Loading...
SR-09-12-2006-8A~~+ . . City Council Report ~ c~ty of Santa Monica~ City Council Meeting: September 12, 2006 Agenda Item: 8-l~i To: Mayor and City Council Chairperson and Redevelopment Agency From: Martin Kennerly, Acting Director, Resource Management Department Subject: Building Massing and Public Open Space Design Parameters for the Village in the Civic Center Recommended Action This report recommends that the City Council support flexibility in the design of the Village component (Village) of the Civic Center Specific Plan (CCSP) by allowing some building heights up to 65 feet, to allow modifications to building setback and step back requirements and to allow reconfigured public open spaces. Executive Summary Input from community members at the June 2006 Village design parameters workshop focused on the need for flexibility to explore 65-foot height limits for some of the Village buildings, nine feet higher than the 56-foot height limits currently established in the CCSP. Workshop participants also expressed the need for flexibility to create building setbacks and stepbacks which may not conform to the CCSP, since these design features are linked with building height. The purpose of this building massing flexibility is to allow sufficient building envelope to achieve the CCSP goal of 325 housing units while also providing design opportunities for building articulation and modulation. Additionally, community members at the workshop discussed the need for creativity and 1 flexibility in locating and designing the public open space envisioned for the Village, including allowing for a shift in location of the proposed Village Green. The purpose of design flexibility in locating the pubic open space is to allow for a more vibrant and public open space that establishes connections within the Village and with the Palisades Garden Walk to the north. After City Council consideration and guidance on building massing and public open space design parameters for the Village, additional community workshops will be held in the fall of 2006 to consider detailed design concepts based upon those parameters. The recommended design flexibility for the Village will require amendments to the CCSP in conjunction with the future entitlement approval process. Discussion Eighteen community members attended the Village workshop on June 17th. They were introduced to the origin, current status and goals of the CCSP in general, and the Village in particular. The workshop involved two simultaneous sessions, one that focused on building massing (height, setbacks and stepbacks) and the other on public open space issues (including access and connections). After completing the sessions, workshop participants assembled as one group, communicated the results of the sessions, and achieved consensus on design parameters for building massing and public open space. Input from community members at the workshop focused on the need for design flexibility that allows 65-foot height limits for some of the Village buildings, rather than 2 56-foot height limits currently established in the CCSP. This conclusion was reached in light of the following factors: 1) the additional 9 feet of building height (from 56 feet to 65 feet) is necessary to achieve the CCSP goal of 325 housing units in the Village, while also providing design opportunities for building articulation and modulation; 2) a 65-foot height limit for some of the buildings permits additional market-rate residential units that will better subsidize affordable housing and public improvements in the Civic Center; and 3) compatibility with recently completed buildings adjacent to the Village site which are all greater than 65 feet in height. Community members at the workshop further discussed the need for creativity and flexibility in locating and designing the public open space envisioned for the Village, including allowing for a shift in location of the proposed Village Green. Currently, the Village Green area in the CCSP is a triangular, enclosed space that is not easily accessible by, or visible to, the general public. They concluded that as long as the aggregate amount of public open space in the Village remains essentially equal, design flexibility would allow for a more vibrant and public open space that would establish connections within the Village and with the Palisades Garden Walk to the north. Community input also focused on improvements to the mews system and its relationship to the proposed housing and adjacent RAND building and service alley. 3 The requested design flexibility is intended to allow the creation of a significant amount of affordable housing that is cross-subsidized by market-rate housing units and an opportunity to reconsider the location of the public open space as the focal point of the Village. Backqround The City Council approved the updated CCSP in June 2005. The Village component in the CCSP is described as a mixed-use development that will contain residential, commercial and public open space. The City Council selected The Related Companies of California (Related) as the developer for the Village in January 2006. On May 18, 2006, an open house was held at 1733 Ocean Avenue, adjacent to the Village site, and it provided community members an opportunity to meet the Village development-design team and City staff. The open house was attended by 40 community members and included a display of the illustrative plan for the CCSP and a conceptual project design for the Village. Additionally, written materials (hand-outs) explaining the history, status, and guiding principles of the CCSP and the Village development, were made available. Finally, the developer-design team encouraged community members to provide written comments. Those comments are provided in Attachment 1. The second event held for community input was a workshop on June 17, 2006, at the same location as the open house. The focus of the workshop was to elicit community 4 input on building massing and public open space concepts for the proposed Village development. Comments received from the community regarding building massing and public open space are included in Attachment 2. The purpose of gathering community input was to establish a consensus on design parameters for consideration by the City Council. Previous Council Actions The City Council established guiding principles for the design of the Village in December 2004 as part of the developer selection process, which encouraged creativity in the design of the Village. In June 2005, the City Council approved the updated CCSP, which established design parameters for the Village. The City Council in January 2005 approved the selection of The Related Companies of California as the developer of the Village, and authorized staff and Related to explore a building height limit of 65-feet, in conjunction with the corresponding public benefits such a height limit would provide. Commission Action The Housing Commission held a meeting on July 6, 2006 to consider flexibility in the design of the Village with regard to building massing and public open space. The Housing Commission urged the City Council and Redevelopment Agency to allow flexible design parameters for the Village development in the CCSP. This design flexibility would allow some building heights to 65 feet, and flexibility in setbacks, stepbacks and the location of public open space and mews. The Housing Commission 5 also conceptually supports future modifications to the Village component of the CCSP to achieve the design flexibility discussed to date with the community and the Housing Commission. The Recreation and Parks Commission held a meeting on July 20, 2006 to consider flexibility in the design of the Village with regard to building massing and public open space. Four of the five Commissioners present at the meeting approved a motion that supports flexibility in the design of the Civic Center Village to find the best balance between building height, affordable housing and open space - with the possibility of relocating the proposed open space to allow for a better connection with Palisades Garden Walk. The motion also stated that open space should be a required natural component to the residential development. Attachment 3 includes the PowerPoint presentation that the developer-design team presented at the Housing Commission and Recreation and Parks Commission meetings to illustrate building massing and public open space concepts for the Village. Alternatives The City Council could adhere to the existing building height parameters established in the CCSP for the Village. However, all three design proposals prepared for the Village developer selection process indicated that the CCSP goal of 325 units could not be achieved within a 56-foot building height limit for the site. Additionally, the City Council could adhere to the public open space design envisioned in the CCSP. However, this 6 open space design may not allow for an optimal integration of residential, live/work, commercial and public open space uses established for the site. Public Outreach The community input for the design of the Village has involved extensive outreach efforts to the community, including direct mailings, public notices in local newspapers, City libraries, and the City's website. The outreach informed the community about the open house on May 18, 2006, the design parameters workshop on June 17, 2006, and meetings of the Housing Commission and the Recreation & Parks Commission regarding design parameters, on July 6, 2006 and July 20, 2006, respectively. Budqet/Financial I mpact There is no direct budgetary impact to allowing flexibility in building massing and public open space design parameters for the Village. However, the existing parameters including height limits, setbacks and stepbacks within the Village component of the CCSP, impede the CCSP goal of 325 housing units. A lesser number of housing units in the Village will result in a lesser payment from the developer to the Redevelopment Agency for the value of the land that will be leased to the developer. It is estimated that the Redevelopment Agency will receive approximately $8M -$12M less in land payment revenue if the existing CCSP design parameters for the Village are not modified so that the intended program of 325 housing units can be achieved. 7 Prepared by: Bob Moncrief, Housing Manager roved: Forwarded to Council: Martin Kenn~ly; Acting Director, `J ~'.'l~amont Ewel Resource Management Depart ent 'i y Manager ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1: Community Input from May 18, 2006 Open House Attachment 2: Community Input #rom June 17, 2006 Workshop Attachment 3: PowerPoint Presentation Provided to the Housing Commission and the Recreation and Parks Commission 8 ac men s are ava~ a e or . v~ew~n a e . , . ~ er s ~ce.