~idmg a ser~-ice wluch ~s identafied as needed in the General Plan, the supermarket w711 be a positive enhancement for the residential neighborhoods to the north and south of the pro~ect. 2 The Access Points and internal c~rculation plan are adequate ta accommadate ant~cipated automobile and pedestria.n traffic for each propased building, in that the plan has been carefully reviewed by the Parking and Traffie Engmeer and has been found to be m adequate 3 The Building Height of each proposed building does not exceed that permitted bv Section 9(b}, in tha~ the proposed buildin~ «~ould be 31'b" and one story in he~ght, and Iocated ~vrth~n the Market Zone shotii~n ~n Exhibit B of the praposed amendment, v4hich permits a maximum height of 84' and six stories in height 4 The setback requirements af Section 9(d) are complied w7th for each proposed building and the placemEnt of each praposed building is compatible w7th and relates harmomously to, the apen space required by Sectian ~3(b). in that, as condrtioned; the applicant v~~ll be required to significantly enhance the landscaping of the proposed parking area in a manner consistent ~z~ith the amendments proposed ta exhibit 13(b) ~ Each proposed building w-~11 comply w7th the Buildmg Volurne Envelope restrictions of Section 9(e}, in that the propased structure contains only one portion, a to~~~er e~ement at tne southeast carner, ~vlucn exceeds 31' in l~etgnt ana 2s therefore subject to the Biulding Volume En~~elope requirements. and this to~~~er element is specifically exempt from the Building Valume Envelope requ~rements if a Supermarket ~s constructed at the s~te, pursuant to l7A amendments pend~ng appra~~al b~T the City Council 6 The number of paxkzng spaces requ~red by Section 9(~ and Ea~hibrt C are bem~ pro~-ided, in that. as amended. Sectian 9(f} requires that standard code requirements for reta~.l uses be appiied to the site, wh~ch results in a mirumum reqt.urement of 173 vehicular parking spaces, one electrical stub for electric vehicles, and 8 bic~~cle parking spaces, ti~-hich shall be met v~ rth the 208 vehicular parkmg spaces shown on the plans and the electncai outlet and 8 bicycie parking spaces required pursuant to Condition 4 of this report. 7 The aggregate FASF for each use on the Real Propert~~ xn all buildings pre~ iousl~~ approved under this Section 9(1), and then bemg proposed, is xn campliance i~rth SecUan 9(g), a~d {z} ~rrth respect to the last building ta be su~mitted far revie~~~, the proti~isians af Sections 9{a) and 9(c) w~ll be compl~ed «~ith follovv~ng completion of such building, in that the proposed structure ~s~ll brin~ thE tatal square footage at the srte to 228.16b square feet and the total lot co~-erage to 30°/a of ~he parcel area (includmg all buildmgs which ~vill remain at the site) 4 • 2~~ CONDITIONS TO DR 94-006 (AMENDMENT PLAN~ 1 Prior to submission of the sub~ect plans to the Arclvtectural Re~new Baard, the applicant shall demonstrate to staff complete compliance v~1th the provisions of Exhibrt C of DA 93-005 (the amendment to the existjng Development Agreement~, including Iandscaping of at Ieast 1 ~% of the paved area and a landscape buffer of at least 3' m height above side~~~alk le~~el aro~nd the perimeter of the surface parking area 2 Prior to issuance of a buildmg permrt for the pro~ect, the applicant must obtain approval of DA 93-405 to amend the existing De~-elopment Agreement v~hich applies ~o the site 3 Prior to issuance of a b~ulding pernut for the pro~ect, the applicant shall demonstrate that a minimum of eight secure bic~~cle parlcing spaces are pro~rided on-site, w°itlun close proxinuty ta the entrance of the structure Additionally, the applicant shall madifi~ plans to mdicate the location of the requ~red electrical outlet for the purposes of recharging electric <<ehicles 4 Prior ta subirussian to Architecturai Revie~~~ Board, the to«rer element shall be reduced in height to ~fi~ from the cunrently prapased ~6'6", thereby brmgmg it into conformance vs~th the ~6' maximum height estabhshed for a superma.rket m the Olympic/Clo~~erf'ield Zone pursuant to the DA amendments pendmg approval by the Cit~~ Council Prepared b~~ Drummond Buckley, Assoc~ate Planner Attachrr~ents A DA and General Plan Canformance Checklist DB / f lplanlsharelpclstrptlarboda3 5 ~n r A~TACHM~IITT' E ~O ~ QTY {~' SANTA MONICA G C~OMNR~SIUN S'I'A , O~` UFFIC~AL ~~oN CAS~ NUMBER: DR 94006 ("ZA Plan" of a sup~~~,arket which would be pc~ziutted at the sit,~ based an a Zoning Adminis~rator Det~t7~~ina~on, which was reviewed by the Plaruiing Cornnvssion and requires approval of the City Council, vwhich interprets that a su~kex is a pe.~m~tted use under the provisions of the existing Arboretum Development Agr~ement; the ZA Plan Qontains no access off of Cloverfield Baulevand, in ca~st to the "Am~dme~rt Plan," which requires an amendmer~t to the exi5ting D~velUy~~~nt Agz~ment to allow aflcr~s o~ of C~o~erfield and which un~eiwent a paralle! but separate review proces.s.) LOCATTON: 2Q00-2200 Colorado Avenue (a 12.7 aare site with frorrtage on Clo~rerfield Boulevard, Olympic Boulevarc~, Twen~ieth Sme~t; and Calo~ado Avenue) .~ APPI.ICANT• Arbaretum Devetopment Partae~s CASE PLANNER Dn~mmond Buck~ey, Associate Planner REQUEST• R~vie~v of Spe~ific Buildirig (DR 94-OOb}, as provided under Secxion 9(1) af the Arboretuin Development Agreement, to allow the construction of a one-stary supenr~arke~t with 2Q9 parking spaces {of which 1Q5 would be provided beiow g~ade} and approximaotely 8,616 square fieet of wac~ehouse area and ~ 1,040 squa~+e fae~ of dispiay, adrivni.strative and service are~a. 1 .. . Z~IS CEQA STATUS: Certification of IIR 93-003 pEnding review by City Council. PLANNI,1vG C~ON~VIISSiON ACIION 10/19/94 Date. A~pro~ed l~ased fln the follaw~ng findin~ and subject to the conditions below. X Denied. Other. {,; DA'IFISI QF ACIIONfSI IF NOFT APPF.A~ l4'1); 11/2f94 REVYEW OF SPF~C'IFIC BiTII.DINC~ FINDINC,S !DR 94-O461. ZA PLAN I. The pla~ment of ea~h prnp~osed building on the Re~d 13np~erty crrd the locr,~ion of the pmp~o~sed uses wit~n ea~h such lnalding ae incc~mpat~hle witl~ ~rd do rwt relate hcemoniourly to, s~or~wu~ircg sites csad neighUor~ioo~ds, in that the plc~ does not camply with Section 13(b) o, f the Arbor~t:.vn Dievelopmen~ Agr~ement r~quiring a It~s~aed 'gc~ewav"fe~ a~ the project locc~tion with aminimum af 25,ODO squ~ feet of open .spa~e "developed c~d used for viewshed pwp~ses-` ra~d "Ic~dscc~ed in a p~edestri~- oriented mr~rrrer. " In contrrst to this requiremerct, the prop~osca~ corrtcurrs c~npruximr~ely 12, 000 squ~ feer of lrs~idscaprng r~ Clave~eld/Olympic intersedron; the ~ma~ning spa~e is occr;q~ied hy swfa~e pe~~cin~~which does nat meet the '~aede.rtric~z friendly,- criterion establrshed in the DA 2. The Access Poirats w~d internal cir~tdc~ian pla-t ca~ a~equa~e to rxcommodc~e c~rticip~ated automobile c~d p~edestrir,ar ~c for etrh prvp~osed building in tha~ the pltaa hra been c~fully revrewed lry the Parkir~g ~rd T~c Engir~eer ~d hca been fou~rd to hee in cr~equc~e 3. The Br.alding Height of each prn~osed huildirrg dn~es not ~xceed thc~ permitted Iry Section 9~), in tha~ the propase~ tn~ilding would be 31'6" mad nne story i~ height, c~d loct~ed wrtlun the Mc~ket Zorre shawn in Exhibit B of the prn~v,sed w~neru~met~t, which p~ernzits a maacrmum hoeight of 84' cmd six stories in height. 4 The setba~k requrremen~s o, f' Sect~on 9(a~ c~ complied with, for~ each prop~osed buzlding 2 ~~ ~ 2 0 6 c~d ths placement of ecrh proposed burdding is not compa~ible lvith c~rd does not r~lare hc~maniously to, the open space r~quired hy Sectron 13(h), in thc~ the suhject structure rs loca~ed a mrnrmr~rn of 20' from the setbc~k base line, as rnqurred l~y Seetion 9(6), but tJze open sp~e requirea~ by Secnan I3~) is nat provrder~ S Ec~rch prop~osed huilding tivill comply with rhe Butlcling Volu~ne F.nvelape r~stnctions of Sect~on 9~e), an thc~ the propr~sed stnsc~re contc~ns onlv ane pamon which exceeds 31' rn height c~rd is there,for~ sub,]ect to the Building Volwne F.nvelope requirements, caad thrs portion of the building is loca~ed more thc~x 6Q' fmm the nea~s~ pmp~erty line, where as anly a 3T averrge setbc~k rs req~r~r~ 5 The rninther of pc~krng spaces r~qu~red lry Seetivn 9(~ c~rd Exhtbit C c~ heing prov~der~ in thc~, ar cenerrdec~ Section 9(~ r~quires thc~ stwadc~ eode requtrements for retcul uses be r.gaplied ta the site, whrch results irt a mtnimum re~turement of 173 vehtculca-p~crng spc~es, one electric~ stub for electnc vehicles, c~d 8 l~~cvcle p~lctng ~prrees> which shc~l be met with the 2Q9 vehicular p~ing .spaces shawn on the plrsas cs~rd the electncal outlet c~ad 8 btcycle p~king .spe~es requxrec~ pavstua~t to Conc~r~ion 4 of this report 7 The ~~gate FASF for ea~h use on the Recn' Property in all buildings previously c~proved ~.~er th~s Sect~on 9(1), c~d then ~eing proposea~ as in compl~c~ce with Sectio~ 9(gj, c~ad (z) with resp~ect to the lart br,dldtng to be submitted for revrew, the provistons of Sections 9(q! c~a' 9(c~ tivill be complied with fo~lowing completion of such bidlc~in~ in thc~ the ~ro~osed structio~ will brircg the totc~ squc~ _ f'oot~e c~ the site to 228, 166 squnre feet ~rd the total lat caver~e to 30'~ of the p~a~el r.o~a (irrcluding alI huildangs tivhrch wiil remain ad the site) VO~I~ {On a motion to d,~nv ZA Plan of DR 94-{}06} Ayes. Brnisch, 11#echw; ~'~amzor, Pc~ee, Fyne, Weremiuk, Zrnner Ncrvs :~ Abstcun Absent If t}~s is a finai decision nat subject to finther appeal under the Cit~T of Santa Nionica Comprehensive Land Use an~ Zoning Ordinanc~, the time ~vit~n which judicial revieu of this decision must be sought ~s govemed by Code of Ci~il Proce~une Sect~on 1 Q94 6, which provis~on ha5 been adopted by the City pursuant to Mimicipa~ Cod~e Section 1~OQ. 3 zo7 I he~by c~~tify tfrat thic S~±enre~rt o#' ~cial Action acc~ely refle~cts the fit~aI detemrinab~n of #he Plan~i~ Commissian of t~e ~t,y of Sa~ta 1V~nica. 51~1~UIe ~lOII]aS ~~Il~. ~'1S1IUeCi'SQIl f 1plan~shareipclstoas1dr94006z rev: 9/94 4 clate zn~ AT7~ACH~E~ITT F C~tv or Santa Monica ~ ~ ~l ~ ~~) Depa~t^rent o~ P.anrnnn ard ~om:~urrly ~~vei~nmerl Plann~ng and Zon~ng ~ivis~an ;310i4~8-E3~` APPEAL FpRM ~~~ S1QD QQ Da*e i~c _ Rece~ved ~l Rece~ot Nc N~.~° Sas~t.a ~~7on~ca I~'umber Seven ~ssociat~s r L. P. Aaarpss c/o ~.:ttle & Taylor, 355 5outt: Grand A~,~.~n~s°, ~Oth Ploor, Lc3s Anqeies, Ca 90071-3iQ1 Ccr.'act Persc~~ ~'~ ~Y°=' Haller~, Esq. Pt~or.e (2i3) 683-D607 r'IeaS~ G~pSCnbe tre DrD~eCt ar:d aecis°cn to be co~°2~Qd ~l~ p~~~q ~~"-~ssion's aecisao~ ~o a~~no~~e Zonznq A~:-ustr3tor's dat ,ei-~natzan ~o allaw a su~ei~narke~ to be constructec at the Pxboret~sn u.-ic.er ths ex~sti.~g f.r'mrettun laevelo~at~nt r~gre~ent ano. (2 }~lanninc C~~ss~o, ' s fzncunqs tna~ the pro~osed suoeir~ar{et a.s cons~s:e~:t wil~h tl:e Ger.er~ Plan :'2SP ~~[IIT~]a. ~Ctlf°S~ ~~ ~~rettun rpp;ica,n;; Arbaretum Dev~lo~ent Par~~.ners -- ~pt~ellant: Santa Mor,ica ~t~ur,ber Seven Assx~ates,L.P OnQ~rai ~Eean;;~ Datp ~tO~= ~gr ~99~ Ona,nG~ Act,o,7 october 19. ?999 P aaS9 S'2iB f~~ specrfic reason(s) !0~ ihe ~p~?3i S~ ATI:y.QiF,D I~1'1'~K Please prov,de two seli-addressed, stamped, ~etter-s~zed envelopes ~ ~ ~ 4~i~ S~~~nGt~re ~~ . Date Nov~nk~r 2, 199~ T~ Any~n ~t-~n Tll1`l'LE &'~ ~, A Iaw C01-~~Ora~.ldn, attorneys for Santa r3oruca n}xr Seven AssaCiates, L.P. ~^~ 2~9 E & T A Y L O R T T EawAao E Tl;T7LE' 61AMH H NIM U T L AOBERT[- TqYLOR~ MARLAJ ASPINWALL ~uER_W W CAL_ ROBtIVO WIENER A LAW CORPORATIDN FRANK C CHRISTL E7WAR~ A MEN~OZA FORTI~TH F~OOR FA-F2~CK~ tr1~7EYE .JEF~REYp w~c~ea C DAVIDANCERSOIi• IG4THLEEMM WOMN 3SS SOUTH G~aNOa,veNUe ~I~I-ARO s BERGER ROS.4R10 NERFERA SINDEL .~LAN E~RiEOUeN ,;ULIOA TFiOMPSON Lp5 ANGELE5, CALIFORNIA 90071-31D1 ~IMI ANYON NALLEM iCHN R DENT MEF4ICKJ BOBB hiCO:AS H MILLER TELEPMONE (2131663-06b0 CMA~LES L WOLTMANIv' SJHG F+ SFiIH JOUGLASW BECK ntARMiES CARLfN ~AC5IMILE (2L31683-0225 JOhiN A MpE 11 KqTE SCHNE~OER ROBERT L SHULEn' 6RENDA R WHFDAIi M4RK 4 BOREItiSTEiN' ~ALPN M SEMIEN NANC~ E HOWARO OAFiNi N TSU9Dl MAR.'~. L 3ROWM AM~REA V RqMOS MICNAEL H $IERMAN ^I~LLARY A GAVlOSQh! -_O~ISE KENPiNSKY =zAhK E MELTON =ETERY LEE SAM S OM ^ November G ~ 1994 C-C~OON A G'.LOSM~TH SHERRY L APPEL =REGORY D SCHETINA MALISSIA R LENNO% JAMES P Gf~SOM' ~EMB~P CA~'~ORw'w An re..eew c•s~w~c* o: co a ~~STF'CT Oi CO.IIMe~A GARS _uwe~w eww on~r VIA HAND DELIVERY City of Santa Monica Planning and Zaning I]ivision City Council 1585 Main Street, Room 212 Santa Monica, California 90401 EpWMD W TUTTL.E nen-i9t:o1 pF GOEJIJ$EL ~LILIAN B HERON .3R ~ JERpY W KENE~i[Dl'~ ~AVIO B FRfEGMAN PAMELA G BUTHWELL TUTTLE TAYLOR & HERON SuITE~07 WEST +025 THOMAS JEFFERSON STR[E~. M W WASHINGTOH C G 2d00732Dt i202Y 342i3O0 TUTTLE Sr TAYtAR A L4W CORPDFI~.~OM SF1[TEENTFf FLOOR 9B0 HkNTFI STqEEY SAGR4MENT0 CA956Y42796 19187 4499930 WRITER 5 PIREC7 OIAL NUMBER (213) 683-0607 Re: Appeal of Planning ComYnissian's Deca.sion ta Approve Zaning Administrator's Determination to Al1ow A Supermarket Under Existing Arboretum Development Agreement and of Findings that the Proposed Supermarket is Consistent with the General Plan Ladies and Gentlemen: We represent Santa Monica Number Sevan Associates, L.P. ("SMNSA"), the awner of the Sony Music Campus constructed on Lot 7 of the property commonly known as the Arboretum. SMNSA has invested over $19 million in deve].apment of the Sony Campus, and is keenly interested in what is dane with the surrounding property and the neighborhood. SMNSA appeals certain decisions that the Santa Monica Planning Cammission made at a meeting held on October 19, 1994 in response to the appiication of Arboretum Development Partners ("AD~") ta build a sugermarket on Lots 1 through 6 of the Arboretum. Specifically, SMNSA appeals: (1) the Commission's recommendatian to the City Council to allow the Zoning Administratar to permit a 50,000 square foat supermarket ta be deveioped at the Arboretum under the pravisions of the existing Deve~opment Agreement; and (2) the Cammission's findings that the constructian af a supermarket at the Arboretum --- located in the 5pecial Office District ---- would not be inconsistent with the City of Santa Monica ("Citv") General Plan. The proposed supermarket is ~llegai because it is incansistent with the ~eneral Plan's requirements for thE Special Office District and because the Zoning Administrator has no authority to approve the supermarket under the existing Development Agreement. ~ '" Z 1~ ~ TtJTT E~E & TAY LO R A LAW CORPORATFON City of Santa Monica November 2, 1994 Page 2 The P~anning Commission's findings to the cantrary are unsupparted and the City should therefore reject them.~ I. THE PR~POSED SUPERMARKET IS ILLEGAL BECAUSE IT IS INCONSISTENT WITfi THE GENERAL PLAN. A city's general plan provides a"constitution" for the developm~nt of the city. (See O'Loane v. O'Rourke, 231 Cal. App. 2d 774, 782, 42 Cal. Rptr. 283 (1965).) This means that, as stated in ~he General Plan far the City of Santa Manica, "once a city or a county has formally adopted a general plan, new development approved by the ~urisdiction must be in keeping with the plan's objectives, policies and propos~ls." (Land Use and Circulation Elements of the General Plan revised in 1987 {"LUCE") at p.11.) Therefare, the original Development Agreement, as well as any land uses proposed pursuant to the Development Agreement m~st be consistent with the General Plan. (5ee Cal. Gov't Code §~ 65867.5 and 65868; see also Santa Monica M~nicipal Code § 9.48.150(By}. Any proposed uses that are inconsistent with the Gen~ral Plan are i~legal and may nvt be approved. Given that fundamental principle, the appiication to permit the develapment of a supermarket must be rejected because it is inconsistent with the clear palicies and requireiaents set forth in the General Plan far the Special office District. A. None Of The General Plan Provisians Relatinq To The Snecial Office District Supports A Svnermarket Use In The Snecia~. Office District. Each and every provision of the LUCE relating to the Special Office District excludes a supermarket use as permissible a use in that District. ~ Althaugh not at isseae in this appeal, at the October 19, 1994 Planning Commission meeting, ADP also sought approva~ of a second amendment to the Arlaaretuin Development Agreement allowing it to build a supermarket, multi-family housing and neighborhaad commercia~ space at the Arboretum (the "Second Amendment"). SMNSA strongly opp~sed the Sec~nd Amendment at the October 19th meeting, and is currently ].itigating a lawsuit filed by ADP against SMNSA and the City regarding this amendment. The Commission decided, however, at the October 29, 1994 meeting to postpone a decisian on the Second Annendment until Navember 9, 1994. With this supermarket application, ADP is attempti.ng to circumvent this develagment agreement process. The City should not condone these efforts. ~- Z11 TUTTLE & TAYLQR A LA.W CORVORA'f~OM City of Santa Monica Noaember 2, 1994 Page 3 l. The plan principles. The principle behind the Land Use Element of the General Plan is to "guide growth toward the areas of the City best suited to accommodate it ~rom the standpoint of access, existing infrastructure, and minimizing of impact ~n adjacent neighborhoods." (LUCE, at p.50.) The LUCE singled out the Speci.al Office District for office develapment because it specifically found that it is "best suited for large-scale office de~elapment since it is ad~acent ta freeway access and the eastern city lim~t." (LUCE at p.5U.) The LUCE makes r~o finding that any nan-affice related uses are appropriate for this District. 2. The Zand use classzfication. The LUCE sets forth fourteen Land Use Classifications and, as required by state ~aw, describ~s the usES permitted in each. {LUCE at p.64.) Under the "Special Office" classification, the LUCE firat provides generally that this area shall be occupied by ~'Large-floor office/research and development uses." (LUCE at p.64.) More specifically describing the t~ses under Special Office classification, the LUCE next pravides, in part: Land Us~ and Intensity -- The Olympic corridor generally east of 20th Street shauld be the location for large-floor office space and advanced technology uses which cannot be accommodated in Downtown or the Wilshire/Santa Manica Corridor because of small parcelization in those areas, . . . Urban Design -- The majar urban design aim is to create a"garden office" district that ties into and is compatible with the surrounding residentia7, neighborhoods. (LUCE at p.68.) That the General Plan intends to exclude a superiaarket as a permitted usE in the Special Office classificatian is c3.ear. First, many a~ the other classifications specifically provide for either residential, neighborhood retail. (of which a supermarket is one), industrial, office or a combination thereof, as ~and uses contemplated for those classifications. Non-office uses are therefore conspicuously absent from the General Plan's description of the uses allowed under the Special Office classification. In addition, development of a large supermarket, as proposed in ADP's application, wou~d make it impassible to create a"garden office" district as ~~- 212 TUTTLE & TAYLOR A LAW CORPORATION City of Santa Monica November 2, 1994 Page 4 required by the design and other development standards described in this section flf the LUCE. 3. The ob~ectives and po~icies. The more detailed descriptian of the permissible and intended uses for the Special ~ffice District in the "Objectives and Pola.cies" section of the LUCE makes it even ciearer that the propased supermarket is incompatible with the General Plan's plan for this District. The Objective for the Special Office District is: "Pravide opportunity for office and advanced technology uses requiring Zarqe floor areas." (LUCE at p.94.) According to the LUCE Glassary, a"policy" is "[a) specific statement guiding action and implying a clear commitment." (LUCE at p.1~9,) The Policies for the Special Office District provide for nine specific uses. These nine uses include, for example: developing this District as the "priority location for office and advanced technology uses;" allowing "retai]. uses necessary to serve office and advanced technology uses;" developing new and preserving existing schaols; preserving existing trailer parks; aliowing new industrial and manufacturing uses or the expansion of existing busin~sses; and building a hotel. (LUCE a~ pp.94-96.) None of the Specia~ office District policies implies a "clear cammitment" to allowing a supermarket to be de~eloped in the District. Indeed, the LUCE ~xplicitly calls out any non-office and non-advanced technology uses which may otherwise be permissible in this District in order to make clear exactZy what uses are permissible. Policy number 1.8.2 expressly limits any commercial uses in the District to "retail uses necessary to serve office and advanced technology uses." (LUCE at p.94.) Palicy rtumber 1.8.8 provides existing businesses in the Special ~ffice District can be expanded only "if they are compatible with the office and advanced technology uses in the District." (L[TCE at p.96.} Since the proposed supermarket is nat a retail use necessary ta serve the office and advanced technol.ogy uses permitted in this District, nor an existinq business that could be expanded, it is not a use that fits within the only Special Office District policies that would permit such a retail development. When the LUCE intends to permit commercial uses in a District, it specificaily provides far such use in the Objectivss and Policies section of the Gen~ral Plan. Some of the many examp~es of these specific provisions are: the Policies for the Neighborhoad Commercial District which provide for the preservatian of "neighbarhoad commercial uses on Wilshire from 12th to 16th Streeta," ~ ~ L i ~ TUTTLE & TAYL.OR A LAW CORPORATION City of Santa Monica November 2, 1994 Page 5 the preservation af "the concentration af neighborhood commercia~ uses on Wilshire from 12th to 16th Streets," the "retentian of existing groceries and food markets," and the "retention of existing groceries and food markets" (LUCE at p.93}; the Palicies for the Cammercial Corridors District which pr~vide that "[nJezghborhood commercial uses shaii be allowed eithEr when mixed with residential development, or in separate projects provided the majority of the usa on a block by b~ock laasis is residential" (LUCE at p.90); and the Palicies for the Oceanfront District which provide far encouraging day and night pedestrian activity "by requiring active uses oriented to walk-in traffic, especially retail and commercial recreation, smail inns and restaurants." (LUCE at pp.87-88,) If the LUCE had intended the Special Office District to include a supermarket, or other non-affice related retail uses, it wauld have so provided. Since it did not, and since it provided a clear vision af a Speciai Office District with which a supermarket is nat compatible, the supermarket is inconsistent with the General Plan ADP'S app~ication cannot be approved. 4. The Citv's ~rior conduct demonstrates the Citv understands that the descr~ption of uses in the General Plan is exclusive. It i.s particularly telling that the City itself has heretoforE understood the uses listed in the objecta.ves and policies of the General Plan for the Special Office District ta be exciusive. For example, in 1987 when the Arboretum development agreement was approved, it permitted office, retail uses to serve th~ office workers, and a hotel (which had previously been slated for Colorado Place Phase IT). In analyzi.ng the conformance of the proposed uses to the General Plan, Staff noted that the developme~t agreement would be in conformance only if a general plan amendment being proposed at the same time were adopted ta permit the hote~ use on the Arboretum property. (See Planning Staff Repart dated August 10, 1987.} With respect to the amendment af the General Plan ta allaw the hotel to be built in the Special Office District, Staff noted: "The Aranosed amendment is necessarv to explicitly state in the General Plan that the hote]. transfer ~Fram Phase II to Phase III] may occur, subject ta the Planning Cammission and council review and approvai through the development agreement process [emphasis added~." Since a hotel ~.s a use so dissimilar to the office and advanced technology uses planned for th~ District, and is not otherwise permitted in the objectives and policies of the General Plan appiicable ta the Special Office District (it is obviously nat a retail use designed primarziy to serve the office workers), the General Plan was amended to include a separate policy in the Special ~ffice District sectian of the LUCE to permit this use. Appraval of ~ y 2i4 TUTTLE & TAYLOR A L/~w C017PORATON City of Santa Monica November 2, 1994 Page 5 the hote~ through the develapment aqreement process aiane was insufficient. Simi~arly, approval of a supermarket through am mechanism set forth in the development agreement is insufficient to permit the supermarket propased in ADP's application because it is so dissimilar to the office and advanced technology uses planned for the Speaia~ Office District and is not otherwise within the objectives and policies for the Special Office District set forth in the General P].an. Only a General Plan amendment will suttice to so drastically alter the Plan for this District. II. THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR HAS NO AUTHORITY TO PERMIT THE PROPOSED SUPERMARKET. Contrary to ADP's c~aim (which the P~anning Commission apparently accepted), the Zoning Administrator has no authority under the existing Development Agreement to approve the proposed supermarket. The Development Agreement states: (i) The Real Praperty is hereby approved far the foilowing uses: * * * General Commercial Office {including restaurants, such as cafeterias and dining rooms designed ta primarily serve the employeES af a single tenant and not open to the general public) and any similar use vr aay vther uses that the Zoninq Adminis~ra~or deems acoep~able for the zone except that theater use shall not lae parmitted. (Deve~opment Agreement at p. 12.) (Emphasis added.) The Municipal Cade does not permit supermarkets in the C5 zone, and thus the Zoning Administrator has no discretion to find that a supermarket is compatible with the zane. In response to this point, the City Attarney and Staff have argued that the word "zone" in this passage refers to the "zones" set out in the Arboretum deveiapment agreement and nat to the C5 zone. They a~so noted that theater uses are not permitted in the C5 zone and th~s the exclusion of theater uses indicates that the parties intended that the Zaning Administrator have braad discretion to permit ~ses not otherwise permitted in the C5 zone. These responses lack merit. The "zones" in the development agreement relate to building heights and not uses. ~~ 215 TUTTLE & TAYLOR A LAW CORPd~7ATOP! City of Santa Mon~ca November 2, 1994 Page 7 The development agreement could not possibly have been referrinq to these zones. Even if the agreement did refer to these zones, the parties cou~d not have thereby intended that the Zoning Administrator have broad authority ta approve any use whatsoever. The authority is given only within the general category "General Commercial Office." The City Council, by adopting its zoning ordinance for the Special office District has made a determination of th~ types of uses that are appropriate for that District, and the City could not possibly have intended to give the Zoning Administrator the authority to permit a use which the City Council had deemed inappropriate. Thus, the zoning ordinance is at least relevant in defining the Zoning Administratar's autharity. Mareover, the exclusion of theater use is not significant. The record reflects that there was great public concern about the large movie theater camp].ex that was permitted under the development agreement for the nearby C~lorada Piace development. It is apparent that the parties wanted to allay that concern ~y specifically providing that theater use would n~t be permitted, even though such a provision wauld not have been necessary since theater uses (like supermarkets) were already not permitted in the C5 zane. It is noteworthy that in the City Attorney's recent letter to SMNSA, she canceded that the Zaning Administrator does nat have authority to permit residential or neighbarhoad cammercial uses at the Arboretum under this provisian of the development agreement. If that is true (and we certainly agree that it is), then how can a supermarket, which is a neighbarhood commercial use, be within the Zoning Administrator's discretion to perma.t? In fact, once you depart from the provisians of the zoning ordinance for permitted uses in the C5 zone, there is na principled basis for distinguishinq between uses that are and are nat within the Zoning Administratvr's authvrity to permit. Finally, we note that the Zaning Administrator cannot -- either through a m~chanism set forth in the Deveiopment Agreement or in a zoning ordinance --- permi.t the development of a use inconsistent with the General Plan. (See Land Waste Manaaement v. Cantra Costa County Board of Superviso~s, 222 Cal. App. 3d 950, 958-59, 27Z Ca~. Rptr. 909 (1990).) As stated above, the proposed supermarket use for the Special Office District is inconsistent with the General Plan's requirements for development in this District. To give the Zaning Administrator the power to do indirectly that which the City Cauncil cannot da directly by approval of a development agreement would be absurd. Indeed, if the Zoning Administrator approves a use inconsistent with either the General P~an or a zaning ordinance, it is an ultra vires act ~' ~Zs ~ TUTTLE & TAYLOR ' A LAW CORP4pAT10N City ~f Santa Monica November 2, 1994 Page 8 (an act for which the Zaning Administrator has no legal authorityj which can be held void in a court of law. (Land Waste Manauement, 222 Cal. App. 3d at 959.) CONCLUSION The Planning Comznission's recammendation of approval of the supermarket is imper~nissible under bath the existinq Development Agreement and the General Plan. Final approval of this application would only lead to a lawsuit and eventuai invalidity of such approval. The City Council should therefore reject the Cammission's findings. Respectfully submitted, TUTTLE & TAYLOR ,/~,~~(,~,(,C/ By ~ ` _ :'", Timi Anyvn H~31em 66336:MSC:ift ~~ ` 21 ~ SENT BY;Xerax ~eiecop~er 7G~1 ,17-13-84 f 4~~4PM ; T& T LA -#1~ [nwl~o ¢ ?4TT~` P~ANN H K13iA ~G1=A*G 7~Y~GFt~ ~5A4_F.; A5PIKViALt ~6RLIN +~ ~oL. R^JD~k G Ml-LNCR rRk4~ G C~~~5T~ ~~wnao a MEN6'.4td ~nTwi~K :,'~kRRV~ ~L~RAL" 7 .4cRr~R C GAV ~D AND[*iEON~ fi95~A'4 Fi~Rii~SGA SIT;flEL sic~~~~ s a~~as~ _U~ a n r~+OMS9D~ r9F~iri'R ~IClMi++~ ..0~1~i~i 4L41T ,~Ah [ ~~'[7MAh NIC"yLA5 h M~LLE~7 7~N nNYOIN ~AL.EM $UY3 H 9ti'~1 MGRR~CK~ 50~~ MpRN°CE CARL4 ~,IMAR_65 L VhHC.*MAN't{ %IATE 5ChMEIpE~ L"JIJm~u~ 1Y ~ECK 9RENZfA ~ :.A~:OAU ~OHh A raOE, u ~ALFr~ n+ 3LMILN ~C7{RT L li+iL6i~' OAKVI K TSu~Oi MARK A^7ALN6~C"V~ ANDREa V RAMOS N/~NGY [ NOWARC WLLAAMA ]AVi830N MA4C ~ gRGWk PETER V~[G M~C~-IAELi-I BI~RMAty SAM'J ON ~auisr KLMPIM6K1/ LRMC~FT'/L APPEL ~qI,hIK ~ MFLLTOY MAL155'A ~i :EitiMDx GCRO~lV 0. GQ_ :i4117~ AATNIlYy ~ Q~'JQ~y 34CGQ~'r O 3CkC'HF 'NOMA3' OJPUIS ,/lM[S ~ l:IL~~N~ SH4AN9N hl jU~L'~/i5{•Y~p~";fir.Z 'MLM\[RCA.'IORViA~N03 rrTaICTCFCC~~M~ AL4~~ •9MLME[R 3 7~111CT CF C6~r V~~~ ~AA OA _Y TUTTLE ~ TAYLOR A LAW GQRPC}F2A'~IOiV F~~t~~s~+ ~~.ao+~ ~S~ SOLIT~-I GRAND Av~T~lUE LOCJ ANG: ELES, Ca~iraRrr~a ~aa~~~ioi TELE~+~14kf' [~L31 683-b~d0 R6C$aMi~E ~213M d63-C2i6 n~Gember 13, z~~~ ~~ ~~csz~LE (3~~) a~s-~~80 Drumanond SuckleY ~ssociate Planner ci~y af ~anta Monica 1685 Main Street p.o. a~x a2oa S~r~ta Monioa, CA 9~~07-2200 ~e: Arbore~um Prc~ect Dear Drummond. 91310458~36G;~ 2 Eow+~~o w rurns +ieT7•i4a~~ 0~ G6urv6E~ .ii:iJAFti "d k^LRON,JRatl 1RRRY+N KL~xiJtII~'~" tr4vIC ^ rRI~pNWN , PAMEIA O DpYl.w~u 7YJTTL~ YAY{„pR $. M rRON ~ iU'Tt #47 wE5 ~ 16Ni T~+OMA6IEF~ER°ON $TR~~~ i: W : wna~INaTOU p4 idOOMi4i ~ 1=Ct13~!-I~00 - T~TTLE S TA.VLpR ~ ~.aw ~~sew4~RT~Or 7~IXT~YHTw FLOD+'t 9~0 ~MiNTH 9TlQR 5AG~.\FACNTO, G4 Ob894tiT36 1AI dS a+18-~lia~ WRiTER'§ 6~RE~T OiAL KLIM~LA ( ~ i~ ) 683-0607 I am w~iting this let~er ~n behalf of S~nt~- Monica Nu:ub~~ S~ve~i ASS~Cf~t~S ~ L. P. (~rSMN.~Br~ ). AS W~ d1~~1i888d~ SMN3A Wf ~l ]]Ot wi~h~raw its appeal of the Planning Cammissian'~ d~termination that the Zar~ir~g Admini~tratar h2~g discre~ian urider the existiMg ~evelopment ~gresment ~~r tha Arboratum to apgr~ve a supermarke~. whi~e, a~ you k:~ow, S~nv,~~, ha~ agr~ed that it wi~l con~ent to ~ d~v~lapment agr~ement am~1'idm~t~~ whiGl~ permit~ th~ conatruc~ion af a su~sermark+8t at Cl~verf i~ld and olympio, ~i~TSA doeg not agr~e that the ~o3~3ng Admin~stra~tcr haa th~ ~u~ho~ity to p~rmSt the iaarket abs~nt s~ch ~tn amendment. SNII+TSA dve~ not wa~t to appear in ~ny wt~y to ag~~e with the premi~e that the zoning Ac~ministratar has ~uch :oraad autharity. Very truly your~+ TUTTLE & TAYLQR . . 8y Timi Anyon Ha~lsm TAH:1r:59963 e~, ~~$~ SENT BY.TUttle & Taylcr LA ;'~-16~84 :^1~0?AM ~ T& T LR -#~~ ~awn~o s T~TT4C ~~~ts ~ v3~soN- T U T T L~ ~ T A Y~ O R 1104tw* a r+r~arr a+ANN F+ rtir M~ALfN W: AL. HJ~qua,; AyRinwn~~ A~AW CO R?~ RATiO N r~RtiX C Ch~t'#TL PATIIiCK 4 5`a~ICVs ~iq~IN p YY'EN~R LOYYARO A k:Nb07A ~[lRTiFTI'~1 FLOOR C Owv~oaHCi456+u• .~~F~RIerG.wESU.L~ 3S6 SO~JTN 4RANG AYEPL~l~ R.Ct~aR~ p ~CAO[R FD9A~'O ~IERR~jAF~ 61lJ-CL '1LAIr ~ rp~~o~Ah .%4iL~4A rMQMP50k LO5 ANCaELE~, GALIFpi7NIA 9C1071-13101 T~;A~ qryYQM NA~L[M ~~MH R aRNT ~~AR1G~L :. ~068 N'C~L4R Tti 1M=LLL~ T~LEPHONE «~) ~B~J~C$'r O ~4ARL~i L M~~L7MAMhi' 9;~NG w SHIry~ nc~p~a~v~cse~K MpRKis9 C4RuM RA~51MiL~ L213i g9.3~G2~B JCNa l~ Mo[, 11 15.i~E 3CkroEa~ER aoeERr L tru;=_+~' eRChiGw R ~AM~.4~ MAiii(6 ~~~EN$T~INi A~~pHhf 1CM1[N NAt.~[~- L HOW/4i~C 6P.~sli' K*LUgbi r4a[~ eROWw ,ahksiRE4v R,ruQ7 MICrA~:ll L•E9iiA4 F'ILLA.R1'A OAVID~~M LRul1 < tt~iRPti.lg4SY ~L7[R 1~ tiGC ~~ANK E ME:.Tp~ SAiw s 4M ~~q ~+~~+~~ ~ ~ 1 [] ~q, GOR~G~ A. 40i05M~~k SHeRRY 4. APPQ~ ~ 1 ~R=44R~ p flCti`TIhP. 0141~3i.4R ~LNHaX 'M~MECF. C~-i~`~ANIA iN D ~'STpI£3 t~ ~PL~M\-A Y~~i •3laSH~C~, f'~i ZT G~ CO~4M~'~'!~q 0+SL1' ~rummand 8u~kley As6a~ia"te Planner City ~~ Santa Moz~ica Planring Div~~aior~ 169~ M~ir. S*reet, R~om 212 S~nta Mon_ca, ~~liforx~~a 9J401 s-,~~oa~~4~~a;# ~ ~Dw~o ws TU7t4e i1677-~5t3Gk aa co~n~c~. JUiJ.QN ~ ~~~~HR~Y rLRRY w KeNNi6r" bnv,~ 3 RR1mMIUv ~+~+1~iA G Sa~°ri~NA: RJl'1'Ll~,TAYLQa 5~ l{Rl7bN iul i d +07 WI[6T ~R~g ~'MOM45 fl~P~RRECN 9T~CL'~ W W WA6ri~+rOT~N~ GaEQ~7-6eR1 I=Ofi 34P1~GO rurns a, T.qwLn~r A LAkN COAP4R~TION 617f+(r,FyTY~ F~QQR 0~0'YENTH 7TIiiGT gACS~+~e~4~ G. ~sia-i7~6 ~~~~~~~~4 WRl7~p'5 D~AEl."T ~'.~IkL Ni2ki8[R (~13) 6~3-0607 Re: Appea3 of Pianning Cot~m~.salonF s~ecisiar. :a ~pp~cve ~iOY]YT2~ A~it7~111~~rc~~UL`' ~p D~t~7Ci[11173~~OP~ ~O A1~.04~ A Superir~arket 37nd~~ $x:.sting Arboretum Deve~opm~nt Agr~~rnent ~nd o~ Find~ng~ th~t ~he Prvp~sed Supe~mark~t is Cari~.iaterxt wit~i ~he ~ensrai Plat1 ._ De~r ~ru~nond ; Thie iet~er wi].7. cazlf~r:tt our Cor~ver~~tiall ~~ ~~=~znber Z5, ? 99~ in ~ayhi~h I~ol.d you tha~. tt~e ~~peaZ ~~ S~r:~a Monica Nu~r~e~ Seven As~~ciates, ~.g. ~e the abave w°i1Z be ~im~ted to tY~~e is~ue af t~e zaning Admini~tr~~or'~ autho~ity. Very truly yo~rs, TUTTL$ & TAYLOR ~ ~ . By ~imi ~~yon xalxem 7a~~$:~r~:;~~t ~' • 2 ~ 9 City of J ~ ~ ~~ Santa Manica ' Department of Piannrng and Commun,ty Devefopment Planning and Zoning Divlsian (310} 458-8341 APP~AL ~dAM F~E. $10D.04 Date ~ed ReceivedBy Rece~pt No ~`" ""~'~ '`Y Nane ~~T~~RETLIM n~jrFr npu~'~T'e PARTiTFRR, r.. a A(f(j;oS~ ~~~L~ f`.n~ nrarin Avaniie _~anYa yfn~t~ ra _~A 90404 C~~tGC`.Person Robert Bisno/David Hibbert/Tom LarmQre Phone449-1244/394-G045/(21.3} 488-7325 Pleasa aescnbe t~tie pro~ect and dec:s~on to be appealed Arboretum. Review of Specific Buildings . Denia~ bv the Planning Commission of Che desi~,n for the Alpha Beta Market to be ,Located at Cloverfield and Olympic under the Zoning Administrat~~ Determination Plan, C~S~ lVumOBr, Developmenr Review Permi.t 94-006 qqa'~~S ~(k~ corner Cloverfield and Olympic Boulevards A~a!iva~; Arboretum Development Parnters, L.P. O~icina~ Heanny Da:p actober 19, 1994 ll~ly;nal Act;o~; ppn~ a ~ ~~°u~6 5:2t? i~~° specific reason(s) fe~ i~,e a~peal Applicant believes that the desi¢n for the Alnh~ Beta market should be approved in the form submitted. F P1~ase prov~de t eif-addressed, s~a ed, ietter-s~zed envebpes. ~, , 2 2~ /~ ~ /~Yvy~ ~'9~a~~'p DaiE flct^h~r 31, 19A/i 54+., FR4N^.~SCC ~An :OSc V.AS~+in:GTOti ~ C sa` GIEGO ~t•~~'7=R S DIPECT CIA_ NVMBER (213) 488-7325 ~nw oFFicES o~ PIL~SBURY MADIS4N & SUTRO SUI7~ 1200 ORANGE COUN7Y 725 SOIiTH FIGUEROA STRE~T SACRAMEN7C MENLO PARK LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNtA 90p17 To.cva TcLSPHONE ~213: 468-71OC T=LECOPIER {213i 62~ 1033 December 22, 1994 VIA MESSENGER Mr. Kenyon Webster Planning and Zoning City of Santa Monica 1685 Main Street Santa Monica, Ca~.ifornia 90401 Re: Th~ Arboretum Dear Kenyon: Enclosed is the Appeal filed on behalf of our cli~nt, Arboretum Developm~nt Partners, L.P., to the Planning Commission's denial of the supermarket design. Also enclosed is our check in the amount of $l0d to covex' the filing fee. I wou].d appreciate it if you would arrange to have the enclosed copy o~ the App~a~ stamped with the da~e of filing and returned in the enclased, self-addressed stamped envelape. Thank you fo~ your assistance. Sin re~y, ~"'~- Thomas R. Larmore cc: Robert H. Bisno (v~a FAX--w~enc.) David Hibbert (via FAX--w~enc.) 20689188 - - 22r City of Santa Monica Qepartment of Piannmg and Commurnty pevelapment Plann~ng and Zoning Division (3~Q)458-8341 APp~AL FORM FE~: $1 D0.00 Qate ~led ( ~ ~ ~ ~/~ ~ Rece~ved,By , Rece~pt ~fo Namg ARBORETUM DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS. L.P. Addf~SS ~ZD4 Colo~acto Avenuet Santa Monica~ California 904D4 Cantact Person ~obert H. Bisno P~~~e (310) 4~9-1244 Please describe the pro~ect and dec~s~on to be appealed Pro~ectc The Arboretum Decision: Den~al by the Planninc~ CommiSSion of a specific design for an Alpha Beta supermarket under Section 9(1) of Developement Agreement CaseNumber bR 94-006 (Amendment Plan) Address 2204 Co~orado Avenue Appl~cant Arboretum Development Partners, L.P. Origmal Neari+~g aa#e December i4 ~~.4ga Qrigmaf Action Denial Please siate ihe specific reasan(s) for ihe appeal appz~cant appeals the decision by ~he Planriinq Comm~ssion to deny the submitted design for the supermar3cet because the Applicant ]~elaeaes the Dro~osed desian satisfies all of the requ~remants of the Bevelopment Agreement, as a~t would be amended by Amendment Number Two (which has heen approved by the CommYSSlon), and represents a ma~or ef~ort on the part of Alpha Beta to ciesign a supermarket which fits in wath the surrounding commun~ty. f~ Please ~rovide tw seti-addressed, stamped, lettersized envelopes. ~~ z ~~al ~ ~ Becember 22, 1994 SEgnature Date THOMAS R. LAR[UIORE, A2`I'DRI3EY FOR ~,PPLICAIw~ AT~'AC~VIL~~1T~' G HA~GHT. BROWN F~ BONESTE~L LAWYERS • ~4~TpN ~qIGM~ CESMO'MD J F+iNOS + w~.4C_~ r~4r.3EY BRO'i'N JUL~S SCLOMCM 2EMnN : ''~`~~+qeL ,; 90NE~~EEL ~RANK nENOO BER~~E:C Y G.4RY C OTT'JS~~n ]OVIC t„ONES • EL~~CTT p C~SON 71+CNA5 N CF+ARCHVT • AONaL~ C KuNE taE,L G r~ncrYIECE ROY G W'E4THERi,P THOMnS M MOCRE ~ W~-~LI:.M I( KOSKG RITA GUNaSEriARAN • PETEa ~ EZZE~~ ~KEMuCTF+ G AN~ERSON • CcYNIS K v~/HEE_E4 ~~.jqRGIIERITE LISLE 6R~wti ~ 5'E"EN ~ KvCH ' '~t _y~C'7nR .afaaEFSCV ~ ~ n • J vHN 44 SME~LE~ _ WfLL•AK O MARTIN ..R ~ K'I! L'AM G~ALNG4ERTYrEFF TMERESa M M4RCN~~EWSK1 ~ 6RUCE 4 ARMSTRCNG • W4YtiE E PETEFi$~r. ~;EN~JiFER N ~qUNGEF7G MCRTCN G ROSEN MppK c ~ESTER PETE4 6 ;VeRPWSKi iM~Tw~-9. B~F.c7FCR'S '~ MICNGEL J LEAI+Y ~R A. ESTE54N ~ LC4I q BE]+4R ~E J DU~FY CAWIO F PETERSCN wI~LIAM E'RELAItiD ROBERT L NqurMAN SUSAh ~LRNER WILLIIM J SvYER5 CoVi~ C M=GCVERN MICHPEL NCCn~7TF+~ PQUL. M J4COB5 ~,cR4Y Z 8R065Hr KELL~ C McSPODDEN GFqY A FjAGUE CYNTH~A d ROBINS 1S6~HRYN M~ORGiE M'4p-~+Nn L PALM~R J R SEaSHORE VaLERIE P MOCRE NEV~Y R CR'5P B~RGIT SPLE LEE MARSHAL~ JON N KOS'M~OV 6RVCE L CLEELAN[.' BARBARO 0 H~GG~NS OOhAL~ S RA~P~-15 LISA L C~ERG GECaGE CNRISTEiJSEN RfCM4RC E W~Ri~K SFEVEN e NpvE~ Li~o n SEPE CE~iS ., iN~F14RTr GARv K KW45NIEWSKi •n ?RCFESSi.^..r+n~ CGROpqa~iON ?EC~ UNIVERSITY AVENUE SUiTE 61C FIVERSIOE CALIFORNIA 92501 i~P9~ 341-8300 ~Ax (909} 341-e330~ G~ COUNSffL wILLSAM M FIF2HUGH 'FiA E BELSON RICHARp F RUMKLE rT F70Y F7NKLE MITCH£i'_ J ALHERT :YN SKINfHER F~STER SIONEY ~ ~'OSS GEROLq C.".IJNN ~IEy? 1953~ ~1911-19~0~ GECRGE C L~p~J CHAi7LE5 B Sii1TH ~130E-1990i ~'908-1990~ OL~~'6 E TAYLOR ST=~HEN M CAINE .,EFFa~+' B MARGUUES ~4Y T THOMP$pA C^'NTH14 R TNCMP~CN COROTHY B. ~.ECCO~: LAL:RA M ~SNC]C 4NCREW J NARYCV JECFREY C SOGE~T 'AMMY ~ QMOF7E'.VS WIlL14M E JOMry~pN JORGEN W \vETERR-N~S NANCY DCY~E P4MELP F NORT~+ TiN4 M 4LLEGJEZ TAMPRP cvV4LS~iCLMES ZE6 FRONCOEI,R GLEASON MqRG4R£~ .,CHNSON WILEY SL75ah H4NSEN LJN^ JODi : G~R7EK MoUREEN ~-1 GEE CE.4NVA ~ 6LL51-=NCORF aOBERT C wi~SC~: FRANCES M G MEARP 1-OLLY M TEEL MAR7i E ~CNGD ~ffFFREr 5 GE4ARGC ARMANCO M GA~VnN CHR~S~OPI-~ER I R~TTER SEhN E .,UCGE RCVAL~ 5 NC7Gc5 EL12ABETM 4 LIV~$AY 5 CHRISTIAN STCUCER MiCHELLE J DROEGER THCM45 J AOESSER MICHOEL J SIPOS C~Rr ~~ G~?.GS+~ER 64RR~` .: TNOMP50N CARC_'NE E CH4N Ndh`CY W CARMAN TF•OMAS A MOORE CoROLINE S. CR6OOOCx CEiESTE ELIG M~CknEL +i GOTTSCNLICri JENNI~EFi 4 ELL-S RUSSELL W SCH4TZ JR CEBRA GEMGM1f4N1 PATTI ~ WHI7FIELD JOANN~ G ~EMgERT KFiST'ME J WEStHPVER MiCNAEL G KELLY MICHOEL 5 t~~MOHON MIC~-IAEL 5 M~LLER PEIWEN CMANG ..OHN T BUPNITE JR CAROLINE K MVNT 5T4CEY R KONKOFF FARAri 5 NiCOL AM~' C WEINREICN RGYMCND wU C~-IR'STOP~+ER V KENppICN EF7iC J CHAVE$ ERIKA 4 KR~I(ORIaN ERIC P E6RLr aOUGLAS A BARKER JENIFER ~ ,~dMN$TON AWiY E. MOFFET7 CARCLIIvE M. G£E IN REPLY REFER Tp G$!]/ C O170SDR Santa Manrca Mr. Drummond Buckley Assocrafe Planner City of Sarrta Monica Plannrng Divrs~on, Room 272 7685 Main Street Santa Monrca, Calrfornra 90401 NoUember 8, 1994 Re: AMENDMENT TO EXISTING ARBORETUM DEVELQPMEM AGREEMENT (a,4 93-U05); ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DETFRMlNATI~N TO ALLQW SUPERMARiCFT UNDER EXISTlNG DEVELOPMEM AGREEMENT Dear Mr. Buckl~y: I am wrrting to you on 6ehalf of Haight, Brown & Bonesteel, a law firm wh-ch occupies approximately 170,Oa0 square feet of space in the North Tower of the Water Garden Project. ! write regarding the proposals of Arboretrum Developmenf Partners, L-P. (';4DP`) to develop a supermarket, ne~ghborhood eommercral project and multi- family residential pro~ect at whaf has become known as the Arboretrum Profect at 1620 26T1-I 5TREET SUITE a000 NQFiTH SANT~ MONICA CA 904Q4 P O BOX 680 SANT4 MOhiICA CA 90406 ~310~ 449-6QOD FAX (310} 829-SIi7 __ ~UTTCN CEN7RE DRIVE SIiITE 900 ~ SPNT4 FNA CA 927C7 (7lai 754-IICO FAX ~714) 754-0926 M~ 2~3 _ :~. _:,~ ~ Page -2- Colorado and Clovertield. Please be advised that Haight, Brown & Bonesteel strongly opposes the proposed developments. Haight, 8rown & Bonestee- leased ~ts space m the Wafer Garden Project in Sanra Monica in very strong reliance upon the Ciiy's plan to zone the surrounding area as an upscale garden office district In fact, our frrm's Ioca#ion decision ul#ima#e!y came down to two possf6ilities, the Water Garden and the Arborefum. The averall envrror~men# that had been projected by the iwo pro}ects together (rn addit#on #o the already ~xistrng Colorado P1ace pro~ect) was what at~racted our firm to the area, and was a primary motivation to our f,rm's decrs~on to stay ~n Santa Monrca. As you may be aware, we employ over 3~0 people. Haight, Brown & Bonesteel does not want fhese changes m the development pla-a and does not wanf the subject property to develop along #he lines currently berng proposed. We very strongly believe that it would ultimately operate to the detriment of the long•range goals of the City of Santa Monica, w~I! very definltely change the environment envisioned by the development plan that has been relied upon by our firm as we!! as many others over a number of years, arrd will create more problems than rt wi!! solve in the long run. Speaking on behalf of our firm, ! sirrcere/y hope yacr will reject the revisions being proposed by ADP. 7hank you for your attenfion. Very t yours~~~ -~~ - Y C. SON CHAIRM OF THE FIRM GCO/jsl M~ 22~ ~ ~ innovalors In iliuminet~on November S, 1994 City of Santa Ma~tuca Planning Di~ision, Room 212 1 G85 Main Street Santa. Monica, CA 90441 Attn Dnun~noitd Suckley, Associate Planner Candle Corporat~on 2425 Olymp~c Boulevard Santa Manica, CA 9fl4D4 (310)829-58D0 ~- ~ ~- - - ~.,~'Y ~. ~ - - _-- ~#~; ~~__ _ - - - _ = - ~ ~:~ ~ ~4 =~2 Re: Amendment t~ Existing Arboretum Development Agreement (DA 93-0~5}; Zonin~ Admi~istratar Determ~nat~on to AIlaw Supertnarke# Under Exis ~ Develonment Agreement. Mr Buckley: I am writing to you on behalf of Candle Corporation regarding the proposals of Arboretum Deve~opment Partners, L.P ("ADP'~ to develop a supernnarket, rieighborhood commercial project, and multi-family residential project at ~he Arboretum This has come to us as a comglete suiprise, as no notice has been given that this proposa[ was ~nder consideration. As Candle Ieased rts property i~ Santa Monica in major part due to the City's plan to zone the surrounding area as an upscale garden office district, we would like an opportuiuty to review and form an opinion of the proposed plan before any change of this magnitude is made. ~ Please send me either a copy of this plan, or notice of where I can go to review such plan. I have enclosed my card; I can be reached at 31 ~IS 82-4207 if ya~ wauld like to speak to me directly. Thank you for yow coop~rat~on, and understanding of Candle's position at this poirit in tune Best ~egazds, ~ _ ~ ~ " _ „t,. - ~ .~ #~ ~~ , , - - ~~ ~ Thomas R. Porter x-~=~v ~~-~ ; v=4~~~~ , Director, Corporate Fac~littes TRP ca c File M ~. ~ ~ `) EDWARU E Tl3TTLE~ D~.~HN M N!M T U T T~ E & T A Y L O R ROBERT G TAYLOR~ MAqtA .1 ASPlHwALL MERL~NW CALL ROB~NO WIENER A LAW CORPORATI~N F~7ANKC GHA~STL PATRICK L SMREVE EpwARpq MEYIDOZ.e JEFFREY O WF~ILER FORTIETH FLOOR C OAVIOANRE7750N' LESLIEE WALUS 355 SpUTH GRAN~ AVENIJE A~C7~1Apd 5 BERGER KATHLEEN M WDMN ALAHE FRIEDMAN Rp54R~OM SINO£L LOS ANGELES, CALIFORIJIA 90071-3E01 TI~M~ RNYON MALLEM JUilO A 7NOMPSON MERR~CKJ.BOHS JOt+ttF qE1tY TELEPFIONE (~13}683-0600 CMARLES L wOLTMANN~ AMY E HOYT ~OUGLA5 W gEtK AN6REq R 5USH~R FAGSiMILE 12L~} 693-0225 JOMN It MOE, II SUNG M$MIM ~7OBEAT L 5li1JLER' MARNIE S CARLlN MARK A BORENST~IM~ 1{p,TE SCMNEIDER NAIFCYE HOwqAO BRENOAR I'AN~AU ..e,~~ e4r - - ' •w _` - - NARG L BROWN 3tALPH M SEMIEN ,~~ ~ MICMAEL H BIERMAM DANNI K 7g.UB01 ~ • - ~ - ` _ _ LpU15 E NEMPINS~tV AHORLA V RAMOS ~RANK E iAEL7QN H7LL/.3iv q OAVI~SON y, NOVP.YCLlJ~L~ ~ 19 9 4 LOROpN A GOLOSM~TH PETER V LEE ~ GREGORV O SCHETINA SAM 5 ON JAMES R GILSOl+I~ SHERRY L qPpEL .~ews[~ cw~i rowH i~ auo oesiwi C* or co~~ we iw ew~ s MEM6[R GIfTR~CT OF COlUM6i~ Aao OxLY BY MESSENGER City of Santa Monica Planning Division 1685 Main Street, Room 212 Santa Manica, Califarnia 90401 Attentian: D. Buckley, Associate Planner Re: Amendment to Existing Arboretum (DA 93-005); Review of Specific Review Permit 94-006~ Ladies and Gentlemen: ~pWqRp W TIJTfLE [IB77-1960] pi CplJNSEL JULIAN 6 NERON JR" JERf[Y W 1(EMNEC~"~ GAVID B FRIEDMAN PAMELA G BOTFFWELI. YUTTLE, TAYLAR 6 HERON SUlTE 407 WEST IO25 THOMAS JEFFERSON SYitEET, N W wA$H~NGTON OG.20007-5201 f202) 3A2-F30O TL7'7t.E & TqVLOR A LAW CORPORAf{ON 5~7C7EENTN FLOOR sao NiNn+ srce~r SACRAMENTO CA 95 6 14 273 6 (91614R~rJ950 WRITER S OIRECT DIAL NLfM6ER {ai3~ 6s~-a~o~ Develapment Agreement Buildings (Development We represent Santa Monica Number Seven Associates, L.P. ("SMNSA"j, awner of the Sony Music Campus on Lot 7 af the area commonly known as the Arboretum. We submit this Ietter for the Planning Cammission's cansideratian prior to its November 9, 1994 meeting regarding the proposals of Arboretum Development Partners ("ADP") to build a supermarket, multifamily residentia~ housing and neighborhoad commercial space on Lots 1-6 of the Arbaretum. In this letter we renew the objections set forth in our letter to the Planning Commission dated October 19, 1994 (the °Octaber 19th Letter"). We urge th~ Planning Commission to review that letter prior ta the Novemher 9th meetinq. As stated in our October 19th Letter, there are several reasons the Planning Commissian shauld refuse to recarnmend approval of Amendment Nua-ber Two To De~elopment Agreement (the "Second Amendmeat") t~ the City CounciZ. First, as stated in au7r October 19th Letter, it represents bad planning. By allowing ADP to build a supermarket, multifamily residential housing and neighborhood commercial space right in the middle of Special Office District, the City of Santa Monica (the "City") will be drasticalZy departing from the General Plan for the City (the "Genera2 Plaa"). The proposed development will be incompatib~e with the surrounding office uses, will signifzcantly M~ 225 TUTT LE & TAY LO R A LAW GOpPORATION City of santa Monica November 8, 1994 Page 2 impair the value of the neighboring property and will negatively impact the neighborhood and employment opportunities in the City. As Chairperson Pyne stated at the October 19th meeting in advising against approval of the Second Amendment: This is a unique assat that we are going to throw away. Because of the unique space -- it is a special office district -- it appeals to a special segment Qf the market. A sEgment that would not [be cansidered] common to many communities a~ound; but because of the unique nature of Santa Monica, because of the unique ~ocation ... and now because of the unique people who have come ahead of them -- world known names -- we have sti1l got the potential to continue to attract very desirab~e high-value employers who in turn will be a magnet to attract many smaller little fish in boats who will bring entry leveZ and moderate ievel jobs into th~s community, and give employment to the local community and enhance the economic base, add to the tax base, take the pressure off the ex~.sting base and promote and support the retail base. We have very few places in all of aur city limits for this potential. To attract the entertainment industry is a particularly interesting opportunity ... and we are going to blow it. ... I am very concerned about mixing a market and residential [housing] n~xt to a high-end, hiqh-value affice location. I cannot imagine what would go through the mind of the h~.gh- end executive making a decision abaut relocating his or her headquarters to a site wher~ they are right slap adjacent to a market. I have to th~nk honestly it is a had idea -- fr~m a macro perspective, fram a point of view of sacial contributian. From the point of view of cammunity need, we need the market, we need mare housing. I support them, but not in this location. {Transcript of October 19, 1994 Planning Commission meeting.) In addition, as noted in the October 19th Letter, the Second Amendment is inconsistent with the General Plan and therefore cannot be Ieqally approved. if, however, the Planning Camm~,ssion decides ta act notwithstanding the lega~ impediments to the agplication, SMNSA requests that the Cammission defer rec~znmending approval of the Second Amendment until a master plan for the Arboretum is prepared and implemented. With such a master plan in p~ace prior to the approval of the Second Amendment, and prior to construction of any or all of Mp Z~? TUTT LE & TAY LO R A LAW CORpORAT10N City of Santa Manica Noveinber 8, 19 9 4 Page 3 the proposed de~elopment, some of the negative effects of adding hausing, retail space and a market to the Arboretum's p~anned office park could be minimized. Buffer aones, setbacks and ather requirements to ensure that the various types of uses are aesthetical~y and practically consistent w~.th the surround~ng office vses, as well as requirements for the strategic placement of each type of use, could be implemented to alleviate some of the problems presented by these proposed changes in use. Contrary to the ciaim in the Staff Report for the November 9th meeting, the existing Development Agreement for the Arboretum does nat provide an adequate "master p].an" ~or th~ deve~opment af the uses proposed in the Second Amendment. It merely sets forth the building and h~aght requirements for certain zones in the Arboretum. It also, as correctly stated in the November 9th Staff Report, requires that before the P].anning Commission and City Council approve any uses in the Arboretum, they make a finding that: "The placernent of each proposed buiiding on the real property and the lvcati.on of the proposed uses within each such building are compatible with, and relate harmaniously to, surrounding sites and neighborhoods ..." (Development Agreement, at p. 22.) Nevertheless, the existing Development Agreement only provides for such findings on a piecemeal basis. This piecemea~ system is adequate for the affice and support uses permitted at the Arboretum und~r the existing Development Agreement; permissible uses that resu].ted from much debate and consideration and that are unquestionably consistent with the Ge~eral Plan. There was no need for a real "master plan" far the office park contemplated by the existing Development Agreement. ~~ ~n the other hand, even if a supermarket, multifamily residential housing and neighborhood commercial uses were uses that were consistent with the General Plan and the Develapment Agreement (which they are not), it cannot be deni~d that they are uses very different from those originally contemplated. Therefore the system put in place for review of the originally contemplated uses does not xneet the requirements a careful planner would require for these dramatically different proposed uses. More planning, debate and consideration -- a master p~an -- is required before these uses are indiscriminately allowed to be developed in the Specia2 Office District; planninq to ensure that any adverse impact an the neighboring property created by these incompatible pr~posed uses can be minimized. SMNSA therefor~ requests that the City make the preparation of a master plan a conditian to approval if it decides to approve the Second Amendment. SMNSA further requests that the City invite and pe~mit SMNSA and other affected neighboring praperty owners and major ~rY 228 TUTTLE & TAYLOR A LAW GORPORATiON City of Santa Manica November 8, 1994 Page 4 tenants to participate in the creation of such a plan. To that end, SMNSA attaches for your consideration a memorandur~ and drawings prepared by the Santa Monzca architecturaz fir~n Gensler & Associates, which set farth the principles which should guide an acceptabie Arboretum master plan, and a preliminary design therefor. If the City decides to approve the amendment to the D~ve~apment Agreement and the supermarket, SMNSA shares the Commissian's c~ncerns expressed at its October 19th meeting with regard ta the prop~sed supermarket design. Specifically, SMNSA requests that the Commission ensure that the approved supermarket be des~gned so as to provide superior pedestrian arientation and design, and ample landscaping within the surface parking area. Any approved supermarket should alsa be designed so that it wi~l blend in with the surrounding garden office buildings. We have attached for your cansideration drawings af other Southern California supermarkets which reflect design concepts that we beli~ve would be more appropriate for a supermarket permitted to be located at the Arboretum. Thank you for yaur consideration. Respectfully submitted, TUTTLE & TAYLOR / . ~r / i~Lt By Timi Anyan Hallem 66809:MSC. ift ~ cc: Planninc{ Co~nmission: Kenneth Breisch, Vice Chair Ralph MEChur Pamela O'Connor Eric Parlee Thamas Pyne, Chairperson Kathy Weremiuk John Zinner Kenyan Webster, Zoning Administrator Mary Strobel, Deputy City Attorney Richard G. Newman, Jr., Santa Manica Number Se~en Associates, L.P. Gary L. Smith, Santa Manica Number Seven Associates, L.P. ^~ 229 Date November 2, 199~ To Rychard Newman From Marty Barko ~A~j Pro~ect Arboretum SubJect Urban Design Prznc~ples Based upon our past work on the Arboretum Master Plan and our review of the current planning options vve have prepared the fa~low~g Urban Des~gn Issues and Pruiciples The Qlympic / CIoverfield intersechon is a key entry portal to the Special Office District Both the ~ntersection and Cloverfieid between Olymptc and Colorado should be developed to reflect the unportance of this entry Corner treatment should be compauble with the corner across the str~et at the W atez Garden Buildsng Edge and Street scape should reuiforce the character of Cla~erfield The Olympic Boulevard fron[age east of Cloverf'ieId creates rhe southern edge of the Spec~al4ffice District It's land use and design treaunent should reflect the character of the Office D~strict and provide a continuity ta the Olympic Blvd frontage at the Water Garden Tlie corner of Cloverfzeid and Coiorado ~ rhe lOQ% corner of the Special Office D~strici As such it shauld be celebrated as a focal ~oint, through rts land use and urban design cancept - connectmg and providu~g a continuity to aIl of the deveiopment pro~ects Sony Music represents a commercial anchor at the West end of the Special Off'ice D~strjct As new deveIapment occurs on the Arboretum property ic ~s unportant that the connecuon between Sony Mt~s~c and the Water Garden and MGM Plaza be strengthen The Street scape along Calarado and the appropr~ate land uses are the critfcal components ta achieve this Gensler and Assoc~ates 0 ArchitecFS ('r] 2500 Broadway N Suite 300 Santa Mcnica Caiifornia 90404-3062 E 310/449-5600 = ~ax 310/449-5850 The Colorada street scape should reuiforce the coruiection to rhe east and across the street on the north side af Colorado, malang it a pedestrian friendiy s~dewalk orientated env~ranment Land uses along Colarado shonld strengthen the cortunercial nature of the devetopment and the 5pecial Office District If resident~al de~eIopment beco~tes an acceptable land use for the property zt ~s ungortant that the Colorado frontage remaui commercial u~ nature enhancing rhe connection back to Sany Music A mixed use street edge with commerc~aUretail below and hausing above could also serve khe same function The parcel ad~acent ta Sany Music (to the east) wf1I provide a buffer ta residential or m~aced use development m the intenor lots Mamtauurig its use as commercial will a~ a m~nunum create a crittcal mass of office at the west end and prov~de Sony Mus~c the needed land use huffer to passiblc residential develQpment While the sidewalks pro~ide che best pu~lic connections w~thin the Special Off'ice Distr~ct a clear welf defined mternal open space and circu~aaon system is cnucal ta creating a cohesrve overaIl de~eIopment proJect Lilce the Water Garden and MGM P~aza the character, quaIity and funchon of the developments ~s l~ghlighted ui the znterna.l open space and pedestnan environment The design of the market and its parkuig should be urban in character "fitting ~n" as an eiement ta the overall development concept reuiforcmg the street edge along Cloverfield, the unage of Olympic Boule~ard, the intexnal connecnans to other elements of the pro~ect and helpuig to create the gateway ~ortal to the Special flffice Dtstnct ~~ 23~ .r.ie.:,r~.a.,o.t~,..+^~~+~M. a~.awh-~u~~ae•a:~G~6eWr+•.+rkm~ue•.o~sr+aswna,raa,s„~t++p~°.+.^r~ .^x,.~nrxnxro,~.iRe~~, uu~n,~auna~:~caw~r~anw:ax~'yNe~+.irta~.r'sfi~.nroru,v~,~~v.swa.a•.~•;,p~~~u.~~t~rr~:,m~nr+-.arce~srvr.aves.~r~,w~ur~..~vi.xww.v„c,m~uar.v~av~z:urx.a.~r~...vssx~ew C:(1L~1i1/~.I~t"i 7 ~ ~~ }~~i~. i ' '."" ' ' ' " ~, y ~ ~ - r ,. .. i •,.., , re.~, ^ ~..i,xiui..~ Za} ~ ~ri I ~~^~ ?.i Y ~ I:7 i~ ,,1 1. ~.1 '~ ~ , • m i" i`I~ ~ i'r.rp %.,, i''i',' ; ' ~ ;°} ~~n ti. h, I~~r..R-~. A ~i r. i,. .~~ ii ~~ in n , in i+i ,n ± ' s, ~ ~~~ ~ ~ n 1 ' r, , , ~ I , ~i ' ' ~ s Y ~>: ,' S, ~, ~ 4 L ' ? h '~ ; ~+ ~ `; ; • < ~ ~ ~ ~ ~# I U ~~ ! '~ ! ~~' ~. 7~ '1 ~o ~, i1 ~ s i n , iy , i ~' ~N• ~ ~_ i ~~I ~I~Irln~ p~{'111.~ .ri'el 'i~ P. ~Y~~ ~~'c ~!i fi~ ~x 1 li~7 ' I }f~`yl ~'#~~~~tr~~ {~~ ~;~ ~~4 Ib ~i~~'E a:~~~~~y~~~'`~H~l`~iS i~1 ;h 1 l i~~f ~iP 0~ F{~~ ~,:LI ~~~Z~ 1~~~~ t~C °;~~'+~~' ~ i ~i~',1'" '~~;•"`~ ~ ~ ~ ~# y'~ ` ,. , - ~ ~ ~' ~ ~~I ~~ ~ ~ R ~ ; ~ ~; ~ ~ k t ~ ~ i ,f_, ~.~ „~a ,~ n4 }~, :; ,.. ~ . r- ,t~, ~~~ '~ ~; ~~~ ~i ~c ,lli ~ ~~~~I ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ WW ~ ~7 4ii ~ I • ~rwi~4~ iw~ #~~ r' „~ i1~t~,,~~ ;7~. ~ ~~ ~ r"'4~ ~'i f `~ ~ + 1, ~ ~ 4~ ~fyl 4~ / .~ 4.Ot~1! r1!'~f` ~ .V(PI41F ~ , ~ ' I ~~ ~ ~~~f~~, 4 ' "~ 't' 4rry ii~ ~ u '~ ~ "~ IC .. I~~l~ .., ~ __ ~~~~. ~ 4•4_ii _'"__'_"_ _ .. 'fi•~1~~ ~-ry. i~~ I 1} ~r~ `~~ N^~ ~ ~y~ +~~, S . ~..r.. ... " , .. .- - - I ~ aG ii' ~ ~ n ~,i:;~.'__~ Y!". 5~r 4; 9`Nf ~~Afiz Yr 7 h 1~~ }~; ra{ Lii~ y~~ ~1~ ~.~ h~ •, ri'~~ i ~l~ ~~ I 5,'~~. X•~~~ `L' T I ~" ^{ y~~ ,~t~` / ~ ~ f i 1 L ~ i tl - _ F •;~~ ` ' _ ' . ~ 'I • ~ -z 'f~y ~ ~i' ~' ,01 ~ 6 '1Y I,,~l ~`I Iffl L . ~~ i ~ ~` ~y ~ Y A t ~yh ~~ ~ ~ ~j~ ~ 1 ~~ ~' ~y ~'h1 `~~ cii'l ,. r~'~ I~~ V~T V~ ~'~ ~~, '~~y~ '~ ~ ~ i~ ;~~ ~ ' n' .} fq~ ,- `~' „r, r,; ~1 °, r ~ I ~.~ 1~ ~ul~X~~ P~4i 3zr ~Y} c ~ ~ s rr~.l~~ , ~ r ~ ~~ I~ ~ n ~ ~ ~ {, ~ ~ 4 d 4 ~ 1 1 ,'hl`~~' i ~~~f~ w}' , 9 rY'~-~ 3 A ~ L r ~ ~ U 9 e ~;. ~ ~ ~ ~' v'~`a~' ' ' ~ ~{ ~ /~ ~ (+ti~ ~ s~IV ~ ~`r~ ~ e ~ 4~ ~ Y' • , 3} i ~ ' ~; ~ ,~ u ~ M I . _ .~ ~ ~I S ~ ~ ~ ~ `T~ ~l I~ Q ~ ` ~1~ i~.u~ ly ~ ~. ~ ii~ ~ ~h( l~ ~ l~ ~~ ~ ja y A~~ ! },~ G I r ~, ~ T'ti ~ iP b+ ~i f ~Y S~ 1'y ~ Y~'~~ i~ ~i f~ A, p C~ ,~ i L`~ ~ ~ i ~ '~"T~ , Z ~" Ii tl 4 ~a i S ~ ~ ~ ~ ' " i} ~ ' #~~ ~~~ ~~ -~ ii ~' r~ ~ ' a~~ ~~ t,~ ' ~' ~, 'a ~~ ~ ti3 ~9 < < ~~ ,, ~~ ~„~ ,` ~ ~ ~i~~~ r' I~~ ~~ ~'., `}tiw a ~ p N++ it 41 ~, , ~ ¢ ~ { ,~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ Y ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~S ~l ri~ i ' ~S 3 ,~( r[ i y~ ~ ~'~ ~+~ ~~~',; ~~~ y ~~ , ~, j '+ •~ ~~~a~.r ,~ ~ ~ ~ r ~~ ,Ni~'~ I, '~! ~ ~: ~ ' " ' . .. ~.~ .. ., ~ ' ~l~'. ~ r ~~ '~~ +~ ~ ~~ '~ '~ ,q ,~,, ' . ~~,,. ~ • ~ _ .~ti ~~ 4'd ~kx t~ ~, ; 1~~~, f, ~ I "" ~ _ ~s '~ $ ~ , ~~~~ ~ Y~ ~ ~ , g~ f~ ' }~'~~ ~~ a~ j~ ' t~ u~.11 ~ ~ ! ; ~ j (T1' -~v,,~ `~I~, o~~~~ ~~ , ~ b ~ , .~~~ ~, ~' i i ~; ~~ ~ ~`~ R' n~ ~ I ~.'~ r' J~ ~ ~"~-i ( $~~ ~h ~ '' ~; ~ ~ ~ } ~ ~',~~Y~ ~~._ ~ ~=I ~ ~ ~~'~ ''~ ~ ~,,~~ ~ H k~`~ „I',~ ~, ~ ^ 11 ~ ~ ~ . ~ti ~~~ ~~ ~~~~~_ r ra . °- ~ ~ ~~~ ~~-,a,_ t, ~ ~ t ~u # ,` ~ r ~x -~,`~. r ~I ~ P` ~ ~ ` ~ ~' ~ F - ~.C i!~~ ! ~ ~ . •I n j N. ~ ~ , f ~ yp~ k ~I3t6~ 1.~I. _ ~ M 1 ~ .. ~ ~ .,`~:~ 7 ^ H4yWNtNWi~RdYl'^ Y' r ;~~~~ ~,,. ~~{~T O {~ ~ ~. 1~ i +'JNlt~' ~~~+~~ ~ ~~ ° ~ ~•~ ~ i~~~ i~~~'~ y~S~ ~ ~ , I 'l ~ 'L r i; ~~~~'~' ~ ,i„i ~ r"~ ~`~ F~~~~~ ~~~4~ ~ ~'' ~r+K $~~ ~{~I t ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '~~~y~ ~ ~ ~ ,y~ ~~~~~~~~~~a ~ny~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~9 u ~ .a. ~ •~~" I ~ ~Riy . ~~ + ~ ~, ~~ ~l1A 1 ~ ~ y ~ ` ~1 ~~ ,r, ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ l ~.~r!fY.Y~~1~. 4 1~11~.Mn~4..li rY~iw'li ,.... . »~;,~„ _~ ~~b~~~~ r , ~ \ ` r ~ '°~ ~ r 3 ' y+~ ~ i',+ ~~ ~~ ~ ` + ~~~I ~~' h~'I. ! ~ "_ F • C)~ 'r~,4;k~r ~~r.. ~ . ,v~~ J > 4^'~ ~^ ~ , ~ f. A ~ ...~1 ~ ~~ ~~ ' ~~.r~ , ~ .r:~, ~ r ~.. ~ ~ .. ' ~.f~ `~ `* r ~~ r ~ ~ I \`t t•`a. - ~: ~ `~ , ;,,;~;~ 7 ~~ r ,,;,, ~ ,~~ h,,; ~~~~~' ~' ;, ' ;~' '; ~ 1 ~p ~~~ ir ~~~r~ ~ ~ I~ ~ i v~ J ~~) ' r, ~iI ` ~I 1 ~o ~ ,i ~ ~„ {`~ ~t'`;'y , ' ' ~ ~ ~ Id§ J' ~ , ~ ~;~', ,,;, ;,4~~~ yP~ . ~M1'y1{~~~., }~ I ~ Y~k' ~ ~ I "5~4. 1 M ^,•t I.~ . 1 ~ '~~ ~' ; 1 A=.~ ~~~ ~ 1 ~ / ~, . ~~~ i} ~ ~ . ~i ~ ~ ~. ~ ;; N W N ~ ~./ N~vember 9, 7 ~~~? Mr. Bab Bzsno ~ ~ I~ ~.~ ~~ ARBQRETUM DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS , L. P. ~; H ~,~~' ~:_~ 220a Colorado Avenue ~, ;;;;^, ~~.., Santa Monzca, CA 90405-35D6 :~~M~~ : : , PE~vrHaus~~~ R~: Arboretum Deve~opment Agreement Arnendmen_~ MJSEEIA+1 S9JA2E $757 W3~.$HIR~ ~_V~ _OSANGEiES CA,o~~e Dear Bob . PHQNE (213] 857 ~546 ~a,x (2~3J 8s%.oas ~S yflu know, I am the or~gin~~ {3ev~I.oper and a partner zn the ~uzld~ng which comprise ~_`.~ Water Ga~'den Phase I, as JERCMESh~~~< welZ as a partner in the ~wr.~~~. ~,~izp of the land for Phase r,~~~,cr, ~ sw~r~~~~~+~ ~ I Z of The Water Garden . As _~ 'i, prababiy more ~han any MICHAELE .'~5~ other nearby landawner, I wz~;, be affected by the ~LIFrO~DPG~~cs-_~. Development Agreement Arnendmerit you are curr~ntly pr~cessing. PZease accept my full support fax the changes you contemplate in the Deve~opmena~ Agreement Amendment ~ncluding the specific use, site plan and architectural e~ements for which you are seeking approval to allow you to develop a supermarket at ~he corner of Olympic and Cloverfzeld. `Iery truly yours, .~~ 3 . H .~SNYDE C MPA?rTY ~, \ ~i , ~ ~~'"-;~ ` , iJer me H. Snyder : : Par ~~er J~c._ - i r~ 23 3 - i ,. ~.,,~.~,-~- ~F~°~;ELO~~RS ~ ~~ ~. ~'anta~V~`antua~Cic~~Ci~z J1re~'~or~.s October 17, .1994 Board of Directors Plannrrtg Deparnnefzr Sabine SChlpsser C11~ O, f SQ1dIA MOftiCfZ Prasident 1685 Main St Sattta Motttcd, CA 904Q1 Susan Henderson Vice 1'resident Aatetition: Dnarnmor~d Buckley Dav~d Shniad Treasurer Deas Mr. Buckley. I~~aryanne Solomon Secreta~- YVe at Mi~-Crty Neighbors support the con.cept of a supermarket arz the S~~l~~ia Shn~ad Arboretum site. 141e.mbership Chafr David Hibbert, archrtecr for the project, has met nvice witlz Mrd-Cit~~ ~•fjtchzll Becklaff 1Veigfabors to disetus possible objections, gather a~zptsr, and dater ta sjiow i~s site plans afad get our impression of wlaat rs isateraded for the site 7o~n Cobus hlerr~tt Coleman We think a supermarket m this area cotcld be a g~eat benefit for the Pico rrrtd 11~1id-Ct1y 1Veighborhoods. L'era I?at~~s i~i'e s~spport thrs ~ra~ect "iji eoncepr", arad look forwArd to workirig togetlzer Hannah Heineman with tl1.e develapers to mc~ke certairi the pro~ect is a ber~e~cial additiofz to ouf• Bob Seldon neigltborhood Lo~s Zweben Srncerely, ~ " ~.~_ ~ ~ ~ `Sa6rfae B. Sch asser Presxdent 612 Cofarada ~lvenue, # 106, ,Santa Jl~fanua, C~ 90401 (310) 450-5578 ~'~ Z 3 ~ DAVIS COMPANIES 212i AVENUE OF THE STARS • SUiTE 2800 • LOS ANGELES CALIFORNIA 90067 • 213-551-1470 r i : November 8, 1994 ~ C L - - - ~ (~. _ `1~;. ~~ ~i, ~ l~~ hldl/~ `- _ _ _ - -- - ~ ~~~`: C~ty of Santa Monaca ~ , Planning Divxsion, Room 212 16$5 Main Street Santa Monica, CA 9{}401 ~ Attention: Drummond Buckley, Associate Planner Re: Amendment ta Existing Aboretum Development Agreement (DA 93-D0~); Zoning Admimstrator Determinat~on ta Allow Supermarket Under Exisnn~ Develonment Aere~ment Ladies and Gentlemen: I am writ~ng to yau on behalf of Water Gard~n Associates regarding the proposals of Aboretum Develapment Parmers, L.P, ("ADP") ta d~velop a supermarket, neighborhood commercial pro~ect, and mult~-family residential pra~ect at the Arbaretum. Water Garden Associates opposes the proposed developments. Water Garden Associates purchased and develope~ its property in Santa Mon~ca ~n reliance on the City's plar~ to zone the surrounding axea as an upscale garden office dis~rict ADP's proposed develppments substantially depart from this plan and may cause a decrease in the ~°alue of o~r nearby property. Water Garden Associates therefare respectfully requests that the City of Santa Man~ca reject ADP's pro~osals. Very truly yours, WATER GARDEN ASSOCIATES ~ ~. : `J! ~G _ ~?"~, s+~-~. I \~ ~t~t --~-~ " ~ Marvin Davis Authorized Signatory ~ ~ ~ ~ T ~4NY Spny Corparat~vn af l~menca T11 ~i4h Avrnue, h[a~ York, ~lew YD~'rc ~OQ22-32ti ~ Ci~y of Sarrta Monica Planning Div~ion, Room Z~2 ~ 685 Mairi Stres~ San~a Mor~ica. CA 9a401 Attention: E7rumrnond ~ucK~ey, A~sociate Planner f ~ ~~ - - No~rnber 9, ~994 RE: ~4rrrendm~nt to Fxisting ,4rt~or-erum Deve-opment Agreement (DA 93-005~; Zvning Rdminlsrer Determanatron to Allow 5upermarket Under ~c!$tlnQ Da+rPlanmenr Aareem~r~t Ladies and Genttemen: SDny takes an BCtEVe Interest in th~ cvmmunit~es in which we ivca#e vur bus+nesses. We take cvmmunity devefopment paircies ~nta cons;deratiQn w~er~ we mak~ locatian decisions and, hav~ng mad~ those decis~ons, ~r~te~d ta genara~ly support the I~~ agenda ~s respons~b~e members a~ the bus+ness commut~ity. 5~~~~ 1~;;:,_; ~~`s ~Yo~~ry ~~ Sant~ ~~c~~~:~: ~r~ an;;L~~Gti~n c` t~~p pfa~ to ~ev~io~ t~e surrour~dirg a~ ea as an upsca~e garde~ offrce d~strict The ~roposed deua[opmerrt char~ge as represen~ed in ~he atta~hed piar~ (~rborerum Qev~lvpmer~t aqresment Amendment, Ftgure 2•5x ~vncep#ual5rts Pfan - Scheme C, Undate~ substant~alfy daparts frvm th[s ~isaon. It represents a fundam~ntal change ~n tf,e character of the commu~~fy and precludes ft~ture expansion opportunities for #F~e Sorry M~s~c Campus. tn addit~on, it servES t~ isofate t~e Sony Music Cam~us frvm vt~er busin~ss at MGM P~aza and the Water Garden, ~nd IEmits the potent~al fv~ expanded b~,s~ness (and particularly, Er~tertainment ~nd~s#ry uses) ~n the ;mmed~ate area a~d m Sant~ MoniCS in general. Accord-ngfy, its implementation wi~l dimmish the valv~ we place in the property we curren#~y occupy. 5inG8r~l , ~ J hn A. ~elto~ic Vics President Real Estate ~ ~~ G.~kJSERS\FEF~FIERA~J9IC~L.ET1 f 09 &[ Fb+~.rnbar ~, 19~x! 2 3 ~ oc.r,~rrc eour,rvtiKL . t ~ :~ `'~`~. ~V `~ ` ~~~_ ~ ~___,.-~ ~ . ~ ~ _ __~ ~~~ . ;.. ~ '~, ,~a„~.~,~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ '~~ --~ ~ ~ ' i r 1 ~ ~ '~ ~) "~~.._.r ~ ~~ @r ~ ~ ~ l9 ~ • CiM7Eq 1a~7 Mii~: 1M17SAlEfYtUl~l~t ~z' `.- .1~ ~ r-~-'~ .: t f~, 'v~~ ##' ~ ,' g ~" ' ~ ~I ~ _ ~ ~ -~--~ . -.-. ~ ~ *~ ~ t ~ i ~,~ _ -- ,.a.d,f ~7'SUIF,.f,N. ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ` ~ ~ - e.rn~r mmom~l. ~ Q ~ mu r wtmvnw~ ~.~ ~ ~ .. ? k -~ ~ ~ - - ~3f~ ~ ~ ~i '~f ~'~ ! ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ( ~ ~ # ~ "= ~ r ~~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ ;~ - a -- , ~, ~ ~.~..~ ~ i ~ti... .. 1 `~l--~r~--~~--~lL] . ~--~:Lsr -1.:.+. , li/~ -~ _ t:+J-~~..,.. ~ Y ~~~~~ - - - - J • -' ~ A~ ~ ~ ----- .,.,:...... ~~.._ '..~7~" . ~~~ 1@`"-~=~' ' _ ,~~ „~ '?ET':*~.'~.."-~_-..~ ~1 ~~ ~ CO1Ol[A!3(} A V~V(JS ''~ ~ 1 ~ ~ 0 164 :- ~^ Fa~l Mbarel~m p~relopwKnl A,gre~-~e+~ Arnnrd+~~et/ 9~0487 M ~ ]OIQt~:Dtr1dF+~esETtbbal~Ai11. ~t ~g~tCe ~-5 Canccptual Site Plan - Scherne C . ~ ~ mwa,~p ~, ~ ~y Q~ ~HN H fUM . ~RL7N Y~ ~ __ rwJwx c cHqrsr RaaiH n~~~~ ~. ?ATRIGR L $lil1~YS ~'~O A M{NOQ C DAYfCAhOER5qlM RICN4RO S BCRG~R 2A JtII{7(yQ WE%1Ep ~TfiICEH M 1MOM~ 7lMi q~FltIEO1~AM NALLE-A ! .J~UGOR~ MCRRBR+M SFAtbCF. '~TypMp MCRReCK~ 64BB ~pry J~NH R ACNT G-1e-RlES L Nh7LF11/y~,~~y~ R70UCLAS w SECK MtCd~-4$ N MILIl17 3UNG h SMenr JONN A MDE fl _ I786CRT l. SMULEAa MwRMIq 5~~~y ~TE 5CMHEIpe hfA~7M A 64R£M$TqN• 11ANCY ~ FfCWARC R 6qE1~1DA R LAM4AL WLPFI %1 SEls1ElV MRkC L BR01YN ~MH1 K 75{!60{ MICNAEL N BlgqyAN ~OU[$ E KEMpIHSl '~ORCA V RAMOS ~CLRRYA CAY fY RRANIt £ MCLTON - 1A54~ PCTCR V ~~ , tio+~aaH s. coius~,rrr 6AE64RY 4 SC-fETF s.°r" s oH ~HEqRY L ,-PAE MA JAMES it GILSON~ I kA[1551A R LCIiAlDk . ~H~~QE4C~41FOI~HI~RMOO1fTRICTO/COLf/Mrl.,r~qs s~MCH~[~ AlS~af~T OM COLY]~; 4 IA ~AR OMLY BY ~ DERA p~ESS _ arwnmand Buck~Q~, P3anning ~~gar~~n~ z~8~ of Santa Manica M~~n Street sahta Monica, CA 9040~. ,- ;~~j ,~. ~~~;~: TuTTL~ ~ '~- ~`~_ .4 ~.aw S` T'4 Y L p R, C4RpORA'flp~y _ FORTJ~}~ p~QR 3ss souT~ c~o,~ya ave~vc~~ ~ ~~ ~'v LOS ANGE<E5, ~AL]~ORf~lfA 9L)07f-SIOt r~~~PHa,v~ {21~~ sa3-oaoo PAC53Mli.$ I2i316B~3-4225 Decez~er 8, ].994 ~- - E4w°'wa ~^' rcrrrt~ uar~-,seo~ ~ Or CpUNSEI JULI,qryB HEF101Y~~R~' JERi7Y W KENNEnY~ a4vf4 B x~rEbM,~w p~+EtA f' BQTHWCLL ~` ~TT~ TAY~pR ~, HERDfV ~ su,re4o~,Nesr 02~ TN6M~q JEFRERgpFI y'TREET, N W M~4SNfN4TON a~zooo~-SZOi ~242i ~{gpp --~...-.._ ~~ & T4Y~,Q~q '~ LAH' CARP6R/.T]ON 51)~7£EN7ti Flppp 9B6 N[MTff ~~E~ 94C 1D161 aAq9'995414+2736 ~ w'~~r~R'S ~1RECT OfAL NUMeER (az~~ sa~-a~o7 g~ ~~ Re: A.menc~m~nt ta ~istin ;~`= Y"° ~ =~ (~A93-8~5 ; E~viro g Arboret - ' ~ ~ ~, ¢>_ of Specific ~°~nta~ ~ ~ Developmeat Agreement " Buildin s ~Devela . Repart 93-p03 ~` - . 9~-Ao5) ; Zaning Adm,'~~istrato pment 'Review p~~z Review ; - ~ arket IInder t - _ _ `_" _ =; ~, , tin ~-~~'-t~mination to A~~or~ ~°.:-,.;~>~ __ Dea~- D~mo - ~ ° r s ' ~~~`, _~ _ ~ent eme t _ _ , _. - r~d ; ~ - . ~ -~.. - - - ~~ foz Enclosed for ;~ -=~l- ~' - • , ~- - ~~ abave-referex~ced~ur ~nfarmatian and ~ - _ `, , delivered t~ ~he matter ~~ $ for~~nc~usion ~ -4 Associ.at~s, the Czty Counc~~i~ o? ~ C°PY of a~etter in ~e ~ile - awner of Ph se ~alf of our ~c~ient We have t~e Water Gardeh, ' Wat~ Ga~'den _ ~~ ~~-Y yours, ~'UTTLE & TAYI,UR - ~~ ' ° - TAH;nja:6955~-4 BY r Enclosur~ Timi Anyoh HaZ~em ,. _ .. _ - `~~;:~:~ ~ ~~ ~ -, _ _ :X;.,~ 'f_ _ _ ,.~~=~~ ~.~ `<_ _ ` _ - „~~~~.~~,"; - _ =~ • -,-."~`t;~. ' `'~''`~. ~~„~ _• - , " ~~~~ ; s~~ , - - e:; ~~=~~- ~~ ~~ ~ ED.~+~+F1O E TV"G~• JAM~S R G~150H~ ROBE4- G'4YLOR~ 71qNN N K~M NE~L~N W CALL MA~L.A,~ aSP~NWqt~ =RAN~t C CHR'STL 4OBIY O W~ENER ~A`piCN L SNREVE EDWARO A MEMDOZA C CAVIQ ANa7ER50N' JEFFREY p WEXLEF7 ~iC.1.aR0 5 BERGEq RpSARlO HERRERA S~N!)EL ALANEFRIEPNAM JUL'OAT7dOMP5ON 7~M1 ANYpN MAl_EM ,;OHN R DENT NERRiCN,: BOBB NrC41.45+i M~LLER CHARLES L WOLTMAMN~ SUNG N SMIN OCUGlAS w 6EC~ MA7iNIE 5 CI~RLIN JOHM A F~OE 'I .(qTE SCHNEIOER RCBER~L SNU~ER~ gRENOAIi LANOAU MAR+[P BCRENS*E~h' qOLPMM 5EA41EN VANCY E HOWARD pqHNl K TSU9OI +~4RC ~ 3ROWry qNORCA Y RAMQS MIC7'd?.E~F+ ~]IE.7MqN NII~~A17Yq ~PVI~SON L~L115 E ISEMPINSKY pETER V LEE FRpNK E MEL~OM 54M 5 OH GOFJCN A GOLOSMI~N SNERFY ~ APPEL GREGORYD SCHET~NA MALi55lAp 4ENNQx '4EM0[R C~~'R,^,qy~pwry0 OiSTii~CT O~ Cq~~.ix6ia /~p5 „en.eea ~~s-a~c- o, co~~reai..aw oa~r VIA HAND DELIVERY TUTTLE & TAYLOR !a LAW CORPORATION FORTIETH FLOOR .355 SOUTH GRANO AVEfV{yE LOS AFVGELES, ~qLIFOFtNIA 9 0 0 7 1-310 1 TEI-EPI-fONE f2r316B3-06p0 FACSiMILE 52131683-022$ December 8, 1994 Paul Rosenste~n 1518 Yale Street, No. 6 Santa Monica, California 90404 EpWARD W 71,J7TLf 11677-1~60f bF C~UNSEL JULIAN B HERON ,Jq" JERRV W IfENNEGY~' DAViR C IRIEUlMpry AAMEL4 G 96tHWeLt TUTTLE, TAYLOR d~ laERON SU ITE 407 W E5T 1023 TNOMqS JEFFER54N STREgY, N W WASMFNGTON DC 2 00 0 73 201 {202) 342-V300 TUT7LE 6 TAYLAR A L4w CORPO~~ON SiXTEENTH ~LAOF 9B0 NINTFi 5TREET SACRAMgMTO G 956142736 f916i qaL9-99S6 WRITE+7~5 I]Ii7EC7 41AL NUMBER (213} 683-0607 Re: Amendment ~o Existing Arbor~tum Development Agreement (DA93-005); ~nvironmental Impact Repart 93-OQ3; Review of Specific Buildings (Development Review Permit 94-006); Zaning Admin~strator Determinata.on to Allow Supermarket Under Existina Develo~ment Aareement Dear Councilmember Rosenstein: We represent Water Garden Associates, a Delaware limited partnership ("WGA"), the owner of Phase I of the Water Garden in Santa MQnica. WGA has invested a great deal of money in development and management of the Wa~er Garden and ~s keenly interested in how the surrounding property irt the n~ighborhood is develaped. As yau know, the Water Garden, like its n~ighbors, MGM Plaza and The Arboretum, is located in an area of Santa Mon~ca which is zoned as a"Special 0€fice L}15tr'1C~ . rr This letter will set forth WGA`s views on the proposed chang~s at The Arboretum. wGA and I wauld like to meet with you, together with representatives af other inter~sted parties, ta discuss ~.he issues raised in this letter. I wauld appreciate it ~f you would call me at {213) 683-0607 (daysl or (310) 394-0875 (evenings? to arrang~ a mutua~.ly convenient time for such a meeting. This letter sets forth the views of WGA on the proposed zaning chang~s at the Arboretum so that you will understand both the bread~h and depth af WGA's concerns. WGA has car~fully reviewed ~he proposals of Arboretum Development Partners ("ADP"), set for~h in Amendm~nC Nutt~er Two to the Development Agreement for the Azboretum {"Secaad Ameadment"), to build a supermarket, mu~ti-unit residential housing and neighborhood commercial bui~dings pn Lats 1-6 at the Arboretum. WGA strongly believes that ADP's proposals represent bad p~anning in that the proposed uses are fundacnental~y incompatible with the ob~ectives of M~ 239 I UTT LE & TAY LO R a ~qw CGRPORanON Faul Rosenstein D~ce~ber 8, 1994 Page 2 the Speczal Office Distract. WGA also strongly believes that the prapasals are illegal ~n that the praposed uses are inconsistent wzth the General Plan for the City of Santa Monica ("General Plaa"), and, therefore, that any rezonzng of the property to permit such uses without a correspand~ng amendment of the General Plan would violate state law_ As yau know, a Development Agreement is site-spec~fic zoning Thus, approval of the proposed amendment would lead to an illegal incons~stency between the General Plan and the zoning for the Arboretum WGA ~s prepared to seek a judicial vacatinn of the illegal zoning if the City of Santa Monica ("Ci.ty'") approves the Second Amendment The balance of this letter w~ll specifica~ly addr~ss the various issues ra~sed by ADP's proposals. Z. ADP'S PROPOSALS REPRESENT BAD PLANNING. It is a well known and fundamental principle of land use planning ~hat a city should careful~y plan for a good balance of residential, retail and office devel.opment within its boundaries. The General P~an represents the efforts of the City to achieve this balance and ensure a prosperous future for the City. Specitically, ~he General Plan provides for the development of residential, retail and office uses, as well as a mixture of ~ach of tihese uses, in certain well-defined areas af the Gity. The Special Office D~.strict is the area of the City dedicated for the development of garden office buildings. As the City's own record for the hearings which culminated in the adoption of the General Plan and the appraval of the Development Agreement for the Arboretum reflect, one of the main gQals of the City in setting asi.de a certain part of the City as a Special Offiee District was to create jobs for the City's resident work force. Indeed, the City record reveals that when the original Arboretum development agreement was approved in ~987, the deve~opment was presented as a project that would create 3,492 ~obs when fully developed. This future employment was czted again and again ~n staff reports and in public hearings as an important faetor favoring app~oval of the project. Creating employment apportunities is even more important far the City now than it was in 1987. A recent report on the Las Angeles area economy identified the entertainment and related industries as one of the bright spats in our local econamy. Employment in the entertainment industry has been growing at 10-12~ per year since I980, and ~hese positions are among the highest paying ]4~35 in the country. {Final Report, The New Ecanomy Project, The New Vision Susiness Council of Southern Califarnia, September 16, 1994, at page III.4. The relevant pages of this report are attached.) ~~ z4o TUTT~E & TAYLOR A L4W GORPOR/.TION Paul Rosenstein December 8, ~994 Page 3 To sustain such growth, the entertainment industry needs new facilities in which to expand, and there is limited land avai3able on the West Side far new development of the type of large-scale, high- qua].ity projects which the entertainment zndustry pr~fers. The Special Office District was a~ar-sighted plan by Che City which sough~ to capture far SanCa Monzca these high value facilit~es with their high-paying jobs. There are few, or no, other areas of the City where large enough parcels are likely to be assemhled to permit such dev~lopment. The Arboretum property and Phase II of the Water Garden therefore represent two of the few prime ~ocations availab~e anywher~ on the West Side for new entertainment industry facilities. ~'or the City to throw away the possibility of attracting such industries to Santa Manica is short-sighted and self-defeating. Moreover, although there is no question thaC Che City should encourage the development of additional residential housing in San~a Monica, it shauld not, and need not, pe~-it the development of such housing in Che Special Office District. Residential housing in Che Special Office District would anly deprive the Czty of the opportunity to attract the high-profile business sa desirable to the City and thereby deprive the City of the ~ncome which would be generated by tenants of that District. Allow~ng such residential development wili also jeopardize the City's ability to keep zn the City (as leases expire) the many Special Office ~istrict tenants and owners who were attracted to Santa Monica p~ecisely because of the City's foresightedness in creating a district in the City dedicated to the development of high-quality, campus-like office buildings WGA is not the anly Special Office District owner or tenant which obj~cts to ADP's proposed changes in use. Sony Corporation of America, whase subsidiary Sony Music Entertainment Inc. occupies the Sany Music Campus on the corner of 20th and Colorado, stated in a letter to the City's Planning Division (copy attached) that "Sony leased its property in Santa Monica in anticipation of the plan to develop the surrounding area as an upscale garden affiee district. The proposed development ehange ... substantially departs from this vision. It represenCs a fundamental change in the character of the community and precludes future expansion opportunities for the Sony Music Campus. In addition, it serves to isolat~ the Sony Music Campus from other businesses at MGM Plaza and the Water Garden, and Iimits the potential for expanded business (and particularly, Entertainment Industry uses) in the immediate azea and in Santa Manica in general. Accordingly, its iFnplementation wi13. diminish the value we place on the property we currently occupy." Haight, Brown & Bonesteel, the largest law firm in Santa Mon.ica, whase offices are ~ocated in the water Garden, stated in a k~ 241 TUTTLE & TAYLOR A LAW CORPORATION Pau1 Rosenstein December 8, 1994 Page 4 letter it sent to the C~ty's P~anna.ng Div~sion (copy attached) Chat it relied on the City's commitment to developing this ar~a as an office district when deciding to set up its offices at the Water Gard~n. Haight, Brawn goes on to s~ate that i~ strongly opposes the praposed developments, believing they "wil.l definitely chartg~ ~he environment and vision of the development plan that has been relied upon by our firm as well as many others over a number of years, and wiZl create more problems than it wi11 solve in the long run." Candle Corporation, another Special Office District and WGA tenant~ wrote a].etter 4copy attached) to the Planning Division stat~ng that it too "leased its property in Santa Monica in major part due ta the City~s plan to zone the surrounding area as an upscale garden office distr~ct." By proposing the Second Amendment, ADP is asking the City to scrap the City's vision for Che Special Office District and to instead permit multi-family housing, cammunity retail uses and a large sup~rmarket on a strategic parcel in the middle of the District -- a parcel that ~s designated as a«gateway" to the Special Office District. Not only are such uses fundamEntally ~ncompatible with the surrounding office uses, but they would materially impair the value of the surrounding praperty, making it less des~rable for future development with high value office uses. We reiterate that this wouid adversely aff~ct all property owners and occupants in the ar~a and have a direct negative impact on employment opportunities in the City. Preserving the Special Office District for ~he master- planned office developments for which it was intended need not deprive resid~nts of the Pieo neighborhood af the supe~narket that they need. There is no reason why a suitable site fqr such a super~narket cannot be found in the Neighborhoad Commercial District along Pico as provided for under the General Plan. If the City wants to encaurage a supermarket in the Pico neighborhaod (note that the Arboretum is nat ~n the Pico neighborhood?, the City should look at such creative solutions as subsidizing the cost of building structured parking on a lot in the Pico neighborhood so that a smailer parcel can support a market and its requared parking. With creative City involvement, a mar3tet in the Pico neighl~orhood could become a reality. Such creativ~ty would preserve the unique nature of the Special Office Distric~ and p~ovide residents nf the Pico neighborhoad with the sorely-needed markeC. The plan proposed by ADP is anything bu~ creative ADP's plan may also fai], to meet ~he needs of the residents of the Pico neighboxhood. At the October 19, 1994 Planning Commission meeting, the Vice President of Real Estate for Alpha Beta and Food for Less, stated (in answer to a question from Mr. Pyne) as follows: ~+. 24Z i UTTLE & TAYLOR A L4W CORPdRqTItlM Paul Rosenstein December 8, ~994 Page 5 I will tell ypu that typicaily a cQnventional supermarket, of which this would be one, services a trade area that depends on what the competition is, what the populat~.on densa.ty is, how the streets go and so forth, but it's typ~.cally that the primary trade area, meaning roughly 2/3 of your custvmers come from anywhere between a mile and 2 miles of your store. A radius, if you will, of a mi~e to two miies. When on~ looks at the ar~a ~n a one to twa mile radius af ADP~s s~te, it includes very little af the Pico neighborhood, suggesting that this market will not serve that constztuency. We ask you, in reivewing ADP's applications, to consider ~he point of view expressed by Chairperson Pyne at the Octaber 19, 1994 Planning Commission meeting, in explaining his reasons for urging disapproval ot the 5econd Amendment: This (the Special Office District] is a unzque asset that we are going to throw away. Because of the uniqu~ space -- it is a special oftic~ district -- it app~als Co a special segment of the market. A segment ~hat would nat [be considered] common to many communities around; but because of the unique nature of Santa Manica, because of Che unique location ... and now because of the unique p~ople who have come ahead of them -- world known names -- we have still got the pntential to continu~ to attract very desirable high- value employers who in turn will be a magn~t to attract many smal~er little fish in boats who will bring entry level and moderate ~evel jobs into this community, and give employment to the local community and enhance the economic base, add to the tax base, take the pressure off the existing base and promote and support the retail base. We have very few pZaces in all of aur city l~.mits for this potential. To a~tract the entertainment industry is a parCicularly interesting opportunity .. and we are going to blow it .... I am very concerned abaut mixing a~tarket and residential [housing] next to a high-end, high-value office location. I cannot imag~ne what would go through the mind o~ the high-end executive making a d~casian about re~ocating his or her headquarters to a site where they are righ~ slap adjacen~ to a market. I have to think hanestly i~ is a bad idea -- f rom a~nacra perspective, from a point of view of social con.tribution. From the poin~ of view of community need, we need the market, we need more housing. I support them, but no~ in this location. Chairperson Pyne could not be more on target. ADP's plan is ill-conceived and serves only the interest of ADP, not that of the City or the community that has rnade the Special Office District its off~ce "home." The C~tv Council should not a~x~rave ADP's ~ronosal. ~~ 2~53 TUTTLE & TAYLOR /e LAW CORP0~7ATiON Paul Rosensteln December 8, 1994 Page b If, however, for some reason the City do~s determ3ne that a superrnarket should be developed in the Special Office DistrYCt, rather than in the Pico neighborhood, the City Cauncii must, at a minimum, ensure that the approved supermarke~ be designed so as ~o minimize any negata.ve impact on the Special Office District. The market must be incorparated within a building, li.ke the Vons at the Westside Pavilion and the Gelson`s at the Century City Shopping Center, so that it will blend in with, be integrated into, and be an indistinguishable part af the surrounding office uses and not be a blight on the Spec~al O€fice District. Residential uses at th~ Arboretum Gannpt be made to blend in with the garden office nature of the District and should not be approved b~ the City. Ne~ther is i~ possib~.e to prevent the 74,000 square feet of neighborhood retail space -- which cauld include a 30,000 square foot drug store -- from being a blight on the Special Office District. As Planning Gommission member Ralph Mechur stated about the Second Amendment at the Octaber 19, 1994 Planning Comm~.ssion meeting "Al~.awing another 70,aaa square feet of cammercial -- of neighborhood retail is a lot. What is ... Chree restaurants? Are we talking about three Sizzler-type restaurants? Are we talking abaut a Thrifty, Jr.~ What are we talking about? What I see happening is pieces of this will be built over tim~ .... So what we are going to end up with in [the Arboretum] is basically a suburban type af commercial deveJ.opment ... and Chat is not what we want. We do not want [the Arboretum] to end up looking like 26th and Santa Monica in the northwest, which is a Sav-On and a bunch of shops; and that is what we are going to end up with potent~al~.y . . . . The City should nat a~low what is in the process of becaming a unique Special Office District to ins~ead become a hodgepodge of reta~.3. and residential deve].opment. As its name implies, th~ Special Office District was intended to be a special area of the City with a truly special use. We urge the Council to preserve this area for its intended purpose by voting no on ADP's proposals. II. TH~ PROPQSED SECOND AMENDMFNT SHOULD NOT BE APPROVED BECAUS~ IT_I5 INCONSISTENT WITH TH~ GENERAL PLAN. A city's general plan provides a"constitu~ion" for ~he development af the city. (See 0'Loane v. 0'Rourke, 231 Cal. Agp. 2d 774, 782, 42 Cal. Rptr. 283 (1965).) Th~s means that, as stated in the General Plan, "once a city or a county has forma~ly adapted a general plan, new d~velopment approved by the ~urisdiction must be in k2ep~ng wxth the plan's objectives, policies, and propasals." (~and Use and Circulation Elements of the General Plan, revised in 1987, ~~' ~~~ TUTTLE & TAYLOR A LAW ~ORPORATION Paul Rosenstein Decemb~r 8, 1994 Page 7 (~he"LIICE") at p.ll.) As a result, both a develapment agreement and any amendment to a development agreement "shal~ not be approved unless the legislative bady finds thaG the provisions of the agreement are consistent with the general plan and any applicablE specific plan." (Cal. Gov~~ Code ~~ 65867.5 and 65868; see also Santa Monica Municipal Code ~ 9.48.150(B).) The City A~.torney agrees thati the Second Amendment must be consistent with the Genera]. Plan, and may not be approved if it is incansistent w~th the General Plan. Given that fundamental princ~ple, the Second An-endment must be re~ected because the new multifamily residential housing, neighborhood commercial and supermarket uses proposed far development in the Second Amendment are inconsistent with the clear golicies and requirements set far~h in th~ General Plan for the Special Office Dis~rict. A. None Of The General Plan Provisions Relatina To The Special Office Da.str~ct SuDnorts A Reszdential. Neiahborhood Commercial Or Sunermarket Use In The Snecial Offic~ District. Each and every provision af the LIICE relating ta the Special Office D3strict exc~udes residentlal, neighborhood commercial, and supermarket uses as perniissible uses in tha~ District. 1 The Alan princinles. The pr~.nciple behind the Land Use Element of the General Pian is to "gu~.de growth toward the ar~as of the City be~t suited to accommodate it from the standpoint of access, existing infrastructuxe, and minimizi.ng of impact on ad~acent neighborhoods." (LUCE, at p.50.) The LUCE s~ngled auC the Special Office Distr~et for offi~e development because it found that it is "best suited far ~arge- scale office development since i~ ~s adjacent to freeway access and the easCern city limit." (LUCE at p.50.) The LUCE makes no finding tha~ non-office uses are appropriate for this District. 2. The land use classification. The LUCE sets forth ~ourteen Land Use Classifications and, as required by state law, describes the uses permitted in each. (LUCE at p.64.) Under the "Special Office" classification, ~he LUCE first prov~des gen~rally that this area shall be occupied by "Large-f~oor office/research and development uses." {LUCE at p.64.} More specifically describYng the uses under Special Office classifica~ion, the LUCE next provides, in part: ~~` 2~5 TUTTLE & TAYLOR A L'1W CORPORA'fION Paul Rasenstein December 8, i994 Page S Land Use and Intens~ty -- The Olympic corridor generally eas~ of 20th Street should be the lacation for large-floor office space and advanced technology uses which cannot be accommadated in Downtown or the Wilshire/5anta Monica Corridor because of small parcelizat~.on in those areas. . . . Urban Design -- The ~najor urban design aim is to create a"garden affice" district that ties inta and is compat~ble with the surrounding residential neighborhoods. (LUCE aC p.68.} That the General Plan intends to exc~ude general residential and retail uses from the Special Office classification is clear. First, many of the other c~assifications specifically provide for e~ther residential, neighborhood retail, industrial, affice ar a camb~nation thereof, as land uses contemp~ated for thase classifications. Non-flffice uses are therefore canspicuously absen~ from the General Plan's ciescrzpt~on of the uses allowed unde~ the Special Office classificatzon. In addition, development of a large multzfamily residential project, neighborhood commercial space and a supennarket, as proposed in the Second Amendment, would make it impossible to create a"garden office" district as requir~d by the design and other deveZopment standards described in this section of the LIICE, 3. The ob~ectives and ~olicies. The more deta~led description of the permissible and intended uses for the Sp~cial Off~.ce District in the "Objectives and Polici~s" section of the LUCE makes it even clearer that the proposed neighborhood commercial, supermarket and multifamily residential land uses are incompatib~e with the General Plan's plan for this District. The Obj~ct~ve for the Special Qftice District is: "Provide oppor~unity far office and advanced technology uses req~iring larg~ floor areas." (LUCE at p.94.) Accord~ng to the LUCE Glossary, a"'palicy" is "[a] specific statement guiding action and irnplying a clear cammitment." {LUCE at p.159.) The Policies for the Special Office District provide for nine specific uses. These n~ne uses ~nclude, for example: developing this Distrxct as the "priority location for off~ce and advanced technology uses;" al~owing "retail uses necessary to serve office and advanced technology uses," developing new and preserving existing schaols; preserving e~cisting trailer parks; allowing new industrial and N ~' Z ~ {'} TUTT LE & TAY ~O R A LnW ~3RPORATION Paul Rosenstein December 8, 1994 Page 9 manufactur~ng uses ar the expans~on of existing businesses; and bui~ding a hate~. (L[TCE at pp.94-96.} None of the Special Office District pol~eies implies a ~~clear commitment" to allowing either a supexmarket, neighbdrhaod commercial space or multifamily-residential units. Indeed, the LUCE explicitly calls out any non-office and non-advanced technology uses wh~e~i may otherwise be permissii~le in this District in order to make c~ear exactly what uses are permissible. Pol~cy number 1.8.4 includes the only reference to residential uses in the District and permits the preservation of "existing trailer parks in the Special Office District to the extent feasible." Thus, ~he General Plan addresses residential housing in the Special Office District, but deliberateiy amits multifamily residenti.al uses w~thin that reference. Folicy number 1.8.2 expressly limits any commercial uses in the District ~o "retail uses necessary to serve offzce and advanced technology uses." (LT]CE at p.94.y Policy number 1.8.8 provides existing businesses in the Special Office District can be expanded only "i£ they are compatible with the office and advanced technology u~es in the District." (LUCE at p.96.) Since neither the proposed neighborhood commercial uses nor the supermark~t is a retai~ use necessary ta serve the of~ice and advanced technology uses permitted in this District, nor an existing business that cauld be expanded, neither praposed use fi~s w3thin the only Speciai Office District policies that wou~d permit such a retail deve~opment. when the LUCE ~ntends to permit commercial or residential u~es in a District, it specitically provides for sueh use in the Objectives and Po~.icies section of the Genera}. Plan. Some of the many examples of these sp~cifzc provisions are: the Policies for the Neighborhoad Camrnercial District which provide far the preser~vatlon of "nelghbarhood commercial uses on Wi~sha.re from 12th to 16th Streets,°t and the "retenti.on of ~x~sting grocer~es and faod markets" (LUCE at p.93); the Policies far the Commercial Corridors District which provzd~ far attracting "new residential development ta Braadway and the surrounding area," and that °[n]eighborhood commercial uses shall be allawed either when mixed with residential development, or in separate projects pravided the ma~ority of the use on a block b~ block basis is residential" (LUCE a~ p.90); and the Polzcies for the Ocean Front District which provide for canserving "~he existing n~mber of resid~ntial un~ts in the area," and encouraging day and night pedestrian act~vity "by requiring active uses oriented ta walk-in t~'a~fic, especially reCail and commercial recreation, smail inns and restaurants " (LUCE at pp.87-88.) If the LUCE had intended the Special Office District to include residential housing or retai~ uses lncluding a supermarket, it would have so provided. Since it did not, and since it pravided a clear vision of a Special Office District w~th which neither ~~ ~~7 TUTTLE & TAYLOR A LAw COF7PO~.4TION Paul Rosenstein December 8, 1994 Page 10 neighborhood commercial uses, a supermarket nor a multifamily residential project is corr~patib~e, the Second Amendment as inconsistent with the General Plan. 4. The Citv's prior conduct demonstrates the City understands that the descrzntion of uses in the Generai Plan is exc}.usive. It is particularly telling that the City itself has heretofore understoad the uses list~d in the objectives and pol~.ca.es of the General Plan for the Special Office District to be exclusive. For example, in 1987 when the Arbaretum development agreement was approved, it permit~ed office, retail uses to serve the office workers, and a hotel (which had previausly be~n slated far Calorada Place Phase II) In analyzing the canfarmance of the proposed uses to the General Plan, Staff noted that the development agreement wauld be in conformance an~y if a general p].an amendm~nt being proposed at the same time were adopted to permit the hotel use on the Arbaretum property. ($ee Planning Staff Report dated Aug~st 10, 1987.) With respect to the amendment of the General Plan to allow the hatel to be built in the Special Office Distr~ct, Staff noted: "The nroposed amendment is r~ecessarv to explicitly state in the General Plan that ~he hotel transfer [from Phase II to Phase III] may occur, subject to the Plann~ng Commissian and council review and approval through tihe development agreement process [emphasis added]." Since a hatel is a use so dissima.lar to the office and advanced technology uses planned for the District, and is nat otherwise permitted in the abjectives and policies of the GeneraZ Plan appiicable ta the Special Office District (it is obviously not a reta~l use designed primarily to serve the offa.ce warkers}, the General Plan was am~nded to inc~ude a separate policy in the Special Oftice District section of the LUCF to permit this use. Approval of the hotel through the deveZopment agreement pracess alone was insuf~icient. Similarly, a develapment agreement amendment is insufficient to permit the multifamily hausing, neighborhood carnnnercial and supermarket use~ praposed in the Second Amendment ~ecause they are so diss~milar to the office and advanced technology uses planned for the Special ~ffice District and are not atherwise within the ob~ectives and palicies for the Special Offa~ce District set forth in the General Plan_ Only a General Plan Amendment wi11 suffice to so drastically alter the Plan for this District. ~:~ ~~$ TUTTLE & TAYLQR A LAW CORPORATIpN Paul Rosenstein December 8, 1994 Page 11 S. Nane Ot The Reasons Ci~ed Tn The Second Amendment As Su~anort For The C~.aim That The New Uses Are Cansistent With The General Plan Actuallv Supports Tha~ Cla~m. Section I of the Second Amendment se~s farth some reciCals that purport to justify the consistency of the new uses with the General Plan. Tn fact, each of ~hese recitals is either inaccurata or irrelevant. (See Secand Amendment beginning at p.3.) ^ I~. is irrelevant that, as stated in paragraph ~(1) of the Second Amendment, the permitted uses included in the origina]. Arboretum development agreement are consastent with the LUCE. The new use~ praposed in the Second Amendment are the uses to which WGA objects. ^ Cantrary to the statement in paragraph I(2) of Che Second Amendmen~ that a hotel is nat listed "as one o€ the priarity uses for the Special Office District," a hotel is a specif ~cally pennitted use in the LUGE (s~~ LUCE at p.96). Even though it may be a use which is otherwise inconsistent with the Special Office Distr~ct uses, it is pe~nissible because it was included in a Generai P~an amendment. ^ Con~rary to the claim made in paragraph I(3) of the Second Amendmen~, the LUCE does n.ot express a general policy in favor of building supermarkets throughout Santa Monica. Ins~ead, the LT7CE expresses a palicy in favor of building a supermarket on Pico or in the Neaghborhood Commercial District anly, and makes no reference to a supennarket or grocery use in the Special Office District. The LUCE finds that ther~ is a specia~ need for a supennarket in the separately delineated Neighborhood Commercial Distx'ict because a supermarket on Pico had closed. Indeed, the LUCE explicitly states that "most of Santa Monica is covered by the trade areas of the existing supermarkets." (LUCE at p.37.) The "Supermarket Radius Of 5ervice" map in the LUCE shows that the only area in Santa Monica not servic~d by an existing supertn~arket ~s the Neigh3~orhood Commercial District. Thzs map shows that the Special Office District is coverEd by the existing supermarkets and that there is cansequently no ne~d for a new one in this DistricC. Fuxther the twa LUCE "pol~cies" ci~ed in paragraph I(3) of the Second Amendment as encouraging supermarket and grocery store deve~opment are policies that relate ~xclusively to the Neiglzborhood Commercial District. The policies in favor of a supermarket in the Neighborhood Comm~rcial District cannat justi~y placing a supermarket a.n the Specia). Office District whe~~ the General Plan makes no provision for a supermarket. M+~ 2~g TUTTLE & TAYLOR A LAW CORPCRATION Paul Rosens~ein December S, 1994 Page 12 The additional clai~t in paragraph I(3) that the Special Office District policy to develop th~.s area with office and advanced technology uses has been achieved is also inaccurate. A sub5tan~ial partion of this District has not yet been developed with the designated a~fice or advanced technology uses and never wiZl be if the Second Amen,dment is approved. The fac~ that the poliey has been partiall.y achieved is no excuse for abandon3ng it. Nothing in the General Plan supparts a departure from tha land ~se palicies once they are partially achieved An amendm~nt to the General Plan is required. ^ Although a5 stated a.n paragraph I{4) o~ the Second ~n~ndm~nt, the LUCE encourag~s d~velopment 4f residential neighborhoods in ~~commerciaZ districts.~~ As the name implies, the "Speczal Of€ice ~istrict" is not a comr~ercial d~strict. It ~s specificaZZy zoned for office uses -- not generai comm~rcial uses. Therefore, this policy does not apply to the Specia~. Office District. Further, the po~icy cited in the Second Amendment only perm~ts residential developmenti zn "appropriate" carnmercially-zoned districts. There are many commerc~aily-zoned districts in the LUCE that znclude stated palicies t4 allow some residential use within th~ir borders. ~s a result, these districts are appropriate for residential uses, while the SpeciaZ Office Distra.ct, which excludes such uses, is noC. Moreover, since the Arboretum ~.s not borderzng a res~dential neighborhood, ~t is not an "apprapriate parcel'" for residenCial use and could not thezefore "provide a better transition between corr~n~rcial and adjacent res~.dentlal uses," as required by Palicy number 1.2.~. ^ Since the land use policies for the Special Office District sgecificall~r allow "retail uses necessarv ta serve office and advanced technology use~," (emphas~.s added), but make no mention of neighborhoad retail uses, the argument in paragraph I(5) af the Second Amendment that there should a~so be n~ighborhoad r~tail serv3ces allowed ~n the Dis~r~.ct lacks merit. The sCatement in this Second Amendment pa~agraph that the Arboretum is near residential areas is also wrong. A September 22, ~.987 Santa Monica City Staff Report to the Mayor and C~.ty Counczl {regarding a General P1an amendment to eliminate the requirement of developing a publi~ park a~ the Arboretum) speclfically state5 "Phase III [naw krzown as the Arboretuml ~.s not located within convenient walkina distance of resident~.al areas." fEmphasis added.? Any General Plan Policy in favor af providing neighborhQOd ~etail services near residentzal areas does noC apply ta the Special Office District, and certainly not to the ArbareCum. In addition, since the a~ ~5 0 TUTTLE & TAYLOR P L4W GORPORATION Paul Rosens~ein December S, 1994 Page 13 buzlding of a multifamily residential praject is inconsistent with ~he LUCE developmEnt plan for the Special Office District, and therefore impern~issibZe, the further argument in paragraph I(5) that neighbarhood reta~l stores wil7. be necessary in the District once th~ multifamily ho~ising proposed in the Second Amendment is developed also lacks merat. This convoluted arg~ment exemglifies how an "exception" to the required uses in the Special Office District, or any district, can swallow up the ent~re plan for the area, and should be re~ected to prevent complete distartion of the Generai Plan. ^ Although some otfice development has occurred in the Special Oft~ce District, as stated in paragraph I(b) af the Second Amendment, the LUCE goal of creaCing a Special Office District ha$ not yet been achieved. As stated above, a substantial part of the District is not popula~ed with the uses prescribed by the LUCE If the Second Amendment is approved, a portion of the Special Office DistricC will nev~r became popu].ated with office and advanced teChnology uses, and, as a result, it wa.ll be impassible to ach~eve the General PZan requirements for the District. Not a s~ngle reason cited in support of the residential and superr~arket uses proposed in the Second Amendment actually supports the permissibiZity of these uses. To the cvntrary, since the General Plan lays out a specific bl.ueprint for the 5pecial Office District and this blueprint excludes residential and neighborhood retail/supermarkeC uses, the proposed us~s in the Second Amendment are inconsistent with the General Plan. If the Second Amendment is adopted, both the Gen~ral Plan and Government Code Sections 65867.5 and 65868 -- requir~ng adherence to the General Plan -- wa.ll be violated. The CzCy Council should unanimously reject the Second Amendment. IIi. THE ZONIi~G ADMIATISTR.ATOR CANNOT APPROVF A U$E THAT IS INCONSIST$NT WITH TH$ GENERAL PLAN. Another i.ssue befare the City Council related ta ADP's proposed devel.opment of a supe~narket ~s whether Che City has the power to permit a supermarket at the Arboretum without an amendment to the Arboretum development agreement pu~suanC to the Zoning Administrator's autharzty under the development agreement to permit other uses compatible with the zone. The City has no such authority under either the development agreement, state Iaw or local law. The Deve~opment Agreement states: {~) The Real Property is hereby approved far the following uses: ~ r~ ~ V ~ rUTTLE ~ TAYL~R A La.W CpRPORATFQN Paul Rosenstein December 8, 1994 Page 14 * * * General Commercial Office {~ncluding restaurants, such as cafeter~as and dining raoms designed to primarily serve the emplayees of a sing3e tenanC and nat open to the general public) and any similar use or aay other uses that the Zoning Administrator deems acceptable for the Zone except that theater use shaI.I. not be permitted. (Developmen~ Agreement at p, 12.} 4Emphasis added.] The Munacipal Cade does not pertnit supermarkets in the C5 zone, which is basically the Special Office D~strzct, an.d thus the Zonzng Administrator has no discretion to find that a supermarket ~s compatzble with the zone. (See Santa Monica Municipal Code ~ 9.04.~8.24.020). In response to this point, the City Attorney has argued, and the Planning Cammission appar~ntly agreed, tha~ the word "zone" in this passage refers to the ""aones" set out in the Arbore~um development agree~ten~ and not to the C5 zone. The City Attorney has also noted that theat~r uses ~re not pern~itted in ~he C5 zone ~nd thus Che exc~.usion of th~ater uses indicates that the parties intended that the ~oning Administratar have broad discretion to permit uses not atherwise permitted in th~ C5 zone. These responses lack merit. The "zones" in the development agreement re~ate only to buildina h~iahts, not to uses The development agreement cauld not passibly have been referring to these zones. Even if ~he agreement did re~er to these zones, the parties could not have thereby intended that the Zoning Administrator have broad author~ty to app~ove any use whatsoever. The authori~y is given only within tihe genera~ category '"General Cammercial Offic~."" The City Council, by adoptir~g ~ts zoning ordinance ~or the Sp~cial Of~ice District has made a detennination of the types a€ uses that are appropriate far that District, and the City cauld not possibl.y have intended ta give the ~oning Admin~strator the autharity to pennst a use which the Ci~y Council had deemed snappropri.ate. Thus, the zoning ardinance is at least relevant in defining the ~oning Administrator's authority. Moreover, the exclusion of theater use is nat signifieant. The record ref~eCts that there was great public concern abou~ the large movie theater compl.~x that was permitt~d undex the devalopment agreemen~ for ~he nearby Colorado Place (now MGM Plaza). ~t is apparent that the parties wanted to allay that concern by specifically providing that theater use would not be pe~nitted, even though such a prov~sion would nat have been ~r• z5z TUTTLE & TAY LQ R w L/~W GORPORATtCN Paul Rosenstein December 8, }.994 Page 15 necessary s~n~e theater uses (like supermarkets) w~re al~eady not permi~ted in the G5 zone. It is noteworthy that the Czty A~torney has canceded in a letter Co Tuttle & Taylor ~hat the Zoning Administrator does no~ have authority to pex~mit residen~ial ar neighborhood commercial u~es a~ the Arboretum under this provisian of the development agreement. If that is true ~and we c~rtainly agree that ~.C is)r then haw can a supermarket, whzch is a ne~,ghborhood commercial use, be with~n Che Zon~ng Administratar's discr~tion ~o permit? In fact, once you depar~ from the provisiQns vf the zoning ardinance for permit~ed uses in the C5 zone, there is no principled basis for d~stinguishing between uses that are and are not within the 2oning Adminzstzator`s authority to perm~.t. F'inally, we note Ghat the Zaning Administratar cannot -- either through a mechanism set forth in the Development Agreemen~ or in a zaning ordinance -- p~rmzt the development of a use inconsis~ent with the Gen~ral Plan. (S~e Land Waste Man~qement v. Contra Costa CountW Saa~d o~ Sunervx.sors, 222 Cal. App. 3d 95b, 958~59, 271 Cal. Rptr 909 {~990).) As stated aloove, the proposed supermarket use for ~he Special Office Dis~ric~ is inconsis~.en~ wi~h the General Plan's requirements for dev~lapment in this District. To give the ~oning Administrat~r the power to do indireetZy that whi.ch the City Council canno~ do direct3y by approvaZ of a deveZapment agx~eernent would be absurd. Tndeed, if the Zflning ~dministra~or approves a u~~ inCOn~istent with either the General Plan ar a zaning ordinance, it zs an ultra v~.res acl~ (an act far which the ZonYng Administrator has no l~gal authority~ whi.ch can be held void in a caurt af law. (Land Waste Managem~nt, 222 Ca1. App. 3d at 959.} IV. THE SE~OND AMENDMENT EIR FRUSTRATES THE BASIC PURPOSE OF CEOA A f%nal prob].em with the proposa.~5 bexnq considered by Che City CounCil is that the EIR for ADP's pro~ect is inadequate and not ~n compliance with the requirements of CEQA. The $IR is inadequate because it does not pznpoin~ what is to be dona with the site but, instead~ provides four possible devel~pment sc~narios, none of which may actually represen~ the ultimate use of ~che property_ See Second Amendment EIR at 47, Table 2-1. EIRs prapared pursuant ta CEQA must be "organazed and written in such a manner that th~y ~aill be meaningtul and usefu~ to decisian makers and to the pub~ic." Pub. R~s Code ~ 27.003(b) (empha~is added) The C~QA GU1d~11i1E5 reiterate CEQA's pr~mier purpose to °infonn governmental deczsion makers and Ch~ bub].~c about the poten.t~.al, significant ~nviranmental effeCts 4f progosed activities " 14 Cal. Code Regs. ~ 15Q02(a)(1} (emphasis added). As discussed b~low, the ~ack of a s~able and fini.te projecC ~~ z5~ TUTTLE & TAYLOR A LAW CORPCRATIQN Paul Rosenstein December 8, 1994 Page 16 description cougled with a lack of speczficit~ regarding the effects of that project render the Second Amend~-ent EIR useless to the public. A. The Pro~ect Descriptian is Inadea~uate. The CEQA Guidelines r~quire that: "The description of the proje~t shall cantain ...[a] general description of the project's technical, economic, and environmenta]. characteristics, ..." 14 Gal. Code Reg. § 15124(c). The Section 15124 Discussion Sectifln prepared by the Office of Planning and Research and the Secretary of Resources states that Section 15124 j~requires the EIR to describe the proposed project in a way that wi~l b~ meaningful to the public." This requirement is a codification of the holding in Countv of Invo v. Ci~v of Los Anael~~, 71 Cal. App. 3d 185, 193, 139 CaI. Rptr. 396 (3d D~st. 1977) that "an accurate, stable and finite pro~ect description is the sine aua non of an infoxmative and legally sufficient ~IR." [emphasis added~ "Only through an aecurate view of the project may affe~ted outsiders and public decision-makers balance the proposal's laenefit against its environmental costs, eonsider mitigati~n measures, assess the advantage of term~nating the proposal (i.e , the 'no projec~' alternatzve) and weigh other alternaCives in the balancc~." 71 Cal. App. 3d at 193. The primary harm tha~ wi11 resu~t frvm the lack of one firm pro~ect proposal, instead of a number of scenarios, will be canfus~on of Che public, thus vitia~~ng the usefu~ness of tihe process "as a vehicle for intelliaent nublic toarticipation ."' 71 Cal. App. 3d at 197-198. [emphasis added]. The Invo court made clear Chat "[a] curCailed, enigmatic or unstabl~ pro~ect descrintion draws a red herring across the path of public input. Id. [emphasis added] . Moreaver, apgroval of an EIR with na stable and f~ni.te pro~ect description will make it ~mpossible for other deve~.opers in th~ Special Office District to prepare EIRs effectively. In preparing an EIR, environmental consultants analyze a proposed project's environmental impact by examining the prevailing envirortm~ntal setting. They a~camp~ish this, in part, by reviewing EIRs prepar~d for adjoinzng properties The California Legislat~re intended that EIRs be used in this way. "[IC] is the policy of the state that .. information deve~oped in individual enviranmental impact reports be i.ncorporated into a data base which can be used to reduce delay and duplication in preparation of subsequent environmental impact reparts." Pub. Res. Code ~21003(d). If the most basic component of an EIR -- the pro~ect descrzption -- is tentative (and will remain so far a number of years as will be Che cas~ if the Second Amendment EIR is approved}, that EIR is rendered useless as a baseline upon whzch ~~ z5a TUTTLE & TAYLOR A ~Aw CDRpORATION Paul Rosenstezn December 8, 1994 Page 17 to assess the envizanmental impact of ather development projects in the area and yeC anather basic goal of CEQA will be frustrated. B. The Second Amendment EIR Lacks S~ecificitSr The Second Amendment EIR fails to specity the differences in average daily trips (ADT} among the four propos~d project scenarios or their resultant patential adverse impacGs on the project site and its surrounding roadway segments and intersections. Th~s omissian is important because calculat~ans show that th~ proposed scenarios could resul~ in as much as 46~5 more trips than the currently approved project. Given the exist~.ng traf~ic load on Claverfield and 0lympic, this result is extremely significant. The C~QA Guidelines describe the degree of spec~f~city required in an EIR, such as th~ Secand Amendment EIR, as follows: The degree of specificity required in an EIR will correspond to the degre~ af specifica~ty involved in the underlying activity which is described in the EIR. (a} An EIR on a construction ~ro~ect will necessarilv be more detailed in the snecific effec~s of the nroiect than will he an EIR on the adoption of a local general plan or camprehensive zoning ordinance because ~he effects of the construction can be predicted w~th greater accuracy. 14 Cal. Code Reg. § 15146(a). Although an E~R's analysis '~need not be exhaustive~t (Z4 Cal. Code of Reg. ~ 15151?, nevertheless "the courts have favored specificity and use af detail ~n EIRs." Whitman v. Bd. of Sur~ervisors, 88 Cal. App. 3d 397, 411, 151 Cal. Rptr. 866 (2d D~st. 1979). The EIR for ADP's pra~ect Iacks the specificity and detail required by state law. The City Council should not certify it . CONCLUSION Al~hough ~here is no doubt that it is importan~ that supermarket, neighborhood commercial, and residential land uses be developed in the Gity, these uses are simply not appropriate for the Special Office District. It is v~tally ~mportant that the C~ty retain an area which is availabl~ for development of large scale office prajects and which will attract lax'ge e~nployers to th~ City. The changes in land use €or the Arboretum proposed by ADP would deprive Santa Manica of ane of the prime ~'~ 2 5 5 TUTTLE & TAYLOR /~. L.4W ~ORPORATIdN Pau~ Rosenstein December 8, 1994 Page 18 areas of the Ci~y where Ia~ge numbers nf high-paying jobs are likely ta be created, and may drive out from the area many of the high-profile ~enants and property owners who have already located in the Special Office Distract. ADP's ~ro~osals should th~refore be re~ected and ~he Snecial Office District shauld be reserved for the uses intended when it was created. As noted above, we would ~ike to meet with you at your earliest convenience. I laok forward to hearing from you. Thank you for your consideration of WGA's concerns. Very truly yours, TUTTLL & TAYLOR / ' By Timi Anyon Ha1~em 68843 1 cc. Micha~l C. Colleran Judy Weber Fry Drummond Buckley Mary Strobel, Esq. ~~. ~5F , THE NEW VISION BUSINESS CDUNCIL ~F SOUTHERN CALIF~RNIA T~ N~~v EcoNO~~ PRa~~~r FINAL REPURT Presented co: Ths Lo~ An~eles Community Redevtlapment Agency The Los An~eles Co~++~+~+unitq Development De~ rtment 'I'hc Los A~+gela Dep~c~ment of W~ter and Power AT~T Se~pt~mber ib, i994 David Fri~ Project Directae ~~• 25 t THE NEW ECONOMY PROJEC'I' PRIMARY RESEARCH T£AM Ahm~d E~aIIy Uai~ersiry ~f California, L,os Angel~s Ward 'Ibomas Ucu~ersiry of California, Los Aageles ~b[imi COIlStBIItL~Ou C1ar~mant Gra~duate School !im Thomas Uaiversity of 5authern r~+1i~~~ IrmA Rod~iguez Divars~fied Data Servicees, Inc. Linda Yeung RLA N~ 258 THE NEW ECONOMY PRQjECT FINAL REPaRT Carr~~NTs EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I. Tlu New Ecoctiomy Prosect II. Database ~nd Survey Results III. Indu~tria! Respanses ta Busirreas Challe~e~ Iv. ~ldi~~ the New Econos~y: Repona~ Roa~loc~cs V. Respandin; to Re~oe~! Cl~alle~: Action St~eps Canc Iusian ES-Z E5-3 ES-5 ES-6 ES-$ ES-t0 I. BACKGROUND: THE RISE AND CURRENT S?ATUS OF LOS ANGELES A. Two Uecade~ of SpectacuLe Growch I- I B. 1~e t490s: A Special Kind of Receasi~n t-3 C. Tl~e Promise tar Specm) af Uemo~raphy I-7 D. ~e New Ecasamy pro~ert: Beyoed Drclinism I-17 II. THE DATABASE AND SURVEY RESULTS Part 1: 'I1~ Databrue I I-1 A. 'I~e Numbsn tI-3 8. Z~ C~d~ta1 Ro~s o~ Smatkr 5cak, Privue~y-Held F~ ti-6 C. 'I1re P'utern oE 8nra~ II-8 Q~ndustr~l snd Starai~ Diatribucian, t.A. City vetsu~ du County II-11 E ~att l~Coocludo~ iI- I3 Parc 2 : 'I'he Sun-ey II-14 A. R~css af Gcowdi II• 15 B. How the Respoidtn: Ficros Wete Formed II•t9 C, Employmeat Coadidon~ II-22 E 6+4~icec atr~ F~ancia! Cot~tiae II-28 ~. Part 2•Canclws~ons II-3b ~~- 259 III. ~RGANIZiNG FOR SL'CCESS IN THE i~EW ECONOMY e~-. What the Com~nies See as Th~ir Campeuti~e Problems III-1 B. Induatnal Rrsponses: Open, Inte~rated Ir~dustr~es ar~d L~as Sucttsafui Scr~te~es 1~~-2 C. Focua Seccar Prafil~s II~-4 [ Fnarrair~menc III-4 z T~~ ~i1.9 3 Enurronrrienta! Cansu~un~ ar~d Fqu~~menc ~~f~~~ II I-14 4 8wznedua! iiI-I9 5 Camputer Hardv,nre cmd Sfl~cEUa:e lII.23 b '~teclsaruca! En~neermp III•~9 D Conclusions: Econamic Adaptacion ard tE~t Urbari Ecanaay III-34 IV. BUILDING THE NEW ECDI~OMY: R£GIONAL R~ADBLQCKS A. U~oderaced Ne¢dvity IV.~ B. Countetpcoductive Economic Re~uladon IV-6 C. I~ated &onamic Pa{icy Ms~sres tV•11 D. Conclusions: Reponal Ro~b~ocks IV-14 V. RESF~NDiNG TO REGIONAL CHALLENGES: ACTI~N STEPS A. S'~lin= Poiioical Commi~ent Fae Peivat: Sectoe Daveiopoa~enR V-Z 8. Promotins snd Uefe~in~ the Repon V-4 C. Cond~iet a Compcebensive, Fatt-Track Review af d~e O~esatl Rqula~oe~ 3tr~xwe~ ST-7 Di. $uppoet md A~e~pood w G~dustrial Focus Gcaips V•8 ~ Coo~tlu~ioe~-Aed~oa Steps V-12 ~<< ~so cios~d, in~rrd ana a fragm~nced economy ?h~s makrs chrm particu~arly wlnerable co cht problems oF che i~ Angeles polirica~ an~ ur~an en~~ronrnenc, a~arge rcason why machinery ar~d metalwarking firms have suf{rred subscar-cial recrenchmtncs abovc and beyv~~ the d~f~t~se cut~atks. Whi[e such broad charactenzacions of induscry respon~es co cunrnt compet~trve challen~es are, of couex, ove:s~cn~l~fied, cht orqanftac~onal characcensucs of the focus industnes m Los An~les Counry ca~n be dacnbed a~ ~n Ta~k 26. TABLE 16: C~Sification af the Tar~et Induatriea` C~~izational Responses to Market Chal~en~cs FRAGiV~IV~itD INTEGRATED OP'FN Biomedial Enterta~nmenc Catr-puten Env~ronmencal Textiks CLOSED Mrch~n~ul Eniin. Ae __r~~__-w~.+s. In ~ner:l, the more open and ~nte~rated an mduatry, th~ beccer ic es abk co ~dapc to new maticet c~lkn~es u~d thnve ~n urban aeea~. [.en mce~raced ~ndus:r~s compr~ of stand•~One. ~la~of firms, a claea xcton thu ue not ~b~e co kam from or extead their sktlls ~tta new matictcs, tend to dev~elaQ ~ndustnat p~tholo~a thu underc~c boch :he~r compecrcEVa~ess and abiliry ca wrvrve ~n hi~h-ceac ~ons. Crwm~ a nAon dx~t +s bospembrt m dx dhrtlopn~~t of apen m~d n~egaeed mdusmcs m a wde rar-~e a~ s:cto~ ~s dx flpamc~i smaar~ ~at :azu~tr~~eoe~i~r addr~sse3 ~bt ad~smo! P~T~ f~ b7- fi~t+~s m~d enar+e secaors m the rr~o~n acd ~rr~e+rmes m~ ecorrani~ cbar es less seris:aw+e m mmr7 of ~e ne~a~wes of krba~n erwernnrnena ~ce Los A~elss. C. Focus 5ecax Profiles. ?hi~ secc~on p~rac~ a brief wmmu~- af haw che focu~ seccoes ~ respordEna co che mduatnai chalk~~es cl~ey ~ce. 1. F~oe~m+roneru 1 As lice a~ rhe 1940~, th~e h~n ~nd~cry had deveb4ed ~nca an ~ndrntry th,ac w~s che oppa~ce oF:he apen economy chac w+ou~d luer be ch~ l~~s for ~n succm. Fu From emb~ac~~ new Edtas a~ w~elwm~c~ tnnovitrn compa:ues, esitectarnmrn~ maRuls inicisliy m~Qrated co [,as M~eks ftam the e~st and bu~lt an entea~nment empire ~n the ~ Much d chn uawn d bawn from cw~o ma~oc xudra aF the Las An~eley film u+d~strl-, M Stoepa. 'The Trar~u~oci co ~lacubk 5pec~sim~cwn ~n :he Fd~n Inducry.' Cm~b~~rlasnd of Eca~an~a. 1989 ('Saorper'?~ and M Scorp~er bi S Qtirdea~eROa. •~{au~ie asc~ arid Rq~onal A omer~c~ons The C~e of c4tie U S Moc+~ Ptictute l~t1-; A~u+a~ o~ ~ic~ ,tisac~aooR af C,~ , l98? ('Scarper & {~rtstop~etson') [II-4 ~~~ zs ~ spaisely populaccd reg~on c~~t wa~ p~ic~F~ on chejr cotal concro! of every f~atu~t of the wor~'s fiim prv~ucc~on and discnbutwn Fcr c~ecades, ~ilm prod~eccion had morc in comman w~th che mass producuon Eaccona chuming aut automobiles and coascers m prewar Amenca than t~c htghly d~erent~ated, ~d,csyncrac~c f~ac~,m. Phr~racr~s and =ommarcials thac are Hollywood's mainscay coday. One of ch~ ~ar~esc of ~u o~d-scyfe f~lm ho~a, the Uni~e~al Film Man~sfactunn~ Company, was dea~caced personally by Henry Ford in 1908, and pro~uced over ZSO fi~ms per year at its pea]c-roughly che caai annual Amencan felm output o~ the [9$Oa.1 The stud~cs` main funcnon was to fee~ filtn producc ~nto che affil~aced necworics of mo~~e housa thac tEuy can~ro[l~d urosa che councry. Ta m,eec che h~~hty scab~e, pred~ctabk demand far tEu~r autput, eath stud~o ued up a bevy of wr~ten, accon, musuiazu, film ctews and suppoR cechr-sc~u+a w~ch loc~•ceRa cancraects. ~r-cemally, the studiea were o~an~zed ~nto produccwn ~irs ~ust ljlce a m~s prcaductwn factcry, maicin~ ffl~u~c products on a prearranQed sch~eduk to be vxwed by i~1Y ca~t~ve audience. U~ to Warld War [I, ~t waa not uncommon to sell films by the fcoc, ruher thin on the bzs~ of quaiity ar content.3 T~e £ul1 blown "scudio sricem,` however, re~uirea eich producer co ~nvat in extreen~ly usflexib~e ~+oductiozE fautities snd l~or relatiavhipe, = strate~y tltit vnly made seroe ~ mukers w+es+e cs~eful~y concra~kd, compeation iimiccd, and che fbw of tr~cane fiQm the viewn~ publtc ptedict~k. After World Wu II all of these conditiona sudde«ly chan~ed. Fapccially cnac~l w~s che nse of cekv~ston, wh~ch drew mill~ans cf peopie ouc af che cheue~ co w~cch "free" ~ilmed ~rr~ducn of comparabk qualic~- ~o much of what che uudia ~enccd. A senrs of ar~ticr~t decu~a ~n tht 1950+ seveeed the etose relations~ip becvween the srud~os and the cheuers cha~ exh~bited c~err wo~c, opea~nR u~ con~eclcia~ for prvducn based on qu~eLty sis mueh as foot~e. ~ut af stste and Foreign produce~, nuny operat~n~ w~tho~ the constsunts af tlye I~ollyw~ood usuons acrd ~n#kx~6k studw syuem, be~sn co yell &~ ~nco ~he Amerran utid ave~ mu~ce~.{ These devebpmenrs ~reu~- darabil~ed the muket for unem~cK ~oo~. Theuer pacr~ma~e plummete~. ~n i+esl terpr, bax dfics recei~a kli by over 50'96 f~o~n 1445 co 19~.5 Fslmnulcao htd w fird some w~y of d~erenuatin~ chetnselv+es ftom celev~~on pro~amf md stioe~.Ho~ywaod p~+oducer~, ~nd l~u~e paid cwstoaren back tnco the theaters. To do that~ the industry br~an to ~peci~ize. Fewet and ~ewer fitm: w~e~e produce~d co appeal w a~pec~sl,ud usca and dfer s much h~her quaury. `evenc"-l~ke ex~enenu thu te~evn~or~ could noc ~[+~vde. Buc to majce new, h~~-qualjry cmemu~c bloe~cbuscen, the scudws found rhu chey ha~ ca ~ay much mote for ~u~hly sk~lkd wnur~, direct~n~, actu~, c~emacoRnphy. iS~arpa. at 171 ~Scorper. at ~7~ 5'Staper, at 181 III-S F" .~ ~fr~' and other s~rvtices This ~rove up che costs of each producrzan, and grea~Ev ~ncre~ed the ns6cs of ~ailutt, partycularly ~n a mar~cet that was increasingl~ betng ~atabil~=ed bk ncw cvmpeticion. To cope w~ch che new risks a,n~ cosu of h~~h-qtiality producccon, once-insulu, 5tud~o-domsnaced Hcllywood bcgan co fragmenc. N~w invesco~s, partne~, and ocher player~ from ou~s~de clu industry weer act~~ely courted to s€~arr che hnancjal burder~s of film produccion. Verncally-~ncegraced stuciiaa ~dually phasrd au~ yntemal producc~on capabilwes az~d Iana-term conzraccs in fa~or af subcontracc~ng all pares of c~nemac~c produedon on a pro~ect-6y-pro~ect basus to rndtgendenc pcoduct~on teams. These ctends dramat~ca~ly ~eshaped che rn~~rry cowards an open, ~ncegraced economy. In k960, ~ust 289i6 vf U.S. Eilma were praduted by independenis; in 1991, 6496 were ~nde~endcntly produced ~ As the pace of subconctactir~ atid Qtv~ecc-6y- pr~o~ets spec~alixat~on increased, the number of firims ~nvolved ~n I.as An~cks ma~on p~cture groduction atnd servKes, ev~n accor+d~n~ ta che limited offKial scatzst~cs, grew ~ramat~calty kom 1,142 compan~a ~n 1975 to 3,?9~ tn 1991.~ The iar~er studias ~nc~eas~ngly assnmed the ~ok af distnbuton ar~d financ~al cond~ran-the k~st risky, and l~aat cre#c~va parts of the ~ndusLry~or pnaducciona madt ~y asti ever-changin~ cast af unaqueiy taknted, ~e~ualued campwes. Independent pmduct~on fir~ and cheir supp~r~a, fvr ihe~r pacc, had co aoge wtch Enc~easut~ demands for qualiry~ sernce. an~ c:rativity as:ud enoRnous cechnobQical chan~e. excRmety "sp~cy" pe+o~ect-by-pro}ect muket~. uid ~evrre pnce com~etuion. To incre~e che~r technical ~e, Hoi~ywood firms ~heo~~hout the producuos~ p~~+-- saund, ed~c~r~. special effects. caacumes. xt desi~n. even aocountinQ urd payroll~aQerly sou~ht qrtnenhips or allianta with campanie~ in allied €'~clds like campute~ or sofcware. Ac ~lre same cime, new entrants f~om a wide ran~e ef d~sc~piina flooded ~r~co che r~e~on ~o try and extend their akal~, or leam new techniques, kR ~tllitldi~~, buc finanaally rtwaidu~ encercunrnenc madcets. The sophnucated f~[med encercainment compkx in [.a~s Angeia r mly dosninates fescure film praduc:~on (wiLh locsl film swn ns~n~ from ~ua: : ~~n 1985 ta ovrr b496 by 1943~, but !w~ capcured i rnapr shu~e af televuian utd commerc~al prvducuon ~s vMel! s ln a~ddit~on, many enurwnment firrns are crasstin~ o~er inca reca~E, compucer desi~, arch~ceaune, snd ev~en accounc~n~ u~d k~l xrvica.9 Si~ of ch~ c~cin~ ed~e ~i=at;:y ~n hi~h-tech and re~ated sectoa tan be seen ~n th~ mulumedii atea. Althou~h I~cv~ Yor3c, San Fn~c~xo urd othes arcas h:ve been mote v~otv+nly peaenaed ~ tenter~ ef multimed~a tcchnobRy, La An~eles ~s home co ~ 52 af tht SBI~ mu~um~di: f~nns l~sted tin ~he ~49~ Multtimedia ~reccory, seoond anly co eh~ I73 firens in Silicon Valky, and welt abave New York t44 fsm~}. Iil~no~ (22}. Massachusetts (11 ~ and wa~h:n~ton { I8).~a Thae compu~ies are develoQ~na Cc~cxpes. at 28b~, Qu~l~ Pub~~sh~. lt~~ [n~e~+~ac~onal ~1Aaoon Picnc• • fn~iac. t993 ac 19A ~Gldam~a FJm Camm~swn, 'film Induuty Prd~k' Orsl~ Repor 3, Starper 6~ Cl~rtiscophenon. ac lI0 ~'See The All~ar~cs of Mouon P-ct~e+e ard Tekvwon ~i-..u.xets, '".a Impcc of Motwr~ Picture. Te4evu+on 6c Cossimestsal Productt«~ ~n Cal~faenia. M Ecoebomue's ~emew.' 1994 ~ dSee The Cacronadt G~oup. T7~e ~+I~dmnerd+a Da~ec:o+~r . t 944 ( Ind E~ ? iir-s ~ °• 2s 3 cam~uter, cornmunications and hardware technologtes En tht trgion because th~ intepraced netwvric af encertainmenc spec~al~scs provt~es unique suppoa and deveiopment slulls that no ocher area can supp~y. Ent~rta~nmrnt prod~cers also ben~ftt from the dense, da~ly rr~sact-ons that the I.oa An~eles aiza pmv~des. To xcure sceady ernp(oymenc, f~nd councercYcl~cal markets, ar~d increau ~nformacian about bus~ness apporturii~~a, firms and ~nd~~,du~is have deveioped exterisrve necworks among chemselves ca ~oinxly bid for, or creace, new demands far the~r services. ?he sh~er sixe of che ~ndustry fur~her encourages encerta~nment ~nd~try nsk-takinQ and extension ~nto new maricess becausr the caaz of fa~lure are ac k~sc par~ial~y mit~~ace~ 6y rh~ ~~kd~hoad of emp~oymc~nc by an alLed firm, ar a bus:ness wntact. The speciafized talenc, suppont~ servKea, an~ e~`ic~r~cy of pe+o~ecc-by-pra~acc commur~~cauoc~a su~parted by the sntrrtainmtnt ~ustry u~- Loa An~eles curren~ly oucwe~~hs much ch~e ie~ian's urban p~lcma. 04~iaa~ data su~esu thac ~he ~nd~atry gr~w at a 1Q-1Z96 annual clip ~unn~ the recession. T}re uneque pra~ucts tumed out by the re~on's ccmpa~nies eam premiums ~n w~oci~ marlcets, ~er-cracm~ ~t 4ast g2.5 b~ilion ~n f~lm export l~c~nie fees alone, and have attracted betlio~ns mare ~n fore~ dimct investment. D~espite the la~e number of part-t~me emplayees involved m che induatry, e~terta~nm,ent suppatts same of the state's h~ghest sveTa~t irrco~nns-S45,p04 per year.t~ The ~niE ~nteide~pendence cf che utduicty in L~s As~eks ~a s~4lecud ~n che pro~ect ~nce~vxv~ ~y che fact ~hac moet of ihe amalkr uak production fisma~ unl~lce compacua ~n achet scctoa, en~ utck speafie canplun~ ~out che Councy ~ a place co do bua~ness. The deep roots cf the enterta~runent induatry in Las An~eks hAVe p~urnpced sonte obaerveh ta ae~ue thac the ~u~er stu~ia~, wh~ch da feequentEy eocng~~n about che r+e~wn, oventace chesr prQbiea~s: "Smcr che m~d•1970a. 49 nara and many local~t~es have cned co accrxs che maion ptctufe ~rdustry, oA'enn~ incent-va ~nd su6aidies to rnoao~ p~cture shooun~ sssd to estabinhmend in ihe ~nduscry. They ha~r lar~ely failed co attraet establ~shments or create ptr~t~anent bcil empbyment, m sp~ce of che naed hi~h cAw af labor. land. and v~rcu~ly everyih~ else ~n L.a An~eta. 1lu i~ducry has alw complained buterly ~bout thae cats and che tscic of a ~oad bus~nas c~imacs m La M~eks. Sai~, escabinhmena ~nd emgbyment conti~re ta inerease the~r contentrat~on in So~them Califomia."1 And, ~ndeed~ even the I~r~e,st encerca~nmenc fnns are ~nvac~r~ u a ncorc~ pace ~n new I.a~ An~+eks ares fac~licies, e~muicu~~ S1 billan in conscn~ctwn o~et the s~ext five ye~e~.l! ~ tThe Al~~ancr of MoaoR P~c~u~+e and Tete~won Ptod,~, ''[~e 1~prce d Mawn Prcu~e. Talevu~ai 6~. Commerasl Ptadixt:on ~n Gl~forn~. ~1n f.aonomuCs Ovssy~e*r,' t94#. Acmrd~ ~o srate ~D d~ca ac ~he 2 d~+c 5IC kMel far i993, the mduery's +ra~es wauld ranlc ~hud h~ ~nso~ il! clawf~acsons u~ r~e atate. ~~S~orper & Qvwcophenati, x 1 l 3 ~ SSee The Alliance o! Motwn P~a~s~e ond Tekvwon Produues. ~Tlye imp~a d Monon P~cturt, Tclev~s~on &. Commerc~'l Pra;!r!t0[1 ~I1 G~lfOrtla. MOl1~[CR CAl11QiflY RlQOfI•' 1944 j~~-7 ~ h ~ ~ ~ But che cur~rntty foscu~tous link bet,u~en fylm ind~cry reg~onai coricencrauon arid che [.os At~~ela area should nvt 6e taken to mean chac chese are no rcal concems dr lost gmwth oppanuntt~es unth ~+espcct co che sector. Wh~le encrrtainmenc may b~ less sens~tive to ir~ulatary ar ocher ur~an pmb[enu ~iven the unique concencractan of acc~v~ry ~n che Counry, chere are se~eral d~stur~m~ c~rnda: Faus of cax artd ~,-m~u~neru oae~s~~it. In mcerv~ews, severai f~rms stared ihac, at the hei~hc of ~he recess~an, and despice cha mdustry's stacus as one af che few ~tow~n~, ha~h-payinQ sector~ in che ~~on, che 5cace Board of Egualtzatton conducted a bru~stn~ audic of che a~a's production f~rms to ra~se r+~venua, and Federa! of~'ic~alS in che nsw Adtnirustrac~n ~ubl~clyr condemned the ~dustry's subcontrxting ar-d cansult~n~ prxuus in fav~or of mace convent~onal paytoll ~elationshipe. Thex ir-c~nts ~iluscrace che unhelpful cendency vf govemmenc offic~la noc to ~nha~e and expb~c sectors rhac wor{c, but to vlew them as revenue wurca ot aa npe for especially cncense re;ulatory scrut~nx by vtttue af thar suc~~s_ f Ur~ centtr~x. 'Thtre haa been a~vHn~ movement af producuan ~~as out cf Los An~ks Ciry into wests~de ,nd v~11ey comm~aut~es. C.omp~nies thac a:e rrbcat~n~ cite Ciry tax, ~e~ulu~or~a an~ ucban declir~e as the m~n irssons. One enteR~a~ment p~~-roil firm :tued that the Ciry uzaisud on taxn~ chem an the baav of the toc~ p~yfoll it handle~which tin mco tlu 6il~ian: af dollan and w~a~ld be lilce ca~un` ~ ciuckin~ ~ira~ on the va~ne of the ~oods n ca~racher than an ch~ ba~~a ~f fea for xr-ica, whach ~re ~u r~a~ buautias rev+essues. The firna, anch s~v~eral h~mdaed empbyee~, ~~e up ne~oc~atu~q vnth the City. urd p ~tow in a smalkr ~alky com~n~min. Fa~ct m taplar ~~mal ~t, dea~e~Opmenc opparauuaes. Cerwn lc~r-ds of on-bcatyon fi~sn~t~, studto expane~an snd t-rw fa~~lny development are diffKUlt. ~f not impotiible m the hi~hly buieaucracK Laa An~ela re;ulitory envtiro~ner-t ~nd ~m~d uure~s~~~y vocal "no-devebpmenc" ae~gh~orhood ~tvups. Wtuk ~uch ~aua ue addresaed by numereu~ film piomot~on ~~ m the stue and re~on. thry concinue to n~duce opQottunit~es fot toca! e~ntp~o~yt~es~t Qrov~h. ~-d may. tin t!u 4ot~ tetm, oveKOmre even che coroKlecabk scse~ ctu ~ cunendy po~seues. • Tuclrwb~l mid Prict comptoao~-. Many Rnas, apeci~~y thaee ic the cuct~na ed~e af te~htalo~y such a~ eomputcnud pac-pe~oduct~on aperua~a, r+eport xve~e~- i~rared Pnu pca~~~es b~ot~ht a~v+et by recesalon-utdnced cw~rclv ~rd new, welt-financrd encrants chac ue wiUi~ co sell services at 'beiow coa.' At che same tjme, chtt+e ~ subuant~al technolo~cal fernient :s H~oUyw~oc~d and S~lKOn Valley ~nteracc ro develop che media cechn~ques a~d equipmrnt of che future. Whik the industry h~ p~v.-ed remu~cab~y tesil~~t m t4~c p~at sn adapn~ to ~uch cha~kn~es, many fnr c~at chere couid be a rna~or slukeout or s~ ~n the production baae ~s a result of suci~ p~eaauee~. • Iddc of mdepe~derit st~d+o sp~act. Wich a handful of exceptions, ~sure~~n~ly fkxibk and n~mble prodUC~ion firma do nat en~vy xcas cv spacrscud~as. [II-s ~~~ 2s ~ sound sta~ex, tcc.-manag~d and rnaintained by aroups t~ac undec~cand how cheir ne~d~ One prablem ~s that ch~ h~~h coat and bureaucr~tic roadblocjcs placed befoee new de~eiopment ps+o~ecrs undercuts che ab~~ty of a1l but the laz~est studios ca buy or bu~ld new space. Such tntities, however, may nat be oQamally actuned ~o w~u ~ndrperrdeac peaduct~or~ f~rms and pro~eu ttams waat in the factLcies tluy ~e~e. Canar-ua2 exttnu~! relocatcum nerurar~eru. G~ven the allure of Ehe tind~try, I M AnQeks area entertainment ~sn~s are brste~ed wich offee~ ftvm other areas of tE~ country to re~ocate. Ihe concencrauon of ~roducc~on ud a~h~r acuvitia ~n the Cousiry has th~ fu ptectuded senous, inte~rated altemat~va ~Liewhe~ apart from os~•~ocatien shaotu~. Ovct ti~e. howrver, the constanc dn-mbeac of ne~at~viry about che reg~on, acrd che seemin~ly lii1~1[Ri[!"d ~lS1r! Of OtEI~! SLBLQi RO 317b61d1Zt C~ILCR11!l1Mi1L COITIF~II~S, could wel~ taice s mos: su~b~tant~il coll in tes~ of ~obs ar-d finas. t~ l. Tr~mles. Text~le prc~uction ~s au of che Counry's new~est wccess nam~s, ger~eeatu~ a fasc grovv~n~, sop~usucaced ~~....~ct~on mduscry in che heut of ~ of che ma~t depse~ssed p~res of the ~on. Much lilce es~teru~nmenc. its e~~nawn w~ dn~en by the need For ~nc~asin~ty h~~h~qu~lity, buc smalkr lot s~za vf ~anuted. ~yed and pnnted fabrus co st~ply bcal ~armenc maktt3. t.acal ~n~venes~ m~n ~nte~nced ~a:ment da~ and aou~~accurin~ economy ~s c1k ~Cey co ictid~stry': rauRerrce fdlowin~ a penod af texcik cap~ciry incresaa ~n che Qnenc ~nd South,eascern Cfnite~ Scu~es. By been4 fa~tec and moee accuned to the is~crw~n¢y fra~nerted mar~cec needs af Iocal ~snnenc makera. u- ~~t over i4 yeus La M~eks hr cakrn back ptvductwn from ch,e resc af che w~orld, i„d ~s home co same of ~he faae~ ~vw~n~ cexuk m~Els m the co~ntry, ~ncludu~ the lu~esc m~!! wat c~f the Missms~ppi. Text~k production m Lo~ An~eks cen~~ on chree operacwns: (1) kn~tun~ yam (thread) ~nto :heen af raw, unpnocess~d fibc~-che productwn oF kn~ct~d "~r+Y" ~oads; (2~ bk~c~un~. d1-it~ ~to ~oiia wbe, or piepant~ For pnncm~ ~Pf~) bach Eocally-pr~oduced lasitt+ed ~ay ~oo~ and woven ~riy ~ao~: (mat of whrch ue impoRed En ~enenc, bulk fvem fiom d~e So~sl~ea~t or che Onenc}~ and (3) princ~n~ PFP kn~cted and w~oven fabe~ia rvith spec~Eied deu~ md ~ccems. De~ce che fab~c ~ pfocessed. ~c ~s de~v~eed to a lacal e~ath~n~ m~n~factu:er, whr~h overxes che cvtt~n~. sew~~. paclc~n~, aeyd ~i~ai deliv~ery af che ~erin to che ~tail cuscome~ that sei~ co che P~~ Knittins ~~sr~ely dor~e on c~rculu machmes riuc f~d spaoi~ of coaon, po~Ylcatton. or apec~alry yam tthses~d) such ~s lycrs inta a ru~ of aoedks ~hat ia~«s che yam intv s tube af ra+i- fabne. Al~t all af the yam. whieh u che mo~t expenseve stin~k tium tn lrn~tt3n~. ~r ~npaKed Ezo~u oe~nyde t~re re~m. I4A recrnt e~mple n the larscwa of snunurcn scuda m Plwenu~ by Fox St~a, u c~e same nnx Fax ~s u~~escu~~ m~llioro in r+ew Les An~elrs ara fac~lusa See `fo: An~mscwn 5~ud~o W~II &&,eli ~n Ffioenue.' Lar A~ye1a Ttimes, p~e Dl, Au~urc 2. 194~ ~II•9 ~'~ 2 6 5 ~ c~ c~ .~ ... . , .. 1~ ~ •, ~•~ ; •- :' ~ ~i ~ My f~l ~~ `+ ~ ~ ~ ir ~ ~~ ~ ,,; ~ , ~ .~ ~~ ~ .~. ~ * ~ ~~ ; ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~ . ~ ~+ . ~ ; - ~ .~ x ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ .. ~ ~~ ~. ~~ ~ h ~ ~ ~ 1 ) l ~ ~ 'T~ Y~ 1~- • t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ t ~ F ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ • ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~. ~ s ~~ ~ p ~ ~ . ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ .~ ~~S ~ .. ,~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ C ~~ . ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ . . - ~~ ~ - ~ .. ~ ~~~ ~ ~~~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ .t ',~ ~ '~ F ~ ~ s , ~. y/ - -~ - --- -~ -.~ d3 4 .'.:~F ~vf~~ ~Ut. V •~.~,ii I , .~ . ~ ' .~.:' ~[ ' .,. ~V '~'.'~^ _• . • ~~ ~ ~ '~~~rx~i ~c `, ~ ~ • i k { ~• ~ .I ~ ~ t ~1 f ~ ~ ~ ' ,• ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . i • ~ ~ ~ ! ~ ~ ~ , 1 .. , ~~~ .~ ' ~V ~ - i . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~•. ~sq - - ~ - _ - A - - - ~ -~,~ ,..- - ~-~.-~ _ _ _ _ ,-r- - . _ :~ _ ~ ~ _ ~ ~:., ,+w..T,~ CanaN Capcraaan ~~ ~D~c 8ouis~+ara Sanea A1on~. G140~d~t (310} y~.sw~n November 8, 1944 City af Sants I~onica Pt~aai.ng Divisiva. Room 212 168~ Msin Street 5e~t~ Monica, CA 90401 AttQ• Dru~+±*nn~,d $ucktey, AssvCiate Pt~nnCr Rc: Amendaxat t~ Exi~g A,rrborcts~ Dav~lopmeat A~ram~t (DA 93-OOS}; ~ Adrx++n~~tor Dete~~~+a~ to Allaw $wp~cet Under ~ Mr. Hv~cklay: I~m wrici~ to you on bel~alf of Car~dte Corporafoa rtpsrdnn~ s~ p~npo~al~ of Arborewm Drv~eiapmeat Parmers, L.P, {"~") ta d~e~alop s~d, na~hba~ood cammercul P~1Q°'~~• ~ad multi-Simily r~ic~eadaE pro~act at d~e Aeba~+etu~n. Thi~ ha~ ~nu ta us ~s a wmpku ~tuprisS a~ ~o ~obia h~s baa givm tl~t th~ pr~epasal was vada ca~de~tion. Aa Candt~ l~sed ib property ia Smca Moaics in majar p~rt d~e ta th~ Cny'~ piaa to zor~e tbe autroundia~ erea as an upaale ~rdea affia di~ct~ Wre v~roufd like aa opportuaity to rcview aad fonn ~ vpiaion of t~e propo~ed glsa be~fore any c~aa~e of t~is magait~de is rnad~e. ' Plwe xnd me at~ a copy of t~ pva, or nodae of whare I an ~o to reti-iew wch pl~n. I~ave enc~osed my tud; I caa be ~r~c~e,+d at 31QlSB2-4207 ifyon v~rould like ta ~e~lc W me dit~ectIy. 'I~ank yau fa your oaopee~c~o4 md ' oE Caodls'~ positian ~t chi~ petnt in tims. Hest Re~ards, ~ _ ~t ~ Thama~ R Part~c DiraKOr, Cosporau F~cilitiq TRP:c~ c: Fi~e ,, : J~ ~•+ 2s~ ~3 - - -~- - - - -- --~ ~ --~~ ..r = ~-*-_, Hnr~HT. BROw~v ~a Bp~ES~'~wL LAWT[Ri . -wrea ~*~e.,~ • ww0-Q r4AtM #~Owl~ • r.K*~r~1 1 fOMtitti~ . ~~- G OTTO~aN • [L-~07S 4. O-i0i+ . wOti~aO C. a~+'K ~a+ s wc.~+e~r • h~lL+~ M. aOM~A • sc-c~ a e=axia • OiMaif 4. wr!!rR! • sr«w ti +.ea+ + rOtiw .t MRKf~ •'M11i~4~ a.4`/~R~*~+CA ~ /AYGL • ~1M~TRQ~~4 • w.~ML t KTi~lba ~.q,1*Oir O AOUr. ~L'[~ • 9Ww~ny~~ wCwLL J Llvr iOM 11 ~il+rA pavi6 r /t7f~~pr ~O~AT L RAYIM~N ww~~u. y ~wyiwt ~+C~s~ ~'Cw~r+r {A~7 ~. ~a00/K• {~r* ~. ~~6ui ~~frR+K +. ~O~iK ~ •. x•s~wwe siv~a R Cil~/M ict ~wwfn.u ~~utt L C~~ OOMw9 R ~~~~ YlCpA« ~e~~r Kiui ~. ~aOA~r*• .. +.o.css~a..~ eo~ro~wrww ~~++OrO ~. h~0! ,A,I~i~ 40~#~O~M ~~101~M tAAiM ~t~0 ~tAtKLO ON~D L !6M[t ~~or~a ti o~.~ew* ~Rr a. ~xiOC T~p~a~ K rq~pn~ •!7A a1IM~MICAA/W ^p~KT-1 O. arq~~wfO~ r.~o~e~trr ~~ u~~... vK,\C~ ~rA~tOn s WI~LIaM ~ M~11lM .A T~*;~.Y, !~L M-f4'1~~'R~RI vlMM~Ii~I ~{. ~w1.~iAs ~r+~w i .ii~{R tirQT.~ !. ~~0/OI~O r~wpR ~ t~~twu~ *[p i p~,rrr +~sw~ t. +~il~r0 Wdrw sdMr[l~ oa~~e c. +raw~w •t + w~es+~~r~tw C*+r-wi~ ti 110i~ ~+1rWa L M~K71 wrLA~t 4 r0~! ~~t wt ~ .a ~upuor ~AMAA4 il. H100/A u!w ~ O~iA6 F~G.+~1P ~. ~-y~p1 4~~- 1L ~iR ea~- ~c. ~wM-sl~Krliu y10 2~"M ~YR[LT aUl~~ •COO NO~TM sANTA MOM~CA, C4 Gp~p4 * O 10X ~i0 fAMTA rtQNIC• C- ~OA08 (i~01 •aa's000 .,.x ~a~ay a:s-~~~~ s~uTra~ et~r~t nw~v~ sur+r soo l4rT~ Ay• C• lt7p7 ts~a~ ~s•-~~40 r~: ~s~.) ~a.-o~ts ~ba~ 4NIV~f~~1Y ~y~MU~ l4iTi ~i0 lttv[~l~4t, Gµ~lOwK~w ~~f4~ c~o.~ a.e aaao fxx. (Op~1 ]~~-s74! 0I CCVM1(L wK-~Jw N, }~TLyQ~ M• L k~pN ~lCMa/IQ ~ Rll~t« a ~Qr r..~~ rrte~r+ti a ~~Kwr ~sr~ ~Mw+i7! fp1?~ •ia~+er +. MO~~-- OtAM.s i. MA+1 GN~ ~lN1 0~ ~faY7 as0~0~ C ~"Oy ewu~ta ~. WT+ iNC*-~tf0) u~{•w~01 ~ ~~ne^ T~f ~ ~O~Min rKi+~[r ~ ~MOi Caw~ p MwaF"s~ Wwr y ~wprrFpu cw.o~r~ ~ cr+w w~rC~ wc C~~~M t.~~OIK ~ ~C ~.w~r~7. GW1~t 6+~ .r~.-~al1. R 46YT1CAC~+ ~t+«+s~ ~ n-~s RHt~iLL ~+ ~Cw~t ~. ~~~ ~~IY~Y Iw7-I L 1~rUNf/~Lp ~O~rwR 4 ~Cwa~T r.Aa~~r~ ~ wil7~MVR7~ .wCwq a ~-r MC~M(L ~ wMANOw ~+K~M6 L ~a+.l1 ~C~Wl+~ i~~4 ~OlM T K~rTC ~ c•~a~.~r w ~wy.f ~saeir R ~a.~or~ ~Maw * wCO~ •ur G wC~r/K~Cr ^~*~+011Q +W C~7Ty~1 ~ KQ~Ow~Ct c,K ~ e~..~.es ~~~~ ~ ^s~o~~~ LR~C r L~-7K~ Co1~a~ ~ ~ulnil ~R~++U L JD~M70M wrr ~, rp//t+T C+~rd w Oii ~r Rl~LY A~IL1! 1'Ot ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Novemdar 8, i~ Mr, Drummorrd Buckley Assoclate Planner Ciiy ol Santa Mwt/c~ Pl~nnfng D~Js1oe~, Room 2l~ i ~s ~u~n s~~er santi Monica, Ca1H~mla ~~ Re.• AMElI~IF1YT` Tr? E7QSTIMQ ARBd~E7UM DEVElO~P11~1EMAL~14EF1VfNl' ~iA ~,~~00~6j: Z~ONfINQ ?'~R G~E7~tllV~47~QrY ~ 11LLC~Y S~fJR114~~iKE'T UN~]ER E7(~.ST~~/Q DEVELC)Pl~tdY~ A~QREElbfENT D!~ M-. BslC~d~r. !~m wr11ln~ b y~0u ar~ be~iall d Halyht, 8ro~m d Boneate~l. s 1aw 11rm wnlch occup~~s ap~xoxlmat~ely ~t0,000 ~~raro h~t al sp~ce irr rhf North Tawer cr the Wetsr Oardsn PrvJect I wr~e ro~ae~+dlrt~ th~ propp~als of Arbarotrum D~blDrrter~t P~ersr LP. rBQ._F'J ~~oP e sup~rmark~t, r~i~t~orhood c~mmu~cfal proJed and mufd- tamT~+ rssfd~ndal proja~c! at what has become imown a.~ th0 Arbar~m ~roJeC# at --- -'-r- :.' =~ - ~. : Y~ii~ ~. TaROA lTV~KM n Ctr+t ~ITKv t M~M4AR~ ~+v T ~+q~pN e.wtw~ R .wow~a« ~O*r* ~ CtCCO~+ L'~ IR ~VOi •MwL~M .L ~aRTOM V ~VfrK~ 4100t1~7 '1yPtr y, yA1KR~ ~.n~c~a~a c ~orr~soM JMOLM W yr{T~AI~IM~a Il~~t QpT~ M~{H r wpM7w i+ti K ~Vl[OiJRi f~~w L4W~i ~Mt• f~~ -~arCOlti~ 4c4fOti ~~i~AiT JOMlOM Wlli~ •Y~~~ ~'~MlLh L1M'O ~OC+ ~. dMTL~+ +MlAtill K 4fi ~Rr a ~.~or~ /~ArC[~ ~4 OI~~A~ +~OIIY ~4 'Z~L ~f F [. ~G~100 it~i~Rtw ~ ~ C~1~7i~1 MPil1~ ,~ ~ •• 27 ~ _ 1--+~ _ ?~: w~ ~" =~3 r`~Er'i , = ~F. =K r~~ - _ _ _ ",~- ~ ` _ - L Page -Z- Colorado and Cloverlleld. Pleasa be adv-sad that Hslght, 8rown ~ BaResteel stran~ly apposes the proposed developments Haight, Brow» d~ 8av~estael leassd ~s space 1n ths Weter Gsrtlen Pro~ec# !n Sent~t Monlce In very sbonQ rsliancs c~porr rhs Cl~y's pJBn io zar-e the surroundln~ ares as an ~psca/e garden oMke drstrlc~, 1n fact, ~vr flrm's locatlon C~eclsJOn uMlmately came down to iw+o possibiliil9s, ihe Water Gerdsn and the Arbore[um. The averall ernrlronmsnr t~er nad deen ~ra~ecred ay rhe two prorects ~er {~n additfon to the alresdy existln~ Color~do Plac~e prv,ject) was what a~ractad our Nrm tio th~ aroe, ~nd w~.g a prlmery modvatlan to our flrm`s dec~slor~ to s~y In Santa Monlca. .4g yar may be awa-e, we employ ovar 3Q0 peopl~. HaiQh~ 9rown ~ Bor~esteol doss r+ot want these c1~an~s in the devaropmer~ p~an and doea not want dr~ subiect P~Per'~Y t~ dev~op alon~ r~e Ilnes currenuy aein fl prvpoaed w~ ~ry srrangy ~srtw~ that it wa1/d ultlmeteJy oparate 1a the detrlment o1 ths Icx~-ranpe ~-s ol ths Cily af Sdnrs ManJca, wrll vary de!lniee~r cnange the e~nvrronmen! en+asloraed by the dev~lopment pl~n that haa been relJed upon by our flrm aa w~l as many othsrs over t number o~ y~ars, and w1N cnate more problems #han ft wlfl sdrr~ in tha lon~ ru~. Speaking o~r+ beha~ d our ~lrm, 1 sJrrCerieN hope Y+ou w~ll rq~ect th~ nWalans beJrr~ ~xoposed bY,~P. Theu~k y+ou for yaur at~endbn. Viry Jrotua, C CNAlA OF THE FlRA+I GCO/Js/ TOTFL P.04 . . 27~ ~~A,MEMORANDUM TO Drummond Buckley FROM Marc Huffman DATE December 16, 1994 SUBJECT Tuttle & Taylor December 8,1994 Letter In response to the December S, 19941etter received from Tutile & Taylor, I offer the same comments as subm~tted ul response to 1~tt1e & Taylor/Envicom's comments at the Planrung Commzss~an heanng, as follaws The Arboretum Development Agreement Aanendment Number'It~vo EIR is more useful to the decisio~nakers and public than a typical EIR due to the comprehensi~e analysis of the four potenual de~elopment scenarios presente~ there~n A usual EIR presents a detailed anaiys~s of one development scenario for a pro~ect site, along wrth severai lesser detailed altematrve anaiyses The Arboretum EIR presents exhaustive analyses of four de~elapment scenanas, thereby ~llowing the dec~slonmaker and public the opporninity to evaluate the potential ~npacts of each scenana w~th much more deta~led mfarmation than provided m a typ~cal EIR. '11ie pm~ect descnpt~on for the proposed amendment was d~fficult ta anal~~ze, as we are a11 aware, because of the lack of a defimtive pro~ect proposal However, by analyzing the extremes which could be developecl {all commerclal/all residennal}, the EIR presents a conservan~e, "worst-case" analysis af potent~al unpacts. and thereby sat~sfies the requirements for environmental rev~ew The pro~ect descnpt~an does not downplay the magmtude of the potent~al d~fferences among the four pro~ect scenanos ar~alyzed in the EIR or the ex~sring de~eiopment agreement, as En~~cam has asserted, rather, the pro~ect descnption calls out that "wztlun the amended permitted uses. a broad spectrum of potennal deveiopment scenanos could emerge" (last paragraph. page 44) Table 2-1 clearly indicates the differences between the foar development scenanos and the ex~sang development agreement. allowing the reader to understand the range and magmtude of the d~fferent development scenarios pass~ble under the proposed amended de~elapment a~reement Regard~ng the incompatabil~ty of land uses, Sect~on 4 1 of the EIR discusses the potent~ai rncompatibihnes that could result from the pmposed pro~ect It ~s ~dent~fied m th~s secban that the removal of the ex~sting structures on the site and replacement with new office and residential builcUngs and a grocery store would generally be ~n character with the area's a~ansition from industnal ar~entat;an to cammercial office, in addition, the incorporat~on of res~dent~al uses an site would facil~tate the urban des~gn goal for the area of creatmg a garden office d~str~ct that t~es mto and is compat~ble w~th the surroun~ng resident~al neighborhoods, and the mclusion af the grocery store would meet the need for ne~ghborhood retail uses generated by on-site and nearby residennal uses .~dd~t~onail~~, it js ~dent~fied that the intraluction of : •. ~ ~ ~ Mr Drutnmond Buckley October 2b, 1994 Page Two residentiai land uses on the slte could result in conflicts with existing adjacent land uses. pamcularly industnal uses to the southeast However, these confhcts are not ant~cipated to result ~n s~gn~ficant adverse impacts Tuttle & Taylar presents the argument that the proposed grocery market and res~denhal uses are dishnctly dtfferent land uses {24-hour people-intens~ve uses} wluch are not readily cons~stent wrth the nature of the surround~ng area or wrth the ongmal mtent of the unde~lymg zonmg or develapment plan for the site Wlule the propased grocery store and neighborhoal commercial uses are not permitted uses u~der the CS Special Office Distnc~, de~elopment of a grocery store on th~s site would concur wrth a key flnding of the Land Use Element of the General Plan, wYuch recogruzes the need for a supermarket m the pra~ect area In addit~an, b3F allowing increased opporiuruties for neighb~rhood retaii uses, wluch are being displaced throughout the Ciry, the propased amendment woUld be in compliance v4•~th Pnncipie No. 6 of the Land Use and C~rculaUon Element The prc~pt~seci grocery store would also b~ consistent with the statement that the Cit}~ should "direct the maiant~ of future office and retail ~rowth to the downtown. the Snecial Office District. and W~ls}ure Bouievard." as well as the Neighbarhoad Commercial ob~ect~ve to "protect and expand uses that pravide for the da~~-to-day s~oppmg and service needs of nearby residents "(emphasis added} It should also be nated that resident~al uses are perm~tted ~n the CS D~stnct sub~ect to the appro~al of a CUP, and thus are nat inconsistent with the nature of the surrounding area or the onguial intent of the underlymg zorung The prov~sion af hausmg an the pro~ect s~te would be eonsistent with the c~tywide pohcy to "encaurage resident~al mixed use of appropnate commerc~ally zoned parceis, m order to provide a better trans~tion bet~~veen commerc~al and ad~acent resident~al uses, to enhance secur~ty, and to increase hours of use in metropohtan areas " Please contact me if there are any questians on these responses, or ~f any further comments regarding the adeqaacy of the EIR are rece~ved ~~'• 273 ~-~4v pFFICES OF PILLSBURY ~ADIS~N & SUTRO SAN FRANGSCO 3UITE 1200 SAN .:OS~ wASHir~GroN ^ C 725 SOU~,~ FaGU£R4A 5TREET sAN oiEGO LOS ANGEL~S, CALIFdRNIA 90017 WRITER'S OIRECT OlAL NUMBER T~L~Py`}NE {213) 4B6-7100 TELECGMER I213) B29-1033 {2Z3) 488-7325 Janu~ry 4, 1995 Honorable Pau~ Rosenstein and Members of the Santa Manica City Counci~ 1fi85 Main Street Santa Monica, California 904p1 Re: The Arboretum Dear Mayor Rosenstein and Councilmembers: ORANGE COLINTY SACRAMENTO MENLO PARit Toxro This letter providee certain backqround information relating to various applications and appea].s sub~itted by Arboretum Deve3.opment Partners, L.P. ("ADP") in connection with the Arboretum Developu~ent Agreement, all of which wil~ be discussed in g~eater detail in the Staff Report. A. Brief Description of the Development Ayreement. The existing Develaprnent Agreement (the ^Agreement") was entered into on December 16, 1987, hy the City and SoPac Properties, Inc. culminating over two years of negotiatians, studies and public hearings. The property currently consists of seven lots with ADP oa~ning Lats 1 through 6 and Santa Monica Number Seven Associates owinq Lot 7 on which the Sony praject has been developed ~` The Agreement is pr~bably best viewed as a special zoning ordinance re3.ating to the Arboretum site. Rather than describe a specific developm~~t, it establishes certain development parameters within which the developer has substantial flexibility, such as overall €loor area, height, types of uses, parking and ace~ss. Within these Iimitations, the owners of the site are qeneralZy free to design the ultimate project as they see fit in or~er to meet market demands. For the purposes of ADP's app].icatians, the following development paramete~s estab~.~shed in the Agreement have spec.i.fic importance: a. Floor Are~: Section 4{a) permits a maximum af 1,Q40,496 square feet -of developm~nt on the site. The Sony praject constructed at the corner of 20th and Co~orado 20691819 k~ • Z ? 4 Hanorable Paul Rosenstein and Members of the Santa Monica City Council January 4, 1995 Page 2 has already used 95,000 square feet leavinq a maximum of 945,490 remaining. b. ^ses: Section 9[g) permits a variety of uses, most of wi~ have separat~ square footage ~imitations: hote~ up to 270,O~U square feet; restaurants up to 25,000 squa~e feet; retail up to 1fl,DD0 square feet; a heaith c~ub up to 60,0~0 square feet, m~dical office up to 35,000 square feet, and banks and savings and loans up to 2a,000 square feet. The balance of the permitted square €ootage would be general commercial affice "and any similar use or any other uses that the Zoning Administrator deems acc~ptable for the xone except that theatre use shall not be permitted." Once the developer decides ta build a particular building, Section 9(1) requires approval by the Planning Commissian in a limited development review procedure. B. Current Plans. As exp~ained above, the Agreement currently permits a wide variety of commercial uses which SoPac intended to develop an the site. Because of the dec~ine in the hotel and office markets, and ADP~s belief that other uses were fav~ored by the community, ADP held numerous meetings with City officials and neighborhood arganizatians r~garding alternate uses. particularly a supermarket and multifamily housing, both of which met wi~h strong support. ~~ Following these meetings, ADP met with several supexmarket chains ultimately reaching an agreement with Faod For Less for development of an Alpha Beta market at the corner of Cloverfield and Olympic Houlevards. Because af the strong City interest in the market and a preference for housing over office and hotel uses, ADP submitted its app~ication seeking approval of Amendment Number Two to the Development Agreement, the most important partions of which would (a~ permit a market, multifamily hou~ing and a limited amount of specified neighborhood commercial uses (which ar~ permitted only if at least 100 units of housing are constructed), {b) e].iminate the hote~ as a permitted use and provide that the 270,{l00 square feet previausly set aside for the market could be used only for housing, and (c} permi.t one dri~eway along Cloverfield in ard~r to provide access ta the 20fi91819 -, zas Honorable Paul Rosenst~in and Members of the Santa Monica City Council January 4, 1995 Page 3 market. If the Amendment is approved, ADP believes that the market can be open for business around the end of ~995. C. Policy Considerat~ans Relat~ng ta Additional Uses The existing Agreement contemp~ates a develap~ent which wou~d primarily consist of a hatel and general affice uses, although 1I5,~00 square feet could be develaped far non- office uses. The Amendment expands the scope of permitted uses to inc~ude the market, some additional neighborhood commercial uses and multifamily housing. At the various Planning Commission hearings, oppon~n~s have contended that this expansion constitutes poor planning and should be denied. Because AD~ expects that this objection will be voiced to the Council at its hearing, we ~houqht some early discussion would b~ productive. 1. Cammunity Interest-~Supern~arket Use: The use of this particular site far a supermarket represents an important policy decisian for the Council. Before ADP began its negotiations w~th various market chains and filed its applicatiQns, extensive meetings were held with City officials and local residents. Without exception, ADP found support for the concept of a market; otherwise, the efforts wou~d never have been made. A careful review of the City's Land Use Element and its planning decisians finds extensive support for approval of a market at this location. No one on the Council needs to be reminded o~ the efforts which the City has made to introduce a new supermarket into the Pico Neighborhood area since the closing of Thriftimart over 1Q years ago at the corner of Cloverfield and Pico. The opponents wiil contend that the Sp~ciai Office District was created as a location for, and should be limited to, large office projects which can attract major carporate tenants and that permitting a supermarket, multifamily housing and neighborhood commercial uses will diminish the City's ability to attract and retain ~uch corporations. Implied in this objection is the notion that a market cannot, by its nature, ever be compatible with office uses in adjacent properties. Howeve~, it is not clear why this is necessarily so. ADP and Food Fo~ Less have worked extensively with City Staff and the Planning Cammission to attempt to design a facility which wi~i b~ compa~ible with the surrounding neighborhaod~ including the business tenants. In fact, the new owners ot the undeveloped phase of Water Garden project {which 20fi41819 , ~ ~ ~ Honorable Paul Rosenstein and Members of the Santa Monica City Counc~~ January 4, 1995 Page 4 is direct~y acrass Cloverfield) have no ob~ection whatsoever to a market being developed at this location. The oppanents will also contend that Clovertield and Olympic is not sufficien~~y close to the Pico Neighhorhood area to provide a supermarket within walking distance for residents. Admittedly, from the perspective of Pico Neighhorhnad residents, the Cloverfield and Pico site is more attractive. However, despite ten years ot trying, inc3udinq some offers of ecanamic subsidy, the City has not been able to encourage any market chain to deve~op the site due to its inadequate size and other factors and no ather comparably close location has been available or suggested. The fact is that ADP is offerinq to pravide a use which meets a major goal of the Land Use Element in a location which services the bulk of the Pico Neighbarhood as well as a large part of the Mid-City area and gartions of Sunset Park. 2. Multifamily Residential Ho~sing: The contention that housing is not appropriate in the Special Of€ice District has already been addr~ssed by the Council throuqh the adoption of a zoning ~rdinance which sp~cifically permits multifamily dwelling units in the Special Otfic~ District subject to issuance of a CUP. This ordinance is fully consistent with the Land Use El~ment which encourages housing in commercial districts and with the views expressed by ~ocal residents in the area who would prefer housing to office development on the site. ~ 3. Neighborhood Commercial Uses: In addition to the market, ~he Amendment permits up to 70,OD0 square feet of neighborhood commercial uses; hawever, the ability to develop th~se uses is conditianed upon development af at least lU0 units of housing. Also, the types and sizes of uses are limited in order to avoid any additional large retail stores. ADP views these uses as largely being available for the on-site residents, employ~es of and visitors to the office deve~.opment and customers of the market; the limitations make it apparent that these us~5 co~id not convert the Arboretum into a major retail center. lAlthough Mr. Robert Bisno, ane of the principals in ADP, is also a principal in the entity which recentl.y acquired the second phase of Water Garden, ~he majority of the ownership in the this second phase has no economic connection of any kind with the Arboretum. zo69isis ' 2~7 Honorable Paul Rosenstein and Members of the Santa Monica City Council January 4, 1995 Page S 4. Conclusion: Obviously, the Amendment presents a situation in which the Cauncil must balance a variety of competing planning goa~s. It is clear that appraval will create the possibility far development of a market before the end of 1995 th~reby permitting the City to satisfy ane of its major planning abjectives. Develop~ent af housing, if it occurs on the site, will also gromote a consistent planning goa~ of the City. For these reasons, ADP respective~y requests that the Council approve its variaus applications. Si erely, y' - ~ Thomas R. Larmore cc: Robert H. B~sno David Hibbert ~ 2069I8i9 C r ~ A ~'A C~ME~ITT ~-I GENERAL PLAN AND DA CONFORMANCB CHECKLIST FOR SUPERMARKET DR 94-006 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DETERMINATION PLAN ("ZA PLAN") Category General Plan Existing DA Project Requirement Requirement Permitted Use Supermarket Pursuant to Sectton Supermarket identified for Pico 9(g)t of DA, Zoiung Ne~ghborhoad Admuustratar may lnterpret that supermarket is a permitted use Bu~lding On lats of 5 ar more Structure falls 25'6 height for HeightlNumber of acres, rn~unum with~n "Olyrnp~c most af structure, Stories height of 84'/six Boulevard Zone," with tower element staries with DR, maxunum 84'/6 of 56'6", one stary, 96'19-story hotel startes, anc~ "Hotel conditioned ta permitted for sub~ect Zane, " maxunum require venfication parcel through DA 96'/9 stories {if that tower element hotel} confarms prior to ARB submission Setbacks N/A Section 9(d} requires 20' to property line 20' min~mum at closest pouit setback from "Setback Base Lme" Section 9(e} and Candrtioned to 1(b}il requu~s 37' requ~re compliance average setback for for tower element, portions of building remamder of between 31' and 45' bu~lding complies in height Lat Coverage N/A Per Sect~on 9(c), 30`/0, mcludmg max~tnum 54% other buildmgs wluch would remau~ on-site after market is constructed . . 279 Floor Area Ratia 2.0 Maxunum 1 85 (Maxunum of 0 41 {229,574 sq ft 1,Q40,490 sy ~t ) includmg all uses which would remam at the site after canstruction of market) Vehicular Access N/A Per Section 9(i}, One general maxunum of three vehicular access access po~nts off of pofnt and one Olympic (mcludmg service entry paint 2 for general use), off of Qlympic, no no access permrtted access off of off of Claverfield. Cloverfield Parking Space N/A Per E~ibrt C and 2Q8 parkmg spaces Number Section 9(~. provided, mcludmg minimumi of 83 40 compact-sized spaces reqwred with spaces (19% no maxunum compact) requarement regarding compact spaces (49,65b sq ft /600 = $2 76) Loading Spaces N/A No standard 2 loadmg spaces specFfied LandscapinglOpen Policy 3 4 9 Section 13(b) 25,288 square feet Space Requirements requires landscape requires 25,D00 of Iandscaped area open space visible square fooC withui vicuut~~ of fram the street m "~Iympic/Clover- Olympic/Cloverfiel the Special Office fietd Gateway" for d intersection, Dkstrict "viewshed purposes" pedestrian and "landscaped yn a connections pedestrian-oriented provided between manner" supermarket entry and street ~ ~ 28~ GEl\"ERAL PLAN AND DA CONFORMANCE CHECKLIST FOR SUPERMARKET DR 94-U06 DA AMENDMENT PLAN ("AMENDMEI~'T PLAN") Categvey General Plan Amended DA Project Requirement Requirement Permitted Use Supermarket Supermarket of up 49,656 sq ft ldentified for Pico to 50,040 square supermarket Neighborhood feet Building On lots of 5 or more S~ructure falls 25'6 height for Height/Number of acres, maxunum within "Olyrnpzcl most of structure, Stories height of 84'/six Cloverfzeld Zone," wrth tower element stanes with DR, maxunum 56' for of 56' as 96'/9-story hotel supermarket conditionad, one pernutted for sub~ect story parcel through DA Setbacks N/A Secuon 9(d} requires 20' to property line 20' mm~mum at closest pouat setback from "Setback Base Line" Secuon 9(e) and PortFOn of building ' 1(b)i~ requ~res 37' aver 31' in height average sett~ack for is setback over 60' portions of building from the nearest between 31' and 45' property lme in height Amendment allows Tower element at tower element at sautheast corner southeast carner Lot Coverage N/A Per Section 9(c), 34%, inciuding maacunum 50~ other buildmgs wh~ch wauld remain on-site after market is canstructed ~~~ Floar Area Ratio 2 fl Maximum 1 85 (maximum of 0.~1 {229,574 sq ft 1,Q40,490 sq ft) ~ncluding all uses whfch wou~d rernain at the site after construction of market) Vehicular Access N/A Per Section 9(i), One general maxunum of three vehicular access access points off of point and one ~lympic (including ser~ice entry point 2 for general use), off af Qlympic; one one access point access pomt from permitted from Claverfield Cloverfield Parking Space N/A Per E~ibit C and 208 park~g spaces Number Section 9(~, provided, includmg muumum of one ~0 compact-sized space per 250 spaces (19% square feet of compact) displaylservice/admi mstrative area, plus one space per 1,000 sq ft of warehouse {{41,040 sq ft /250} + ~a,6~~riooo~ _ 172 6} Load~ng Spaces N/A No standard 2 loading spaces specified Landscaping/Open Policy 3 4 9 Section 13(b) allows 25,288 square feet Space Requirements requ~res landscape portion of 25,OD0 of landscaped area open space visible square foot within vicimty of fram the street m "Olympic/Clover- OlympiclClover~el the Special Office field Gateway" ta d mtersection, Drstrict be surface parking if pedestnan parkmg area meets connections specific landscape pro~ided between standards supermarket entry and street 15 % vf surface 1 S`~ as condinoned pa~ed area rnust be landscaped 2~~