SR-01-26-1988-8A
fIO-{J/tJ
8-A
IIMI", 2 6 ~()v
C/ED:CPD:DKW:JWR:jr
COUNCIL MEETING: January 26, 1988
TO: Mayor and city council
-....-
santa Monica, California
FROM:
city Staff
,
SUBJECT: Recommendation for Approval of Development Agreement
Between the City of Santa Monica and J.B. Snyder
Company II
INTRODUCTION
Application has been made for a Development Agreement between the
City of Santa Monica and the J .H. snyder Company II. The
proposed Agreement would permit the development of a large office
complex in the Special Office District of the city.
In accordance with the requirements of the Municipal Code, City
staff have processed the proposed Agreement, which was reviewed
by the Planning Commission on December 14, 1987, and which comes
before
the
Council
for Public Hearing and review on
January 26, 1988.
The developer proposes to construct the project at a l.85 Floor
Area Ratio (FAR). However, the Planning Commission approved the
L 85 FAR on the condition that vehicle traffic to the project
remain within a range normally associated with a project with a
1.5 FAR.
(This concept is explained in greater detail below.)
According to the Planning commission's recommendation, should
Phase I of the proj ect fail to maintain the required vehicle
trips, Phase II would have to be built such that the total FAR
for both Phases equaled 1.5.
B-A
- 1 -
IAN? f. 'Q,S.
staff recommends that the project be approved at an FAR o~ 1.7.
This would help achieve the reduction in vehicle traffic desired
by the Commission but simplify the means of insuring that
reduction. with the reduction in FAR proposed by staff,
mitigation and improvement fees associated with the project would
be proportionately reduced.
As a result of further discussions with the applicant subsequent
to Planning Commission review, staff has identified additional
changes to the Development Agreement with which the applicant is
agreeable. These changes have been incorporated into the
Agreement and include the following:
1) A reduction in allowable medical office space from 75,000
sq.ft. to 40,000 sq.ft., and a reduction in allowable retail
space from 60,000 sq.ft. to 40,000 sq.ft. These uses have
higher trip generation rates than general office, and their
reduction will lessen total trips to and from the project
site.
2) Advance payment to the City of $3,500,000 in Housing and
Parks and traffic mitigation fees no later than six months
from approval of the ordinance for first reading of the
Development Agreement. The version reviewed by the Planning
Commission had a one-year payment allowance.
3) Failure to achieve a TDM goal of a 20% reduction in
vehicle trips to the project will result in an annual penalty
fee of up to $200,000 per year. This penalty will be
pro-rated based upon percentage achievement of the TDM goal
and will provide a significant incentive for an agressive TDM
- 2 -
program.
4) The Developer will be required to subsidize at least 50%
of the cost of transit passes and tokens each month for 400
project employees. Along with the other TDM measures, this
mandatory provision is expected to reduce vehicle trips to
the project site.
S) The proj ect will be required to provide designated and
preferentially located parking spaces for carpools and
vanpools. Some of the most desirable parking areas in the
project will be reserved for carpools and vanpools.
This report summarizes the proposed project and its environmental
impacts, examines the plan'S relationship to the City Municipal
Code and General Plan, outlines the main issues concerning the
Development Agreement, summarizes the Planning Commission's
concerns and recommendations, makes findings required by the
Municipal Code, and presents recommendations to the council.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The project is consistent with the basic objectives of the Land
Use Element for the Special Office District. One of the
principles of the Land Use Element was to guide growth toward the
areas of the City suited to accommodate it from the standpoint of
access, existing infrastructure, and ~ini~ization of impacts on
adjacent residential neighborhoods. The Land Use Element found
that the eastern half of the Olympic Corridor area .. . is
best suited to large-scale office development since it is
adjacent to freeway access and the eastern City limit." The
- 3 -
Water Garden project was developed in response to the Lana Use
Element standards adopted by the City three years ago, and is the
second major project in the area to be proposed subsequent to the
~
adoption of the Element.
According to the Environmental Impact Report, the proj ect may
have significant impacts upon traffic and air quality in its
vicinity: however, the mitigation measures required in the
Development Agreement, together with the FAR reduction proposed
by staff, would address these impacts.
Unlike the Southmark Development Agreement, the Water Garden
Development Agreement presents specific building design plans for
approval. This allows the city to lower precisely the practical
and aesthetic characteristics of the project.
The Agreement provides for the payment to the City of not less
than a $7,200,000 Housing and Parks Mitigation Fee; $6,586,500 in
the form of a traffic improvement fee (a provision that goes
considerably beyond standard city mitigation requirements): an
on-site, 7,000 square-foot child care facility large enough to
serve 60 children which will provide reduced-fee child care to
qualified local residents; parking spaces for use by a potential
Santa Monica College remote parking/shuttle program; and,
payments to the city to cover fully the cost of administering a
preferential parking district in the vicinity of the project,
should the City, in its sole discretion, wiSh to create such a
district.
- 4 -
The Agreement will also provide for $300,000 for servic~s or
development of a shelter for the homeless, and $150,000 for
off-site public art.
In addition, the project incorporates extensive landscaping
(comprising nearly 55% of the total project site), including a
2-acre water amenity, and utilizes attractive building materials
as well as extensive horizontal setbacks.
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SOUTHMARK AND WATER GARDEN DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENTS
For the most part, differences between the Southmark (Colorado
Place Phase III) and Water Garden Development Agreements
represent improvements in the Water Garden Agreement over the
Southmark Agreement. The differences can be summarized as
follows:
1) The Water Garden Development Agreement is accompanied by
plans showing building design, location, dimensions,
materials, landscaping, etc. This allows the city to know
specifically what the project will look like.
2) The Water Garden Development Agreement contains a
provision requiring that a contract between the City and the
developer be executed within 45 days of approval by the City
council. The Southmark agreement contained no such
requirement and thus execution of the contract was delayed.
3) Section 6(a), paragraph (ii) of the Water Garden Agreement
requires that the developer pay an advance of $3,500,000 in
Impact fees within six months of first reading of the
- 5 -
Development Agreement, or prior to issuance of a bunding
permit, whichever is sooner, as opposed to the requirement in
the Southmark Agreement that a portion of the fee be paid
upon execution of the Agreement. Staff believes the
six-month provision is reasonable, given uncertainties such
as referenda or litigation that may delay project development
even after council approval.
4) The Water Garden Development Agreement provides for a
penalty fee of up to $200,000 for failure to achieve the TOM
goal. The Agreement also requires the Developer to subsidize
at least 50% of the cost of transit passes and tokens for 400
project employees, and requires the Developer to provide
designated and preferentially located parking for carpools
and vanpools.
5) The Traffic Impact fee for the Water Garden proj ect is
comparable to that contained in the Southmark Agreement when
considered on a square footage basis.
6) As explained on pages 34 and 35 of this report, the
caveats contained in the Southmark Agreement regarding the
installation of an on-site sewage treatment system have been
eliminated in the Water Garden Agreement. While under
certain circumstances Southmark would not have to provide
such a system, the Water Garden Agreement simply mandates it.
7) Under staff recommendations, the Water Garden proj ect
would be approved at a 1. 7 FAR, as opposed to the l. 85 FAR
approved for the Southmark project.
- 6 -
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
Located between Colorado Avenue, Olympic Boulevard, Cloverfield
Boulevard, and 26th street, just south of Colorado Place and near
the Santa Monica Freeway, the 17-acre, 740,928 square-foot
project site is currently occupied by approximately 525,000
square feet of building area, 195,000 square feet of which is
currently leased. The land is zoned M2 and lies within the
boundaries of the "Special Office District".
Surrounding uses include Colorado Place on the north, industrial
and manufacturing buildings to the south, office and
manufacturing uses on the east, and the s1 te of Colorado Place
Phase III on the west.
PROPOSED PROJECT
The proposed project involves a Development Agreement between the
City of Santa Monica and J .H. Snyder Company II. According to
the Development Agreement, the developer will have the right to
construct a total of 1,370,717 square feet of commercial space,
at a 1.85 Floor Area Ratio, including the following categories:
o Restaurant--So,OOO SF
o Medical Office--40,OOO SF
o Retail, primarily to serve employees of, or visitors to the
businesses located on the Property--40,OOO SF
o Health Club--25,OOO SF
o Banks and Savings and Loans--30,000 SF
- 7 -
o General Commercial Office--The Daximum Floor Area pe~itted
for the Project less the Floor Area utilized for other uses.
Square footages associated with a proj ect with, a 1.7 FAR, as
recommended by staff, are contained in Attachment C, as are
snmmaries of the corresponding reduction in mitigation and impact
fees.
The proj~ct would consist of four buildings. Each of the
buildings would be variegated, multi-level structures; various
portions of each building would reach heights of two, four, and
six stories. Each building would include a glass atrium which
would serve as the main pedestrian entrance to the building and
which would face onto a large artificial lake at the center of
the site.
As stated in the introduction, the Planning commission supports
approval of a 1.85 FAR for this project with the following
condition: that Phase I of the project be built at 1.85 FAR and
that an aggressive Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program
be implemented to maintain a level of vehicle trips in Phase I
that correspond to the maximum peak hour trips normally
associated with a project of 1.5 FAR; if this objective were
achieved, Phase II may also be constructed with an FAR of 1.85;
if the TOM program failed to meet this objective, Phase II would
have to be built so that the total FAR for Phases I and II
equaled 1.5.
staff believes that the Planning Commission's proposal would be
difficult to implement, primarily because it would be difficult
- s -
to develop a set of objective criteria for evaluating the TDM
program for Phase I. Staff is also concerned that outstanding
achievement of a TOM program during the early years of the
project may not be maintained throughout the life'of the project.
staff recommends instead that the FAR be reduced from 1.85 to
1.7. This would help achieve the Planning commission's goal of
reducing vehicle trips to the project, but in a simpler and more
reliable fashion.
Under this scenario the TDM program could be less successful and
still achieve the effective 1. 5 traffic result desired. Under
the original version of the Agreement reviewed by the Planning
Commissionl the developer would have had the option of building
parking for Phase I at 2.6 spaces per 1000 square feet (current
code is 3.3 spaces per 1000); then, if subsequent evaluations of
Phase I determined that there was a parking shortage, the
developer would have been required to build additional spaces in
Phase II to bring the proj ect' s total parking ratio up to the
normal 3.3 spaces per thousand square feet.
staff has re-evaluated this concept and believes that it would be
difficult to monitor its performance, especially if Phase II is
built or before Phase I is fully occupied. staff recommends
instead that parking for the project be provided at a ratio of
2.9 spaces per thousand, corresponding to the number of spaces
normally required for a project of 1.5 FAR. This would help meet
the Planning Commission's obj ecti ves for reducing maximum peak
hour vehicle trips, while simplifying the means of meeting that
objective. It would also satisfy parking demand for a project of
- 9 -
1.7 FAR coupled with an aggressive TDM program. According- the
EIR Consultant's calculations, a 2.9 ratio would provide adequate
parking for the project. (See attachment B.)
staff is recommending the parking spaces at a ratio less than the
3.3 ratio normally required in order to facilitate a reduction in
single-person vehicle occupancy by employees at the project site.
To the extent that excess parking is provided, there is little
incenti ve for employees, employers, or the proj ect owner to
participate in ridesharing and other TSM techniques. An
aggressive TSM program can reduce traffio and associated air
pollution and traffic-generated noise.
As indicated, staff has identified additional measures to insure
compliance with project TDM goals. These include up to a
$200,000 penalty fee for non-achievement of the 20% vehicle trip
reduction goal, subsidies for transit passes and tokens for 400
employees, and preferential parking for carpools and vanpools.
Staff believes that the city must develop these and other
approaches to traffic problems that do not simply involve the
accommodation or encouragement of increased numbers of private
automoDiles. As the City council is aware, staff is developing a
comprehensive, City-wide TSM Plan which should be issued for
public review within one month. This draft Plan will give
consideration to reduced parking requirements for situations
similar to that proposed for the Water Gardens project.
- 10 -
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS
section 9800 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code provides for the
execution of development agreements pursuant to Article ll,
section 7 of the California Constitution and pursuant to
Government Code section 65864 et. seq. The expressed intent of
the State law is to provide " . . . assurance to the applicant
for a development project that upon approval of the project, the
applicant may proceed with the project in accordance with
existing policies, rules and regulations, and subject to
conditions of approval.. " In other words, the purpose is to
protect applicants from changes in policies and ordinances after
approval but before completion of the project. Development
agreements are most often utilized for large projects which will
take a number of years to build out.
since the local jurisdiction is relinquiShing its right to change
its policies and ordinances (in relation to the particular
project) for a specified period of years, it is not uncommon for
cities and counties to require developers to provide additional
amenities and facilities which would not be required for projects
without development agreements.
Background
On October 28, 1986, the ~.H. Snyder Company filed an application
to the Planning commission for a commercial office project
including support retail, restaurant, a day care center and other
ancillary uses at 2425 Olympic Boulevard. Since that time, a
- II -
draft EIR on the proposed Water Garden project has been preRared,
issued for public review and finalized.
At full occupancy, The Water Garden would generate approximately
..
5,200 jobs, most of which would be office related. The
Development
Agreement
also
requires
the
developer,
in
consultation with neighborhood organizations, to design and
promote job training programs to address the needs of the
surrounding neighborhoods.
Based on the fiscal analysis in the Environmental Impact Report
and staff calculations, the project would generate increased
property and sales taxes. Net revenues (after City costs are
accounted for) to the City are estimated to be over $1,212,000
per year once the project is completed. One-time payments would
include approximately $7,215,869 for housing and parks, and a
traffic improvement fee of $6,586,500.
In addition, the
developer has offered the city $300,000 and $150,000 as
contributions for housing for the homeless and off-site public
art, respectively.
MUNICIPAL CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE
Municipal Code Chapter 9, Section 9800-9819 established the
City's procedures for adopting development agreements. In order
to recommend approval of a development agreement, the City
Council must determine that the proposed development agreement
. . .
is consistent with the general plan and any applicable
It
specific plan." (Santa Monica Municipal Code, Section 9814.)
- 12 -
Development standards (such as permitted uses, densi~ or
intensity of Use, maximum height, etc.) provided for in a
development agreement may vary from those of the zoning district,
but the project must be in conformity with the General Plan. The
proposed proj ect is compatible with the allowable intensity of
development, land uses and other development parameters for the
Special Office District set forth in the Land Use Element.
Land Use Element
The proposed project complies with the standards of the Land Use
Element. Permitted uses in the Special Office District include
large scale office and related uses. Specifically, the proposed
Development Agreement is consistent with Land Use Element
Obj ecti ve 1. 8 to " . provide opportuni ty for off ice and
advanced technology uses requiring large floor areas" as well as
with the following supporting policies:
1.8.1
The eastern portion of the Olympic Corridor should be
the priority location for office and advanced
technology uses.
1.8.2
Allow retail uses necessary to serve office and
advanced technology uses.
The proposed project also conforms to Land Use Element Objective
3.1 to " . reserve Santa Monica's existing solar access, low
scale, and cultural resources consistent with the overall goals
of the Land Use Element"; Land Use Element Obj ecti ve 3 . 3 to
" . . . enhance the pedestrian scale and character of streets and
- 13 -
public spaces"; and Land Use Element objective 3..4 to
" . . . enhance the image and the unique character of the
c01l\1D.ercial districts and residential neighborhoods in the City"
through the following urban design pOlicies for the Special
Office District:
3.3.15
3.3.16
3.4.9
Reduce the visibility of surface parking, by requiring
that buildings or landscaping form a specified
percentage of the street facade on major arterials.
Encourage five to twenty-foot setbacks from the street
front and the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way in
order to allow room for landscaping and usable public
open space.
Require landscaped open space visible from the street,
including landscaped setbacks from the street, in order
to create a Ugarden office" or "campus" environment.
Encourage usable open space.
Policy 1.8.7 of the Land Use Element prescribes a maximum F.A.R.
in the special Off ice District of 2 . 0 and a maximum building
height of 45 feet (three stories), with the possibility of an
increase to 84 feet (six stories) upon Planning Commission
approval. The Water Garden project was originally proposed to
have an F.A.R. of 2.0. since then the F.A.R. has been reduced.
Thus, the project incorporates less square footage than is
allowed by the Land Use Element.
- 14 -
circulation Element
The proposed Water Garden project conforms to the objectives and
policies of the Circulation Element.
objective 4.2 reads, "Protect the environment on local.
residential streets by minimizing the intrusion of vehicular
traffic and parking into residential neighborhoods." The Water
Garden Development Agreement would all.ow the City, at its
discretion, to require the Developer to pay for the cost of
administering a preferential parking district in the vicinity of
the project. Thus, the proposed project conforms to the
following policy:
4.2.3
Locate new development and their access points in such
a way that traffic is not encouraged to utilize local
residential streets and alleys for access to the
development and its parking.
objective 4.3 reads "Provide road and highway facilities to meet
anticipated needs for movement of people and qoods consistent
wi th the goals of the Land Use Element." The proposed proj ect
does not conflict with the following policies:
4.3.1
Safe or acceptable levels of service on City streets
shall be a criterion for evaluation of new development
proposals. Level of Service shall be "C" for collec-
tor, feeder, and local streets and "Oil for arterials or
better where possible.
- 15 -
The city council recently provided confirmation of the city's
long-standing interpretation of this policy: that it expresses a
guideline to be considered in evaluation of development projects.
The Council also stated that the Planning Commission may modify
or deny projects based on adverse traffic effects, along with
consideration of other factors.
At the city's request, the EIR traffic consultant prepared a
revised analysis of the project's traffic impacts to reflect the
reduction in F.A.R. from 2.0 to 1.85. This analysis is provided
in Attachment F to this report. The EIR analysis showed that
seven intersections would be at LOS E or F during the AM peak
hour. With the mitigation measures to be provided by both the
Snyder Company and southmark Pacific, there would be five
intersections at LOS E or F in the AM peak hour and eight in the
PM peak hour. Further reductions in traffic volumes would be
achieved with a reduction in FAR to 1.7 and with the aggressive
TSM program contained in the Agreement.
The Circulation Element contains additional policies to
discourage on-street loading, promote ridesharing, encourage
staggered work hours, and maximize efficiency of traffic signals.
These polices include the fOllowing:
4.3.3
The city shall work cooperatively with CalTrans to
impleIDent freeway ramp improvements at Cloverfield or
at 20th street and at 4th street to accommodate planned
growth in the Special Office District and Downtown/
Oceanfront areas respectively. The purpose of the
- 16 -
4.3.6
4.3.8
4.3.9
4.3.10
improvements is to improve traffic movement or ~itigate
existing traffic problems. All such improvements shall
be designed to protect existing residential neighbor-
hoods. particular attention should' be paid to
mitigating the potential problems of traffic intrusions
into residential neighborhoods especiallY along 4th
Street south of Pico Boulevard, in the vicinity of the
Cloverfield on and off ramps (or the 20th Street
freeway ramps), and in the Downtown/Oceanfront areas.
On street loading and unloading shall be discouraged.
Use of alley access to service residential and commer-
cial buildings shall be encouraged.
Promote programs to increase ridesharing as measured by
average auto occupancy, from 1.2 individuals per
vehicle to 1.4, or better.
Minimize peak hour trips by encouraging staggered work
hours and land uses which do not generate peak hour
trips.
Maximize the efficiency of the existing roadway system
through traffic signal synchronization and other
traffic flow improvements, as long as the impact on
residential neighborhoods is analyzed and carefully
considered.
- 17 -
4.3.ll
Consider measures to facilitate the north-south flow of
traffic on 26th, 20th, 17th, 14th and 11th streets con-
sistent with safety and the needs of nearby residents.
In conformance with these policies, the Developer will do the
following: 1) devise a Traffic Demand Management Plan to include
ridesharing; 2) at the request of the City, pay for administering
a permit parking district; 3) pay the city approxim.ately $6.6
million in traffic improvement fees: 4) provide all off-site
loading and unloading. In addition the developer has retained an
independent consultant to explore and specific traffic
improvements to be made with funds collected through the traffic
improvement fees.
Objective 4.5 reads, "Encourage an improved public transit system
capable of accommodating ten percent or more of all trips
generated in the city by the year 2000.11 Policy 4.5.7 states the
following:
4.5.7
If feasible, an elnployee transit shuttle should be
implemented to link the Special office District, Indus-
trial Conservation District, Santa Monica Business
Park, and possibly the Airport, to regional transit and
peripheral parking facilities.
The proposed project would not preclude an employee shuttle. In
fact, the traffic demand management plan developed by the Snyder
Company, as well as the citywide TSM plan, may call for such a
shuttle system.
- 18 -
Objective 4.6 reads "Protect and encourage non-motorized trans-
portation, especially bicycle routes and pedestrian trails,
consistent wi th the goals of the Land Use Element. " To the
extent the project plans include open space in over 50% of the
project site, with ample opportunity for sitting and strolling.
It conforms to the following policy:
4.6.2
Encourage new development to provide pedestrian paths
through projects.
Objective 4.7 reads nAIl new development should accommodate
project-generated parking consistent with encouraging alternative
transportation systems management programs." As indicated in a
preceding section in this report, staff is recommending a parking
ratio of 2.9 space per thousand square feet, corresponding to the
numher of spaces normally required of a project with a l.5 FAR.
The proposed project conforms to the following pOlicies:
4.7.1
Ci ty parking standards should be adhered to, except
with respect to parking requirements for hotels, resi-
dential uses, and mixed use projects which need further
study.
4.7.6
Encourage priority location of parking for van pools
and car pools, to provide an incentive for these trans-
portation alternatives.
Perhaps the greatest concern about this proj ect on the part of
the community is with traffic impacts. The EIR includes an
extensive traffic study of the water Garden project. (Attachment
- 19 -
F provides a summ.ary analysis of the final i1rlpacts of a 1.~5 FAR
project on intersections after all mitigation measures required
by the Agreement have been implemented.) And, as indicated, the
developer has hired his own traffic consul tan't to work wi th
citizens to identify specific problem areas and improvements.
After reviewing traffic impact data, staff believes that the
traffic impacts of the Water Garden project will be
sa'tisfactorily m.itigated by the reduction in FAR from 1. as to
1.7, by the measures specified in Exhibit D to the Agreement, and
by the special traffic mitigation payment, which must be used by
the city to address traffic issues in the project area.
Improvements funded by these funds could improve levels of
service beyond that which would occur as a result of the
improvements specified in Exhibit D.
One major goal of the City'S Land Use Element was to allow a
manageable amount of growth in Santa Monica in order to implement
mitigation measures and to obtain the employment, revitalization,
and economic benefits to be derived from development.
Another major goal of the Land Use Element was to direct growth
to areas best able to accommodate it. The Special Office
District was created to channel some of the office demand away
from Wilshire Blvd. and other strip commercial streets where it
would have a greater impact on residential neighborhoods.
The achievement of these two goals, along with a balancing desire
to protect the City's quality of life, led to the standard
established for the Special Office District regarding development
- 20 -
intensity. The 2.0 floor area ratio was adopted after de~iled
land use and circulation studies, enviromnental analysis, and
balancing of a variety of goals.
The traffic study was intentionally prepared on a conservative
basis. It did not consider mitigation measures that might be
required of other developers by the city, and it assumed that
proposed projects not yet approved would be approved at their
requested intensity, and would not be downsized.
In addition to its required mitigation measures, the Water Garden
will be required to participate in future TSM ordinances and also
in any area-wide traffic assessment district. staff anticipates
that upon completion of the proposed traffic study, certain
specific improvements will be recommended and financed from this
type of funding mechanism.
CEQA STATUS
An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project and
finalized after a 45-day public review period. A variety of
potential environmental impacts including transportation and
circulation, air quality, noise, hydrology, and geology
(seismicity) were examined.
Traffic and Circulation
Thirty-four intersections and two freeway off-ramps were studied.
As indicated, Attachment F summarizes the impact of a 1.85
project on these intersections after all required traffic
improvements are made. Again, a l.7 FAR project would generate
- 21 -
less traffic. The Attachment indicates that after all
improvements described in Exhibit D in the Development Agreement
are implemented, 8 intersections will have a Level of Service
below level D in the PM peak period, severaL of which are
relatively remote from the project site. Potential future
declines in levels of service are primarily related to cumulative
traffic growth rather than the proposed project.
Mitigation measures for this project include widening Cloverfield
on the easterly side to add one new lane northbound, restriping
the westbound approach on Colorado Avenue to Cloverfield
Boulevard to provide for two dedicated left turn lanes,
constructing dual left turn lanes for northbound traffic on
Cloverfield Boulevard at Colorado Avenue, constructing a
dedicated right turn lane on westbound Olympic Boulevard at
Cloverfleld Boulevard, constructing a dedicated dual left turn
lane on southbound 26th Street at Olympic BOUlevard, constructing
a dedicated right turn lane on southbound 26th street at Colorado
Avenue, constructing a dedicated right turn lane on northbound
Cloverfield Boulevard at Colorado Avenue, and participating in
modernizing the traffic signal standards, conduits, signal heads
and controllers for the intersections of Cloverfield Boulevard
with Colorado Avenue and Olympic Boulevard.
Several major proposed developments in the Special Office
District will contribute to increased traffic congestion at most
- 22 -
intersections in the project area. However, the traffic analysis
does not account for the fact that many of those projects would
be required to perform mitigation measures to reduce their
traffic impacts. In this respect, the traffic analysis likely
overstates adverse traffic impacts.
Air Quality
The EIR identifies two types of impacts on air quality associated
with project: short-term, construction-related impacts in the
form of dust, dirt and particulates, and long-term impacts from
automobile emissions, particularly carbon monoxide (CO).
According to the EIR, the short-term construction impacts would
not be significant in that they can be adequately mitigated
through dust abatement and adequate equipment maintenance.
The EIR1s analysis of long-term effects focuses on carbon
monoxide emissions, since these are the most important pollutants
from motor vehicles. The analysis involves a worst-case scenario
that assumes 1) the most severe meteorologic conditions, 2)
construction of all proposed projects, and 3) no traffic
mitigation programs for any of the projects (such as traffic
demand management). The analysis also uses baseline data from a
monitoring station located in West Los Angeles near the San Diego
Freeway, where conditions are generally worse than near the Water
Garden project.
According to the EIR, most intersections modeled already exceed
eight-hour emission standards under worst-case meteorologic
- 23 -
conditions. violations of these standards would persist if all
projects are built. The Water Garden project itself would
increase Santa Monica Source-Receptor Area Emissions from 305.59
to 307.64 tons per day, an increase of less than It.
The EIR concludes that the project will have significant
long-term impacts upon air quality. However, this is primarily
because existing air :tUality does not meet certain state and
Federal standards, rather than because this particular proj ect
causes CO levels to exceed applicable standards.
Noise
construction noise associated with the Water Garden project will
be a temporary prOblem but it can be minimized by restricting
construction activity in accordance with the city's construction
time ordinance (7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and
Saturday, 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.).
Hydrology
The EIR indicates that the proposed 2-acre, 18-inch-deep
artificial lake would consume approximately 4 million gallons of
water per year, 3 million of which result from evaporation. To
mitigate the adverse impact of the lake on the City's water
supplies, the EIR suggests using reclaimed wastewater,
stormwater, or seawater to fill the lake. The Development
Agreement requires that not less than 50% of the water
requirements of the lake be met by sources other than city water.
- 24 -
Geology
Extensive ground borings have revealed the exact path of the
South Branch Santa Monica Fault beneath the, project site.
Available information indicates that this fault is inactive.
state law requires that no habitable structure be located closer
than within 50 feet of any active or potentially active fault.
Even though the fault beneath the project site is inactive, and
therefore the project is not subject to this state regulation,
the project buildings will be set back 50 feet from the fault as
an added precaution. Furthermore, the underground parking
structure has been designed with slip joints to "give" in the
event of groundshaking.
- 25 -
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ISSUES
The proposed Development Agreement contains several key items
that need to be evaluated during this review proc~ss.
1. Floor Area led) The definition in the proposed
Development Agreement is comparable to that contained in the
Southmark Development Agreement. The. definition in these
two . Agreement differs somewhat from that contained in the
City's proposed Zoning Ordinance. The principle differences
from the proposed Zoning ordinance are that unenclosed
decks, balconies and the like are not counted as floor area
even if they are covered by a roof, and that similarly,
temporary parking areas and exterior courtyards, arcades and
the like are not counted as floor area whether or not they
are covered by a roof. These provisions are appropriate,
since counting such desirable urban design features for
purposes of FAR would tend to discourage their provision.
2. Parking - 3(e) - Please see the previous discussion of this
issue under the description of the proposed project.
3. Open Space 3(f) The site plans for the project
incorporate extensive open space, including a 2-acre
artificial lake. Park-like landscaping will provide
employees of the project as well as residents of the
adjacent neighborhood with ample opportunity for strolling,
sitting, and reclining on the lawn. The site plan also
includes a circular outdoor platform framed by a
- 26 -
semi-circular colonnade. This area could seat up to 500
people for outdoor concerts.
The project is designed with an expansive public view
corridor through the entire project site stretching from the
intersection of 26th Street and Olympic Boulevard to
Cloverfield and Colorado. Open space represents over 55% of
the 17 acre site.
4. Housing and Parks Mitigation Fee - 6 (a) - This section
provides accelerated payment of the required parks and
housing mitigation fee. A sum of $3,500,000 would be paid
within six months of first reading of the Development
Agreement or immediately upon issuance of a building permit
for the first Phase of the Project, whichever is sooner; a
larger sum would be required if net rentable floor area
exceeds current plans for the first phase. The City's Land
Use Element only requires 25% of the fee be paid before the
certificate of Occupancy is issued (which would probably be
at least two years for the first office building following
execution of the Agreement), and allows the balance to be
paid over a period of three years following the issuance of
the Certificate of Occupancy. Given the time value of
money, the accelerated payment schedule is a significant
benefit which will allow the Cit.y to utilize these funds for
new affordable housing and additional park facilities much
sooner.
- 27 -
5. On-S i te Child Care Facil i ty 6 (b) This section
requires the Developer to construct on-si te a child care
facility consisting of a minimum of 7,000 square feet. Ten
percent of the facility's capacity would be'made available
to residents in the vicinity of the project at 60% of the
normal charges. Pursuant to a request by the Planning
Commission, the Child Care facility must be incorporated
into Phase I of the project.
6.
Water Conservation
- 6 (f)
In order to substantially
reduce the use of fresh water in the artificial lake, the
Development Agreement requires that the developer use
recirculated water, storm drain water, or other systems
acceptable to the Department of General services to maintain
water in the lake. The Agreement also requires at least 50%
of the lake's water requirements must be met by non-potable
water; that the goal of project water conservation methods
be to reduce the amount of water consumed by the project to
one-third of the amount that would otherwise have been
consumed; and, that the landscaping plans include
drought-resistant plants and be subject to the approval of
General Services.
7.
Impacts on Traffic Durinq Construction
6 (g)
This
section requires a construction staging area on the project
site to minimize the impact of construction activities on
adjacent streets.
- 28 -
8. Traffic and Emission Abatement - 6(h)- Under this section,
the developer is required to prepare and submit for City
approval a traffic and air quality emissions plan to promote
ridesharing, flex-time, special benefits for carpools and
vanpools, increased use of public transit, and other
measures. The Developer would also be required to comply
wi th the provisions of a Ci ty-wide Transportation Systems
Management plan, which is currently being prepared by the
City Planning staff.
9. Traffic Improvement Fee - 6(i) - The Agreement provides for
a $6,586,500 payment to the city, use of which is limited to
traffic infrastructure improvements in or affecting the
areas bounded by Santa Monica Boulevard on the north, 17th
street on the west, Centinela Avenue on the east, and pico
Boulevard on the south, and up to $500,000 of which can be
used to fund a city-wide traffic systems management (TSM)
program. This payment is comparable to that made in the
southmark Development Agreement, but represents a greater
amount because of the larger size of the Water Garden
project.
crain and Associates, the applicant I s traffic consultant,
has identified a 'menu' of area-wide traffic infrastructure
improvements which might be partly funded by the Water
Garden and southmark traffic payments. None of these
potential improvements have been endorsed by the City or by
other agencies such as Cal trans, which might also have to
approve some of the proj ects . In addition, the potential
- 29 -
total cost of these projects exceeds the combined fee~ from
the Water Garden and Southmark projects.
However, since this 'menu' of traffic improvement projects
involves area-wide measures which benefit many existing and
future roadway users beyond either Water Garden or
Southmark, it is anticipated that the city-wide Traffic
study will call for creation of systematic traffic impact
fees on new development as well as assessment charges on
existing development to fund traffic improvements deemed
appropriate by the city.
10. Energy Conservation - 6(j) - The proposed Development
Agreement provides for energy conservation techniques,
including high efficiency lighting and high efficiency roof
and wall insulation, in all project buildings.
11. College parking - 6 (1) - The Agreement provides that the
developer offer parking on the project site in conjunction
wi th a possible shuttle program conducted by Santa Monica
College. The developer currently has an agreement with the
city to provide on-site parking for this purpose.
12. Affirmative Action and Job Training - 6 Cn) - This section
states that the Developer will develop an affirmative action
program with input from neighborhood organizations to
promote job training programs for project tenants. The job
training programs will be designed to address the needs of
the residents surrounding the water Garden project.
- 30 -
l3. Preferential parkinq - 6(m) - The developer has agreediChat,
in the event that the City establishes a preferential
parking district
(the boundaries of which would be
,
determined by the City), the developer will pay the city an
amount equal to the cost of posting signs and administering
the preferential parking district. In this way, residents
will not be charged for preferential parking permits.
Under the City's preferential parking ordinance (Section
3230-3238 SMMC) preferential parking zones may be initiated
ei ther by peti tions of residents or by the Ci ty Council.
The Council has ultimate approval or dissolution authority
over preferential zones. These zones are primarily intended
to protect residential areas from intrusion by commercial or
customers or employees; without preferential parking, street
spaces are unrestricted.
Generally,
staff has only
recommended and the Council has only approved preferential
zones when considerably more than a majority of the
residents in the area support such a zone. The Water Garden
Agreement does not mandate creation of a zone, but if such
a zone was appropriate, the Water Garden owner would have to
pay its operating costs.
14. Changes to the Project
8
This section contains
procedures for requesting changes to building setbacks,
Floor Areas of particular phases, Floor Areas of specific
uses (i.e., retail, health club), and location of driveways.
Floor Areas of particular phases may not be changed more
than 5%; Floor Areas of specific uses may not be changed
- 31 -
~ore than 3%. Paragraph (a) details the responsibilities of
the Zoning Administrator and Paragraph (b) explains those of
the Planning Commission. It should be noted that these
paragraphs provide the Zoning Administratdr and Planning
commission with discretionary review powers and
responsibilities in order to avoid the necessity of a formal
amendment for relatively minor changes to the project. In
all - situations, the Council will have the power to hear
appeals on these issues.
15. Effects of Agreement on Land Use Regulations - 12 - This
section addresses future city-enacted or area-wide traffic
mi tiqation measures. The developer would be required to
participate in a City-wide traffic assessment district
anticipated to be created after completion of the pending
traffic study.
16. General Services Requirements (Exhibit D) - The proposed
Development Agreement requires that the developer would
provide various infrastructure improvements.
The major circulation improvements include widening
Cloverfield on the easterly side to add one new lane
northbound, restriping the westbound approach on Colorado
Avenue to Cloverfield Boulevard to provide for two dedicated
left turn lanes, constructing dual left turn lanes for
northbound traffic on Cloverfield Boulevard at Colorado
Avenue, constructing a dedicated right turn lane on
westbound Olympic Boulevard at Cloverfield Boulevard I
- 32 -
constructing a dedicated dual left turn lane on southbound
26th street at Olympic Boulevard, constructing a dedicated
right turn lane on southbound 26th street at Colorado
Avenue, constructing a dedicated right 'turn lane on
northbound Cloverfield Boulevard at Colorado Avenue, and
participating in modernizing the traffic signal standards,
conduits, signal heads and controllers for the intersections
of Cloverfield Boulevard with Colorado Avenue and Olympic
Boulevard.
Other public works projects and improvements include
installing high pressure sodium street lighting and street
trees on all project street frontages; installing a sewage
regulating tank, if deemed necessary by the General Services
Division~ and, installing an on-site sewage treatment system
to clean and recirculate sewage water back through the
toilet system and for watering landscaping, if deemed
appropriate by the General Services Division.
The General Services Division has determined that these
measures are adequate to mitigate adverse impacts of the
project upon infrastructure.
ISSUES RAISED BY PLANNING COMMISSION
At the December 14th Public Hearing, the Planning Commission
recommended numerous revisions to the Development Agreement, all
of which are outlined below. While most of these revisions have
been incorporated into the Agreement, some have been excluded.
Explanations for these exclusions are also provided.
- 33 -
l) The Commission approved a motion that would establish a
linkage between vehicle trips generated by the proj ect and
permitted Floor Area Ratio. According to this motion, Phase
I of the project would be constructed at a Y.85 F.A.R. If
the TDM program achieves a reduction in traffic such that the
number of peak hour vehicle trips equals the n~mber of peak
hour vehicle trips normally associated with a proj ect of a
1.5 F.A.R. (according to ITE estimates), then the developer
may proceed to build Phase II of the project at a 1.85 F.A.R.
If, on the other hand, such a reduction is not achieved, then
the developer must build Phase II at the F.A.R. of 1.5.
After careful consideration of this proposal, staff has
concluded that it would be difficult to implement. More
specifically, it would be difficult to develop objective
cri teria for an evaluation of the TDM progralD. in Phase I.
Staff recommends instead an approach that relies in part on a
reduced total project FAR and in part upon a successful TOM
program. This approach calls for a reduction in project FAR
from 1.85 to 1.7. With this reduction in FAR, vehicle trips
to the project would be reduced proportionately. In
addition, staff recommends that parking be provided at a
ratio of 2.9 spaces per thousand square feet, corresponding
to the amount of parking normally required of the proj ect
with a 1.5 FAR.
2) The Commission requested that the term "floor area ratio"
be defined in the text of the Agreement. See section 1,
paragraph (e). This change has been made.
- 34 -
3) Section 3, paragraph (a) has been modified to authorize
the Architectural Review Board to require additional setbacks
along the Colorado Avenue frontage of the North Building
above the third floor.
4) The Commission requested that there be a 20% cap on the
proportion of tandem parking in the proj ect, and that the
Developer be required to have a parking attendant in all
areas of the project where tandem parking is used. These
changes have been made. See Section 3, paragraph (e).
5) As a way of providing some leeway in the parking required
for the project, the Commission requested that the reduced
parking ratio be increased from 2.5 to 2.6 spaces per
thousand square feet. As indicated, staff recommends that
parking be provided at a ratio of 2.9 spaces per thousand
square feet.
6) The number of days notice that the Developer must give the
city before applying for the permit to build the parking
facility for Phase II has been increased from 60 to 120. See
Section 3(e), paragraph (iil).
7) Pursuant to the Commission'S request, Section 3 (e),
paragraph (v) requires Planning Commission review and
recommendation to Council regarding the aspects of Phase II
parking addressed in Section 3 (e) of the Agreement.
8) The Commission requested that the language in Section J(f)
be revised to state clearly that the project be landscaped in
- 35 -
a park-like manner.
accordingly.
The language has been re-vised
9) seetion 3 (9) and (h) have been modifie~ to specify an
exact range of setbacks for each building as well as minimum
setbacks between buildings.
lO) At the Commission's request, the Agreement has been
revised to require that the Child Care facility be included
in Phase I rather than Phase II of the project. See Section
6 Cb) .
11) The Commission asked that the General Services Division
review the water conservation goals contained in Section
6(f), paragraphs (ii) and (v).
12) Section 6{h) (i),
require that adequate
parking of bicycles.
paragraph (f) has been modified to
facilities be provided for secure
13) Section 6{h) has been revised to state explicitly that
vans and employee shuttles will be part of a TDM program.
See Section 6(h} (i), paragraph (9).
14) The Commission had requested that the TOM goal for the
proj ect be changed from a 20% reduction in vehicle trips
normally associated with a 1.85 F.A.R. to a goal that equals
the number of vehicle trips normally associated with a
project of a 1.5 F.A.R.
As discussed above, staff is
recommending that the 20% standard be maintained, with the
- 36 -
added provision of a $200,000 penalty clause. See Section
6{h), paragraph (ii).
15) section 6 (h), paragraph (iii) has b~Em modified to
authorize the city to request and inspect any supporting
documents which may be used in the preparation of the
developer's report to the City regarding the perfo~ance of
the TDM program.
16) The Commission requested that the Agreement explicitly
state the the developer must require each lessee to cooperate
and participate in the TDM Program. See revised language in
section 6(h), paragraph (v).
17) section 6(m) dealing with preferential parking has been
modified so that the boundaries of the a preferential parking
district will be left to the discretion of the city.
18) Section 8 (a) of the Development Agreement allows the
Developer to adjust certain parameters of the project, such
as square footage of restaurant space, by a small percentage
without amending the Development Agreement. The C011Ul\ission
expressed concern that if allowable square footages of
certain uses changed, then the parking requirements for the
project should be adjusted accordingly. Staff has reviewed
this issue and concluded that the changes in square footage
would not be significant enough to warrant adjustments to the
parking requirements.
- 37 -
19) The Commission requested revision of the language in
section 12(e) paragraph (iii) to make clearer the distinction
between "existing" and "new" development. The section has
been revised accordingly.
20) The commission expressed concern that the condi tions
originally stipulated in Exhibit D, paragraph 20 regarding an
on-site sewage treatment system could impede the timely
installation of such a system. Among these conditions were
requirements that there be no federal, state, or local laws
which would required licensing of such a system, that the
system be capable of being safely and conveniently located on
the property, and that it be economically and technologically
viable and efficient. All these conditions have been removed
from the Agreement.
21) Paragraph #22 of Exhibit D has been revised to require
that, in siting a bus shelter along Olympic Boulevard, the
City and the developer consider pollution levels adjacent to
the project.
22) The Commission has asked staff to prepare a summary of
the mitigation measures contained in the Environmental
Impact Report that were not included in the Development
Agreement, and the reasons for the exclusions. This summary
is contained in Attachment D to this report. Staff has
reviewed all of these measures.
- 38 -
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT
Based on the Project Mitigation prog-ram (Ordinance 1367), for
1,169,192 square feet of office space, 75,000 'square feet of
medical office space, and 30,000 square feet of banks and savings
and loans space, the snyder Company would pay a housing/parks
in-lieu fee of not less than $7,215,869. In addition, annual tax
revenue to the city would amount to over $1 million. Somewhat
lower revenues would be realized from the 1.7 FAR project
recommended by staff.
The Development Agreement also provides for a one-time payment to
the City of $6,586,500 in traffic improvement fees. This fee
would also be lower for a 1. 7 FAR project. Moreover, the
agreement provides that the developer will participate in a
potential assessment district in the project area for street and
other traffic improvements.
The Agreement also provides for a one-time payment of $300,000 to
be used for transitional and/or emergency housing facilities and
services for the homeless, and a sum of $150,000 to be used for
off-site public art.
The Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District would also
realize fee income from this project under its Developer Fee
program which was recently enacted. The District would receive
fee revenues of over $340,000 from the project from its $0.25/sq.
ft. charge on new commercial or industrial development. This fee
would be reduced with a 1.7 FAR project.
- 39 -
RECOMMENDATION
staff respectfully recommends that the city Council: 1) adopt
the resolution set forth in Attachment G certifying the
Environmental Impact Report on the proposed Development Agreement
between the city and the J. H. Snyder C01npany, and 2) approve the
Development Agreement between the City of Santa Monica and J.H.
snyder C01npany II with the revised 1.7 FAR, substituting the
sections set forth in Attachment E for those set forth in the
proposed Agreement, and with the findings specified below.
Findings
I. MUNICIPAL CODE: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS
1. The proposed Development Agreement is consistent with the
objectives, policies, general land uses and programs
specified in the General Plan. The project is consistent
with the City's adopted General Plan; no specific plans are
applicable to the project area.
A. LAND USE ELEMENT
The proposed Water Garden project complies with the
standards of the Land Use Element. permitted uses in the
Special Office District include large scale office and
related uses. specifically, the proposed Development
Agreement is consistent with Land Use Element Objective l.8
and its related policies to ,. . . . provide opportunity for
office and advanced technology uses requiring large floor
areas. II The proj ect conforms to the development standards
- 40 -
set forth in Policy 1.8.7 by limiting height to a maximum of
six stories and 84 feet, by limiting floor area to less than
the maximum specified in the POlicy, by providing for
appropriate setbacks, pedestrian features, open space,
parking, and by ensuring that utility systems and roadways
are adequate to serve the project, and by providing in-lieu
fee payments for parks and housing mitigation, as further
described in the findings below.
The proposed project also conforms to Land Use Element
Objectives 3.1, 3.3 and 3.4, and Policies 3.3.15, 3.3.16 and
3.4.9 by providing ample open space and open space
amenities, substantial space between buildings, building
setbacks ranging from 20 to 133 feet, all-subterranean
parking, and substantial view corridors through the project
site from the street.
B. CIRCULATION ELEMENT
The proposed project conforms to the objectives and policies
of the Circulation Element. In particular, the development
is consistent with Objective 4.2 and Policy 4.2.3 in that
the developer has agreed to absorb the cost of preferential
parking program as well as provide ample improvements to
major roadways so as to minimize incursion into residential
neighborhoods; it is consistent with Objective 4.3 and
Policy 4.3.1 in that it provides for widening Cloverfield on
the easterly side to add one new lane northbound, restriping
the westbound approach on Colorado Avenue to Cloverfield
- 41 -
Boulevard to provide for two dedicated left turn l-anes,
constructing dual left turn lanes for northbound traffic on
cloverfield Boulevard at Colorado Avenue, constructing a
dedicated right turn lane on westbound OlympIc Boulevard at
Cloverfield Boulevard, constructing a dedicated dual left
turn lane on southbound 26th street at Olympic Boulevard,
constructing a dedicated right turn lane on southbound 26th
street at Colorado Avenue, constructing a dedicated right
turn lane on northbound Cloverfield Boulevard at Colorado
Avenue, participating in modernizing the traffic signal
standards, conduits, signal heads and controllers for the
intersections of Cloverfield Boulevard with colorado Avenue
and Olympic Boulevard, restriping the centlnela Avenue
approach to Colorado Avenue in order to provide a
through-right turn only lane and a left turn lane in both
directions, and restriping the northbound approach to the
intersection of Wilshire and 20th street to provide two
through-lanes instead of one right-only and one
through-lane. These improvements will facilitate traffic
flow to a greater extent than would otherwise occur without
such improvements. The proposed Development Agreement
contains a traffic and vehicle emission abatement plan which
is' consistent with Objectives 4.5, 4.6 and 4.7. This plan
will call for the implementation of such measures as
flexible work time, ride-sharing, and bicYCle parking in
order to reduce demand for parking.
- 42 -
c. HOUSING ELEMENT
~though the proposed development is not a residential
project, it is consistent with the goals and ,policies of the
city's Housing Element to " . maintain and increase the
supply of housing affordable to low- and moderate-income
persons. ., 'rhis will be accomplished through a Housing and
Parks Mitigation Program (Ordinance 1367) in-lieu fee
payment in excess of $3.5 million, and a somewhat lower fee
if the 1.7 FAR recommendation is approved.
D. OPEN SPACE ELEMENT
The proposed Development Agreement is consistent with the
City I s 1973 Open space Element. The proposal includes an
in-lieu housing and parks fee required by the Project
Mitigation Program (Ordinance 1367) as well as 9.8 acres of
on-site open space, which represents over 55% of the total
land area.
E. CONSERVATION ELEMENT
The proposed Water Garden project is in conformity with the
policies of the 1975 Conservation Element including the use
of energy efficient insulation and lighting, solar heating,
water conservation techniques and planting street trees.
- 43 -
F. NOISE ELEMENT
The proposed proj ect is in agreement with the goals and
,
objectives of the Noise Element to identify and control
noise levels in the city. The proposed Development Agree-
ment specifies that the developer will properly muffle all
construction equipment, limit construction hours, and erect
noise barriers along Olympic Boulevard to reduce noise
impact from traffic generated by cumulative projects.
G. SCENIC CORRIDORS ELEMENT
The proposed Water Garden project is consistent with the
1975 Scenic Corridors Element's goal to protect and enhance
the scenic resources of the Ci ty. Al though the proposed
development is not located on or near the seven identified
scenic corridors in the City, the proposed Development
Agreement does provide for street tree planting along all
four streets abutting the project site. Project landscaping
will include extensive tree plantings as well.
H. SEISMIC SAFETY ELEMENT
The proposed project is consistent with the principles of
the City'S seismic Safety Element. Although the project is
si ted on top of the South Branch Santa Monica faul t, the
fault is considered inactive and buildings are situated at
minimum distances of 50 feet from the fault.
- 44 -
I. PUBLIC SAFETY ELEMENT
The proposed Water Garden project is consistent with the
pOlicies and programs of the City's Public Safety Element to
lower the risk factors of fire and geologic hazard to a safe
level. The proposed development will comply with the City's
fire and building codes in order to provide for the
community's physical safety.
2. The proposed land uses outlined in the Development Agreement
are compatible with the uses authorized in the M2 district
in which the real property is located. The list of uses
permitted in the Development Agreement was designed to
include those which were mutually compatible in physical and
use characteristics. It is important to note that the
current M2 zoning of the site is planned to be changed to
C5, Special Office District. The uses allowed in the
Special Office District are compatible with uses of the
proposed proj ect. The proj ect proposal is also compatible
with uses authorized under the Special Office District
development standards of the Land Use Element.
3. The proposed Development Agreement is in conformity with the
public necessity, public convenience, general welfare and
good land use practices. With a 1.85 FAR, the proposed
project will create approximately 5,200 jobs in the retail,
restaurant, office, health club, banking, and child care
categories and would produce significant net revenues to the
- 45 -
City, benefiting the general welfare: a lower number o~ jobs
would be created with a 1.7 FAR project.
The proposed Development Agreement is in conformance wi th
good land use practices. The project concept is consistent
with the land use standards for the Special Office District.
The specific design features of the project also conform to
the Special Office District standards.
4. The proposed Development Agreement will not be significantly
detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare. Like
any development project, this proposal will produce both
adverse and positive effects on health, safety and the
general welfare, as shown in the EIR. The project will
result in an increase in traffic volumes and will have an
adverse impact on local air quality, but mitigation measures
will adequately address those impacts. On balance, the
beneficial aspects of the project, including employment
opportunities, open space areas and visual improvements to
the site, outweigh the incrementally adverse effects.
5. The proposed Development Agreement will not adversely affect
the orderly development of the property. Redevelopment of
the site as proposed is a logical and orderly use of the
site and an improvement from the current use, which consists
primarily of under utilized industrial, office, and parking
space. The basic project concept is consistent with the
overall direction of the city's land use policies and would
also meet objectives of the applicant.
- 46 -
6. The proposed Development Agreement will have a pori ti va
fiscal impact on the city: staff calculations indicate
annual net revenues in excess of $1/212,000 in addition to
one-time revenues of about $13.9 million for a 1.85 FAR
project~ somewhat lower revenues would be realized from a
1.7 FAR project.
7. The proposed Water Garden project is designed to relate
harmoniously with surrounding sites and neighborhood. The
project includes considerable building articulation as well
as extensive landscaping. Surrounding uses include the
3-story Colorado Place Phase III project on the north, 2-
and 3-story offices, and Gillette/Papermate factory on the
east, l-story industrial storage yards on the south, and the
1-story GTE manufacturing buildings on the west. The
proposed project is co~patible with the surrounding uses in
terms of scale and type of use.
8. The Development Agreement requires the developer to provide
sufficient circulation improvements to meet the anticipated
results of the proposed development, including adequate
parking facilities. Exhibit D of the Development Agreement
lists specific improvements to be undertaken by the
developer to mitigate adverse impacts on auto and pedestrian
circulation. An analysis of Levels of service at modeled
intersections after mitigation indicates that impacts are
adequately mitigated. In addition, the Development
Agreement includes a traffic improvement fee of $6,586,500
to assist in financing the costs of implementing a city-wide
- 47 -
traffic systems management ordinance, the costs of specific
traffic improvements, and the cost of acquiring land for
improvements.
9. The project will be adequately supplied with the public
and/or private health and safety facilities to accommodate
anticipated demand. City Police and Fire Departments have
indicated that they will be able to service the project, as
have the electrical and gas companies that will service the
project. To mitigate the potential adverse effect of
increased solid wastewater from the project, the project may
be required to construct an on-site sewage treatment
facility that meets with the approval of the General
Services Division.
10. The proposed project adequately mitigates the significant
environmental impacts upon traffic and air quality
identified in the Final Environmental Impact Report. The
development agreement requires that the developer provide
specific improvements as well as a traffic and emission
abatement plan to mitigate the project's impacts on traffic
and air quality. The mitigation measures do not--and are
not intended--to address the adverse impacts that may occur
on Levels of Service at intersections and the associated
adverse impact on air quality that will result from the
cumulative impact of other projects included in the
modeling.
- 48 -
~l. The proposed Water Garden project provides adequate
mitigation measures to meet the Project Mitigation Measures
of the Land Use and Circulation Element of the General Plan.
,
This includes in-lieu fee payment to the city calculated at
$2.25 per square foot for the first 15,000 square feet of
Net Rentable Floor Area of medical or off ice space, pI us
$5.00 per square foot of the remaining Net Rentable Floor
Area of any medical and commercial office space in excess of
15,000 square feet.
These per square foot figures are
adjusted from the October 23, 1984 base by intervening
change in the Consumer Price Index for the Los Angeles/Long
Beach Metropolitan Area.
12. The city of Santa Monica may face city-wide sewage treatment
capacity constraints related to the Hyperion treatment plant
and
the
related
sewage
transport
and
treatment
infrastructure. In response to such concerns, Exhibit 0 to
the Development Agreement contains a sewage reduction
provision which would significantly reduce wastewater flow
from the proj ect,
substantially mitigating potential
wastewater impacts of the proj ect. Section 6 (f) of the
Development Agreement also requires a variety of water
conservation measures of the project. In addition, section
7 of the Agreement specifically states that nothing in the
Agreelllent requires the city of santa Monica to issue a
building permit for the project in the event of any valid
building moratorium resulting from a lack of sewage
- 49 -
treatment capacity.
The City Council is approving-- the
Development Agreement in the context of these requirements.
Attachments:
Prepared By:
DKW:JWR:jr
w/wg3
01/21/88
A -
B -
C
o -
E -
F
G -
,
Proposed Development Agreement
Supplemental Parking Analyses
summary of mitigation and improvement
fees associated with 1.7 FAR
Summary of Mitigation measures not
included in Development Agreement
Substitute Development Agreement Sections
for 1.7 FAR project
Revised Traffic Analysis for 1.85 FAR
project
Resolution Certifying the Final EIR on the
proposed Water Garden Development Agreement
D. Kenyon Webster, Senior Planner
John Read, Associate Planner
- 50 -