SR-410-011 (2)PCD:AA:f:\plan\admin\civctr\rand\cc\RANDDA.doc Santa Monica, California
City Council Meeting: September 19, 2000
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: City Staff
SUBJECT: Ordinance Approving Development Agreement 00-001; Certification of
Final Environmental Impact Report 00-002 and Adoption of a Statement of
Overriding Considerations; Amendment 00-001 to the Civic Center
Specific Plan: Amendment 00-001 to the Land Use and Circulation
Element. Applicant: The RAND Corporation
INTRODUCTION
Proposed is a Development Agreement to allow construction of a new RAND Corporate
Headquarters facility and demolition of the existing RAND facilities. In order to approve
the Development Agreement as proposed by the RAND Corporation, the following
actions are required:
1. Adopt a resolution certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report evaluating the
environmental effects of the proposed project and adopt a Statement of Overriding
Considerations.
2. Adopt a resolution amending the Civic Center Specific Plan (CCSP)
3. Adopt a resolution amending the Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE).
4. Introduce for first reading an ordinance adopting the proposed Development
Agreement, which includes the project plans, building colors, materials and design.
BACKGROUND
On November 23, 1993, the City Council approved the Civic Center Specific Plan
following several years of planning and public participation. The following year, the
1
approval of the Civic Center Specific Plan was upheld by the voters of Santa Monica.
The Civic Center Specific Plan sets forth a vision for the Civic Center area as a
pedestrian-oriented, mixed-use center whose central spine, Main Street, is redesigned
to become a focal point for surrounding uses integrated within a variety of open spaces.
The Civic Center Specific Plan extends the landscape qualities of Palisades Park into
the Civic area, and enhances pedestrian use of the area by creating new streets, public
access easements, passages and courtyards. The Specific Plan includes requirements
to ensure that new development in the Civic Center is conducive to the pedestrian-
oriented vision for the area.
In October 1999, the Santa Monica Redevelopment Agency approved the purchase of
11.3 acres of the existing 15-acre RAND holdings in the Civic Center, and on
April 11, 2000, the Agency acquired the site. On November 23, 1999, RAND submitted
an application for a Development Agreement for a new corporate headquarters facility
to be built on the 3.68-acre parcel retained by RAND.
As part of the RAND property purchase, the Santa Monica Redevelopment Agency and
RAND Corporation entered into an Owner Participation Agreement (OPA) setting forth
limitations and conditions related to the RAND parcel and remaining 11.3 acres. One
notable provision of the OPA provides that in the event RAND obtains entitlements for
any construction on their property, and in the event RAND provides evidence
satisfactory to the Redevelopment Agency that RAND has expended more than $1.7
million in payments to the City and to third parties mutually agreed to by the
2
Redevelopment Agency and RAND to receive payments for permits, fees (including
costs for the environmental impact report), exactions (including RAND's direct
contribution for child care), off-site improvements and/or mitigations (including direct
design and engineering work required for specific improvements), to satisfy the
conditions of approval imposed by the City upon such entitlements, then the
Redevelopment Agency shall contribute the amount, in excess of the $1.7 million, equal
to either the actual and reasonable out of pocket costs to RAND for remediating and
disposing of hazardous materials and demolishing RAND's existing facilities on the
City's parcel, or $2.3 million, whichever is lower.
In the event that the Development Agreement includes mitigation measures, conditions
of approval or off-site improvements in excess of $1.7 million, this provision of the OPA
obligates the Redevelopment Agency to pay the additional costs up to $2.3 million.
This Development Agreement represents a critical land-use decision with long-term
implications for the Civic Center area. RAND has been a part of the Santa Monica
community since 1946 and has operated as a private, non-profit corporation at its
current location in the Civic Center since 1953. For the last several years, RAND has
explored opportunities to develop a new headquarters facility in order to improve its
employees' work environment, upgrade its technological infrastructure, provide greater
flexibility of workspace configurations, and improve the quality and functionality of
shared facilities. The Development Agreement provides an opportunity for RAND to
meet these objectives and remain in the Santa Monica community, while ensuring that
3
the new headquarters facility integrates appropriately into the current and future
development of the Civic Center area.
On August 23 and 24, 2000, the Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding
the proposed development agreement and associated plan amendments. The Planning
Commission's recommendations on these items are included in this staff report. The
staff report provides a description of the proposed project, background information, staff
analysis and recommendations and Planning Commission recommendations on the
proposed General Plan and Specific Plan Amendments and the Development
Agreement associated with the project, and background information regarding the
environmental analysis of the project.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project site is an irregularly shaped, 3.68-acre parcel in the 1700 block of Main
Street that currently serves as the location of the RAND south parking lot. Surrounding
uses consist of the existing RAND office facilities to the north, the Santa Monica
Courthouse and Civic Auditorium across Main Street to the east, the Pacific Shores
Hotel to the south, and existing RAND parking lots and construction site of the Maguire
Partners office building to the west. The site is located within the Oceanfront Land Use
Element District, the Civic Center Specific Plan area, and the Civic Center Zoning
District.
4
The proposed project consists of a Development Agreement and amendments to the
CCSP and Land Use and Circulation Element. The Development Agreement includes:
• Approval of all elements of the project including building design and project plans;
• Height, floor area, parking, and all other development standards;
• Identification of mitigation measures and conditions of approval; and
• Review of project materials and colors.
The proposed project is accompanied by a series of amendments to the CCSP that are
necessary to approve the project as proposed. These amendments are associated with
the proposed new location of the project on Main Street, rather than on the Ocean
Avenue location as currently identified in the CCSP, and with the design and use of the
building as proposed by RAND.
The project consists of demolition of the 295,000 square feet of existing RAND facilities
and construction of 308,869 square feet of new corporate office facilities in a single, six-
story building. The facility would include research and policy development office space,
an employee cafeteria, corporate libraries, a graduate school, and meeting and
conference rooms.
The project would include three and one-half or four levels of subterranean parking to
accommodate 825 or 1030 parking spaces. A drop-off vehicle zone is proposed
adjacent to the entry of the facility, with entry and exit on Main Street. Access to the
subterranean parking facility is proposed from Main Street for visitors and employees
5
and for employees on Vicente Terrace, a new street proposed to be constructed by
RAND between Main Street and Ocean Avenue in accordance with the CCSP. A truck
loading dock is proposed with access from the First Court Alley.
The proposed development agreement includes land dedication for the eventual
construction of the Main Street Circle, which is identified as a future public improvement
in the CCSP, and an interim plan for landscape treatment of this area until the Main
Street Circle is developed.
The proposed RAND Headquarters Building would be an elliptical modern building
faced predominantly with glass, with supporting aluminum and plaster panels and
columns. Proposed building height is 72 feet above average natural grade with
parapets extending to 75 feet 6 inches, and mechanical enclosures extending to 86 feet.
As proposed by the applicant, the Development Agreement would vest the development
rights for seven years. RAND would have three years to obtain a building permit, and
then four years to complete construction of the project, with extensions granted by the
Planning Director under certain situations.
The applicant has also requested a broadening of the types of institutional office uses
that are permitted at the site. Allowing this broadening of uses will require an
amendment to the LUCE, which limits office uses in the Oceanfront Land Use District.
6
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS
In order to approve the Development Agreement, the City Council must find that the
Development Agreement is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific
plan. The project as proposed by the applicant is inconsistent with a number of policies
in the CCSP and one policy in the LUCE. Therefore, in order to approve the project, the
CCSP and LUCE must be amended or the project must be revised to comply with these
policy documents. The following outlines the project inconsistencies, staff
recommendations, and Planning Commission recommendations.
LAND USE AND CIRCULATION ELEMENT
RAND has proposed that the Development Agreement modify the uses permitted on the
site. Since the Planning Commission hearing, RAND has changed their request with
respect to this matter. RAND is now requesting to expand the types of institutional
office uses permitted on the site to include multi-tenant administrative, research,
analysis, educational, philanthropic or charitable uses that are comparable to RAND in
terms of traffic and parking impacts. The LUCE contains Policy 1.5.6, which reserves
the area for RAND, but otherwise limits the amount of office use on the site. The CCSP
further defines the amount of office use permitted on the site. The Civic Center Specific
Plan permits up to 250,000 square feet of office uses within mixed-use buildings, as well
as up to 500,000 square feet for a single-tenant institutional research and development
use, in the Oceanfront Land Use District. Expanding the definition of institutional use to
include multi-tenant institutional-type office uses would increase the amount of
permitted non-RAND office uses in the Oceanfront Land Use District to 558,869 square
7
feet (308,869 square foot new building plus 250,000 square feet of additional office
uses). Over half a million square feet of office use would clearly exceed the restrictions
of the LUCE policy that allows "possibly some office uses" in this area. To expand the
definition of institutional use would require the site to be designated for a variety of
institutional office uses and would require amendment of the LUCE.
Proposed Amendment:
Oceanfront District Policy 1.5.6
Reserve the Rand area and adjacent parcels bounded by Main Street, Pico, Ocean
Avenue and the Freeway predominantly for visitor-serving uses, including hotel
accommodations, commercial recreational, cultural and public recreational facilities, and
n^~~;h'„ ~^m° offices uses. Maximum allowable development intensity shall be up to
3.0 FAR, 4 stories (56') with the specific intensity to be determined after the Oceanfront
and Civic Center Specific Plan is prepared and adopted. Allowable height may be
permitted up to 6 stories (84') if it is determined by the Specific Plan to be compatible
with the goals and objectives of the Land Use and Circulation Elements. Allowable
height shall be governed by urban design principles which consider, among other
issues, public view corridors and usable open spaces.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff does not support this amendment. RAND's request to expand the definition of
institutional use is based on their desire for future flexibility in the event they need to
downsize their use of the building or leave the building altogether. With the existing
land use restrictions, RAND is concerned that they would be unable to find another
single-tenant institutional user for the facility. However, this type of restriction is not
uncommon for specific plan projects or projects located in other zoning districts. For
example, office uses are restricted in the Light Manufacturing Studio District (LMSD).
8
Zoning and Land Use restrictions are created specifically to restrict future use of a
property so the property remains consistent with the City's land use goals.
Should RAND need to reorganize or move, the City could consider an amendment to
the Development Agreement. At that time there would be more specificity about the
proposed use, environmental impacts and mitigations can be assessed, and the use
can be evaluated in light of the planning goals for the Civic Center. Staff does not
support allowing an expansion of the definition of institutional use.
Planning Commission Recommendation:
The Planning Commission agreed with staff and recommended that the amendment to
the LUCE be denied.
CIVIC CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN
Approval of the project as proposed will require a series of amendments to the CCSP.
These amendments are of two types. One set of amendments is associated with the
proposed location of the project on Main Street, rather than on the Ocean Avenue
location identified in the CCSP. The CCSP amendments shift the existing "mixed-use"
designation from Main Street to Ocean Avenue while shifting the existing "institutional"
designation from Ocean Avenue to Main Street. Shifting these land uses will result in
further changes to the CCSP. For example, polices related to vehicle and pedestrian
circulation must change, and polices related to open space and the village green south
of the Olympic Drive extension must be changed. These amendments do not alter the
9
types or densities of uses permitted by the CCSP, but simply exchange the locations of
some of the uses, while providing brief updates to reflect the Redevelopment Agency's
recent land purchase. Attachment D identifies all of the CCSP text amendments to be
considered in concert with the proposed Development Agreement. The amendments
associated with shifting the location of certain uses and updating specific information is
highlighted in Attachment D in black strike-out and underline and discussed below as
Amendment Policy Areas One and Two.
The second set of CCSP amendments are associated with the design and uses that
RAND has proposed for their project. These amendments involve critical issues related
to the overall intent and policies of the CCSP, including a reduction in the size of the
Main Street Circle; an expansion of the definition of institutional use on the site to
include multi-tenant administrative, research, analysis, educational, philanthropic, or
charitable uses; and a deletion of the requirement for two pedestrian corridors through
the project site with an internal courtyard which is open to the public. Attachment D
identifies all of the CCSP text amendments to be considered in concert with the
proposed Development Agreement. The amendments associated with RAND's
proposed design and permitted uses are highlighted in Attachment D in red strike-out
and underline and discussed below as Amendment Policy Areas Three through Nine.
In the Planning Commission's deliberations regarding the proposed amendments to the
Civic Center Specific Plan, several Commissioners expressed concerns regarding
amending the Plan. Recognizing that the CCSP was adopted following several years of
10
planning and public participation, some of the Commissioners urged the Council to be
judicious in its willingness to amend the Plan to accommodate the needs of a private
entity. Several Commissioners noted that RAND played a critical role in the
development of the CCSP and expressed concern over RAND's proposal for a project
that requires amendment of the Plan.
CCSP Amendment Policv Area 1: Adiustinq Locations of Permitted Uses
The CCSP designates a 3.6-acre parcel on Ocean Avenue, south of the Santa Monica
Freeway and north of the future Olympic Drive, for Institutional Use. Attachment E
shows the existing CCSP Land-Use Diagram. RAND has proposed to build their
corporate headquarters on the 3.68-acre parcel on Main Street that was retained
following the sale of the remainder of the property to the Redevelopment Agency. To
accommodate this change in location, several discrete amendments are necessary to
designate the parcel on Main Street for institutional use while designating the Ocean
Avenue parcel for mixed-use. These amendments switch the use-specific standards
between the two sites while keeping the geographically specific standards in place. In
addition, the configuration of the Village Green open space is proposed to be adjusted
to reflect the location of RAND's retained parcel. These amendments reflect the
complete demolition of the existing RAND complex, including the "Z" building on Ocean
Avenue. Attachment F shows the proposed amendment to the CCSP Land-Use
Diagram. These amendments shift the locations of the certain uses within the CCSP,
but keep the total permitted development intensities intact.
11
Proposed Amendments - Policy Area 1:
• Revise the Land Use Diagram to assign "Institutional" use to Parcel 2A, "Mixed Use
Residential Emphasis" to Parcels 1 and 2B, and to reconfigure the open space area
between Parcels 2 and 3(see Attachment E, existing CCSP Land Use Diagram, and
Attachment F, proposed amended CCSP Land Use Diagram.)
• Revise the Land Use Program table to limit "Institutional" use to 310,000 square feet
on Parcel 2A and include Parcels 1 and 2B as "Mixed Use" (see Attachment G,
existing CCSP Land Use Program Table, and Attachment H, proposed amended
CCSP Land Use Program Table.)
• Revise the Open Space Plan to adjust the configuration of and rename the Village
Open Space (see Attachment I, existing CCSP Open Space Plan, and Attachment J,
proposed amended CCSP Open Space Plan.)
• Revise the Parcel 2- Property Development Standards Diagram and Parcel 3-
Property Development Standards to reflect the split of Parcel 2 into Parcels 2A and
2B and the reconfiguration of the Village Open Space (see Attachment K, existing
CCSP Parcels 2 and 3- Property Development Standards, and Attachment L,
proposed amended CCSP Parcel 2 and 3- Property Development Standards.)
Revise the base maps for Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation, Vehicular Circulation,
and Transit to reflect the split of Parcel 2 into Parcels 2A and 2B, the elimination of
the Village Streets, and the reconfiguration of the Village Open Space (see
Attachment M, existing CCSP Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation Diagram,
Attachment N, proposed amended CCSP Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation
Diagram, Attachment O, existing CCSP Vehicular Circulation Diagram, Attachment
P, proposed amended CCSP Vehicular Circulation Diagram, Attachment Q, existing
CCSP Transit Diagram, and Attachment R, proposed amended CCSP Transit
Diagram.)
Revise the CCSP text as highlighted in black strike-out and underline in Attachment
D, CCSP Proposed Text Amendments, and as summarized below:
o Page 2, paragraph 3: eliminate reference to potential of retaining the RAND
"Z" building.
o Page 7, last bullet: modify reference to reflect that mixed-use residential uses
would be adjacent to the City Hall Square.
o Page 11, opening paragraph and items 4 and 5: modify references to reflect
that the new RAND development would no longer be adjacent to the Arroyo.
o Pages 13 - 14, title, opening paragraph, items 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 8: modify
Village Green from a linear green with traffic circulation to a triangular Village
Open Space area without traffic circulation.
o Pages 19 - 23: rename the Institutional use designation as Parcel 2A, limit
the Institutional use to 310,000 square feet as approved by a development
agreement, clarify that trip generation rates are maximum peak hour counts,
12
move Ocean Avenue setback, build-to line and easement requirements and
building height and stepback requirements to Parcel 1, bring Main Street
setback, build-to line and easement requirements and building height and
stepback requirements from Parcel 1, modify building material requirements
to require high quality materials adjacent to Main Street.
o Pages 23 through 29: modify the "Mixed Use" designation to include parcels 1
and 2B, modify references to reflect the Village Open Space and First Court,
move Main Street easement requirements and building height and stepback
requirements to Parcel 2, bring Ocean Avenue setback, build-to line and
easement requirements, building height and stepback requirements, and
ground-level treatment requirements from Parcel 2.
o Page 32, first and third bullets: modify Village Streets to eliminate vehicular
access and only permit pedestrians.
o Page 52, third paragraph: modify development review language to
acknowledge that proposed project is subject to a development agreement.
o Page 53, public improvements table: modify to acknowledge that RAND
project will be responsible for construction of Vicente Terrace, land dedication
for Main Street Circle, and demolition of existing RAND building
Staff Recommendation - Policy Area 1:
Staff supports these amendments as consistent with the intent of the CCSP. These
amendments enable RAND to build a new headquarters facility on their retained parcel
without increasing the total amount or type of permitted development or decreasing the
total amount of public open space in the Civic Center area.
Planning Commission Recommendation - Policy Area 1:
The Planning Commission recommended approval of these amendments to the Civic
Center Specific Plan.
CCSP Amendment Policv Area 2: Updatinq Critical Text References
These amendments update the CCSP in critical areas to reflect recent events related to
the Specific Plan. These amendments include updating land ownership references to
13
reflect the Redevelopment Agency's recent purchase of the majority of the RAND
properties and to keep the revised CCSP consistent with the other elements of the
General Plan.
Proposed Amendments - Policy Area 2:
• Page 2, paragraph 1: update information regarding amount of land in public and
private ownership.
• Page 49, first bullet: revise language regarding land dedications and public
improvements to reflect the Redevelopment Agency's land ownership.
• Page 49, fourth bullet: revise language to reflect that open space improvements will
not be implemented by a single developer.
• Page 49, fifth bullet: revise language to reflect that public access easements may be
through public or private land.
• Page 50, fourth bullet; page 54, financing program; pages 58 through 60, financing
action plan: delete language regarding financing district to reflect public ownership of
most of Civic Center land.
• Pages 65 and 67: revise language to reflect update to Housing Element and
adoption of Safety and Noise Elements.
Staff Recommendation - Policy Area 2:
Staff supports these amendments as consistent with the intent of the CCSP. These
amendments update the CCSP to acknowledge key land-use events that have occurred
since the plan's adoption. These amendments are necessary to ensure that the
proposed project is consistent with the CCSP and that the amended CCSP is consistent
with the elements of the General Plan.
Planning Commission Recommendation - Policy Area 2:
The Planning Commission recommended approval of these amendments.
14
CCSP Amendment Policv Area 3- Main Street and Main Street Circle
The proposed design of the project precludes full development of the Main Street Circle
as currently identified in the CCSP. The existing CCSP includes a Main Street Circle
with a 95-foot radius from the center of the Circle to the interior curb of Main Street,
which provides 0.6 acres of public open space. RAND's proposed design would
accommodate a Circle with a 65-foot radius, which provides 0.3 acres of public open
space. The existing CCSP street section for Main Street and the Main Street Circle
include a 10-foot landscaped parkway adjacent to Main Street and a 5-foot public
sidewalk, a total of 15 feet between Main Street and the building's landscaped setbacks.
RAND's proposed design would accommodate 14 feet between Main Street and the
building's landscaped setbacks for most of the property adjacent to Main Street, with 14
feet between Main Street and the building columns adjacent to the Main Street Circle.
Adjacent to the Main Street Circle, the design also includes a 42-inch overhang of the
building's vertical elements over the public sidewalk.
Proposed Amendments - Policy Area 3:
Revise the Main Street Circle Typical Section to reduce the radius of Main Street
Circle open space from 95 feet to 65 feet, increase the width of the auto lane from
15 feet to 20 feet to reflect the decreased efficiency of the smaller circle, reduce the
width of the landscaped parkway from 10 feet to 6 feet, reduce the private land
dedication from 5 feet to 3 feet, and increase the width of the public sidewalk from 5
feet to 8 feet (see Attachment S, existing CCSP Main Street Circle Typical Section,
and Attachment T, proposed amended CCSP Main Street Circle Typical Section).
Revise the Main Street Typical Section to reduce the width of the landscaped
parkway from 10 feet to 6 feet, reduce the size of the landscaped median from 20
feet to 18 feet, reduce the private land dedication from 5 feet to 3 feet, and increase
the width of the public sidewalk from 5 feet to 8 feet (see Attachment U, existing
CCSP Main Street Typical Section, and Attachment V, proposed amended CCSP
Main Street Typical Section).
15
• Revise the CCSP text as highlighted in red strike-out and underline in Attachment D,
CCSP Proposed Text Amendments, on Page 10, item 1 and Page 63, item 4, to
reduce the size of the Main Street Circle open space from 0.6 acres to 0.3 acres.
Staff Recommendation - Policy Area 3:
Staff supports the reduction in the size of the Main Street Circle. Staff believes that the
65-foot radius Main Street Circle is the minimum dimension that would meet the intent
of the CCSP to create a public-oriented connection between Civic Center Drive and the
northern and southern legs of Main Street. A circle of any smaller size would operate in
a manner similar to a traffic roundabout, rather than as a vital open space that is
surrounded by one-way vehicle lanes.
Staff supports the widening of the sidewalks on Main Street from five feet, as specified
in the existing CCSP, to eight feet in order to allow more space for pedestrian
movement. However, in order to accomplish this within the 80-foot right of way and
reduce the private land dedication from five feet to three feet, the size of the landscape
medians and landscaped parkways must be reduced slightly. Staff believes the
proposed Main Street sections provide the minimum acceptable widths for the
landscaped medians and parkways. The full 20-foot landscaped median and 10-foot
landscaped parkways prescribed by the CCSP are preferred for maximum tree size and
green space. However, this would require an eight-foot dedication of private land,
which would reduce the width of the private landscaped setback adjacent to the
proposed project. If the City Council approves the building design as proposed, staff
recommends approval of the proposed amended Main Street section, since providing
16
the widest possible setback between the pedestrian and the mass of the building takes
precedence over the setback between the pedestrian and the street. If the City Council
decides that the building design should be revised to reduce the mass of the building
relative to the pedestrian on the sidewalk, staff recommends that the existing CCSP
parkway and median widths be maintained, with an increased private land dedication to
accommodate eight-foot sidewalks.
Planning Commission Recommendation - Policy Area 3:
The Planning Commission recommended approval of these amendments, though
several Commissioners expressed concern that the amendments would result in a
reduction in future public open space at the Main Street Circle and would set the
standard for smaller median and parkway widths the full length of Main Street.
CCSP Amendment Policv Area 4- Broadeninq of Permitted Uses
The CCSP includes a land use designation for a"single-tenant institutional research
and development use" for the consolidation of the RAND Corporation offices. RAND has
proposed that the Development Agreement expand the types of institutional office uses
that will be permitted on the site to include multi-tenant administrative, research,
analysis, educational, philanthropic or charitable uses that are comparable to RAND in
terms of traffic and parking impacts. To allow this broader institutional office use, the
definition of the Institutional use within the CCSP would have to be modified to include
commercial uses.
17
Proposed Amendments - Policy Area 4:
• Revise the Land Use Diagram to designate Parcel 2A for Institutional uses in
addition to the RAND Corporation Offices (see Attachment E, existing CCSP Land
Use Diagram, and Attachment F, proposed amended CCSP Land Use Diagram.)
Revise the Land Use Program table to designate Parcel 2A as an Institutional and
Commercial District (see Attachment G, existing CCSP Land Use Program Table,
and Attachment H, proposed amended CCSP Land Use Table).
Revise the CCSP text as highlighted in red strike-out and underline in Attachment D,
CCSP Proposed Text Amendments, and as summarized below:
o Page 8, third bullet: include provision for commercial uses on RAND's
property.
o Page 19, opening paragraph, allowable uses: amend to include the
broader array of institutional uses.
o Page 20, second bullet: increase the permitted P.M. peak trip generation
to the standard commercial office rate.
Staff Recommendation - Policy Area 4:
Staff does not support these amendments for the same reasons provided for LUCE
policy 1.5.6.
Planning Commission Recommendation - Policy Area 4:
The Planning Commission recommended that the City Council deny these amendments
to the CCSP. However, the Planning Commission recommended that the permitted use
should be better defined and accommodate RAND's existing functions in the event they
become separate subsidiaries of the RAND Corporation. In response to this
recommendation, staff recommends the allowable use language be modified as follows:
Allowable Uses:
1. This category only allows a single-tenant ~n~+;+, ,+;,,,,~~ rocoornh ~„~
~Jo~iolnr~mon~ ,,~o interdisciplinary research, analysis, education and policy
development institution and its subsidiaries performinq similar functions.
18
CCSP Amendment Policv Area 5- Pedestrian Corridors and Internal Courtvard
The Civic Center Specific Plan includes two pedestrian corridors through the project site
that connect Main Street with the future Village Open Space area. The proposed
project would eliminate both of these pedestrian corridors. The CCSP also requires the
RAND Corporate Offices to include an internal courtyard of 7,000 to 10,000 square feet
that is open to the public during business hours and integrated with the pedestrian
corridors through the site. The proposed project includes a street-level internal
courtyard of approximately 30,000 square feet that appears to be accessible to the
public from Main Street. However, the western entrance is restricted to RAND
employees and escorted visitors only.
Proposed Amendments - Policy Area 5:
• Revise the Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation diagram to eliminate the two
pedestrian circulation corridors through the Parcel 2 area (see Attachment M,
existing CCSP Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation diagram, and Attachment N,
proposed amended CCSP Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation diagram).
Revise the Parcel 2- Property Development Standards diagram to eliminate the
pedestrian easements (see Attachment K, existing CCSP Parcels 2 and 3- Property
Development Standards, and Attachment L, proposed amended CCSP Parcels 2
and 3- Property Development Standards).
Revise the CCSP text as highlighted in red strike-out and underline in Attachment D,
CCSP Proposed Text Amendments, and as summarized below:
o Page 21, items 1 and 2: eliminate the Land Use requirement for the
pedestrian corridors.
o Page 22, On-Site Open Space: eliminate the requirement for an internal
courtyard with publicly accessible pedestrian access points.
o Page 32, bullets three and five: eliminate the Circulation requirement for the
pedestrian corridors.
19
Staff Recommendation - Policy Area 5:
Staff recommends the project be revised to meet the intent of the original polices. One
of the overriding objectives of the CCSP was to increase pedestrian penetrability
through the Civic Center area, including creating multiple pedestrian connections
between Main Street and Ocean Avenue. As proposed, the project creates a farade of
over 700 feet along Main Street that is impenetrable to pedestrians. While the existing
CCSP designates a different site for the RAND Corporate offices, that site also requires
two pedestrian corridors. Staff considers the elimination of the pedestrian corridors to
be in conflict with the intent of the CCSP and does not support this amendment. Either
the project design should be revised to include pedestrian access around the site or the
east and west pedestrian entrances, as well as the interior courtyard, should be
required to remain open to the public during business hours to allow pedestrian access
through the site.
Planning Commission Recommendation - Policy Area 5:
The Planning Commission was unable to approve a motion on this issue and expressed
a variety of viewpoints on pedestrian accessibility through the site. All Commissioners
agreed that a requirement for a pedestrian pathway on the north side of the building
would improve pedestrian access through the site. Some Commissioners felt that
additional public access through the building is critical to meeting the CCSP goal of
pedestrian access. Other Commissioners were persuaded by RAND's arguments
regarding the need for building security and were satisfied with a requirement for a
pedestrian pathway on the north side of the building.
20
CCSP Amendment Policv Area 6- Parkinq Constraints
The CCSP allows RAND to provide a total of 750 parking spaces and requires them to
continue to operate strong transportation demand management programs in order to
keep their parking needs within the 750-space limit. The Municipal Code requirement
for a building of this size is 1030 parking spaces. RAND has proposed two parking
plans. The first plan provides 825 parking spaces in three-and-one-half levels of
subterranean parking. This 825-space number reflects RAND's assessment of their
current parking needs. Parking surveys of the RAND lots conducted by the EIR
consultants showed a peak demand of 781 spaces. The second parking plan provides
1030 parking spaces in four levels of subterranean parking. The applicant states that
they have prepared this plan in the event that the Coastal Commission requires the
project to provide the amount of parking required by the Santa Monica Municipal Code.
Proposed Amendments - Policy Area 6:
Revise the CCSP text as highlighted in red strike-out and underline in Attachment D,
CCSP Proposed Text Amendments, and as summarized below:
o Page 19, allowable uses: delete the requirement for transportation demand
management to limit parking to a maximum of 750 spaces.
o Page 20, off-street parking requirements: increase the 750-space parking limit
to 825 to 1030.
Staff Recommendation - Policy Area 6:
Staff supports the provision of 825 parking spaces, which is less than the 1030 spaces
required by code. Empirical parking counts completed by the EIR consultants
demonstrate that RAND's peak parking demand is 781 spaces. Provision of 825
21
spaces would meet RAND's parking needs without significantly easing the pressure to
maintain aggressive transportation demand management programs to fit their parking
supply. Staff supports the provision of 1030 parking spaces only if the Coastal
Commission requires this amount of parking and the use of the building is limited to a
single-tenant institutional research and development use.
Planning Commission Recommendation - Policy Area 6:
The Planning Commission recommended approval of the 825-space parking plan, and
recommended that the 1030-space plan only be allowed if required by the Coastal
Commission.
CCSP Amendment Policv Area 7- Retail Component
The Civic Center Specific Plan requires the RAND facility to incorporate 5,000 square
feet of neighborhood and visitor-serving commercial uses adjacent to the City Hall
Square. The proposed project does not include any neighborhood or visitor-serving
commercial uses.
Proposed Amendment - Policy Area 7:
Revise the CCSP text as highlighted in red strike-out and underline in Attachment D,
CCSP Proposed Text Amendments on Page 20, allowable uses, and Page 22, ground-
level treatment to eliminate the requirement for 5,000-square feet of ground-level retail
or restaurant space.
22
Staff Recommendation - Policy Area 7:
Staff supports this amendment. In the prior location, the CCSP recognized that the
future RAND offices would occupy a significant area next to the Civic Center Plaza. The
proposed amendments relocate the RAND facility to a different parcel and therefore the
need to activate the Plaza no longer exists.
Planning Commission Recommendation - Policy Area 7:
The majority of the Planning Commissioners recommended that the retail / restaurant
requirement be eliminated. The Planning Commissioners who voted to maintain the
retail / restaurant element argued that the proposed project is inwardly focused and that
this public-focused element would help to integrate the building into the surrounding
area.
CCSP Amendment Policv Area 8- Buildinq Heiqht
The CCSP limits building height in the Parcel 2 area to 5 floors or 56 feet, with an
allowance for an additional 10 feet for non-habitable penthouse and mechanical areas.
The proposed building is six stories in height and 72 feet above average natural grade,
with 14-foot protrusions above the roofline for elevator and mechanical equipment.
Proposed Amendments - Policy Area 8:
• Revise the Parcel 2- Property Development Standards diagram to delete the roof
elements height limitation (see Attachment K, existing CCSP Parcels 2 and 3-
Property Development Standards, and Attachment L, proposed amended CCSP
Parcel 2 and 3- Property Development Standards.)
23
• Revise the CCSP text as highlighted in red strike-out and underline in Attachment D,
CCSP Proposed Text Amendments on page 22, item 1, to increase the maximum
permitted building height to 6 floors or 72 feet and the penthouse and mechanical
area protrusions to 14 feet.
Staff Recommendation - Policy Area 8:
Staff supports the amendment related to building height. The CCSP allows the future
RAND facility to reach five floors or 70 feet in height. Due to a sharp drop in natural
grade in the southwest portion of the site, the average natural grade of the entire parcel
is over 4 feet lower than the grade of Main Street adjacent to the parcel. Because of
this, the zoning code defines the building as a six-story structure of 72 feet above
natural grade. From a Main Street perspective, the building is five stories in height and
69 feet above grade, which is within the limits established by the CCSP for the RAND
facility. Staff also supports allowing 14-foot protrusions for elevator shafts and
stairwells, as is currently permitted by the municipal code. However, staff does not
support the 14-foot height for mechanical protrusions and recommends the maximum
permitted height be 12 feet, as is permitted by the municipal code.
Planning Commission Recommendation - Policy Area 8:
The Planning Commission was unable to approve a motion on this issue and expressed
a variety of views regarding the appropriate height on the site. Some Commissioners
felt that the increase in height from 56 feet to 72 feet should only be allowed if there are
mandatory building stepbacks, similar to those in effect for the Ocean Avenue parcels.
Some felt that the only reason why 70 feet was originally approved for Ocean Avenue
was because of the required stepbacks. Therefore, given that Main Street is as
24
important a pedestrian street as Ocean Avenue, any building above 56 feet in height
should incorporate mandatory stepbacks. All Commissioners felt that they were not in a
position to determine the exact dimensions for the Main Street stepbacks and asked
there to be further analysis on the requirements. Other Commissioners were reluctant
to require building stepbacks without understanding how the requirements would
change the building design.
In response to these comments from the Planning Commission, the ROMA Design
Group, which assisted in the preparation of the existing CCSP, reviewed the appropriate
stepback requirements for a taller building adjacent to Main Street. The CCSP's Ocean
Avenue stepbacks were designed to integrate the taller RAND building into the context
of the other buildings proposed for Ocean Avenue. The ROMA Design Group felt that
these mandatory stepbacks would not be appropriate for Main Street due to the nature
of the public buildings fronting Main Street. If the City Council wanted to create
mandatory stepbacks for the Main Street site, ROMA recommends requiring stepbacks
at 56 feet in height. The recommended stepback would be 27 feet for that portion of the
building between 56 feet and 72 feet. The proposed building design includes some
stepbacks at the second level. To accommodate ROMA's recommended stepbacks, an
additional stepback at 56 feet would be necessary. This stepback would assist in
making the scale of a new building correspond with the scale of the County Courthouse
and Civic Auditorium. ROMA recommended that stepbacks be part of the design
approval and not mandatory standards in the CCSP.
25
CCSP Amendment Policv Area 9- Buildinq G/ass
The CCSP prohibits the use of reflective glass. The proposed project includes the use
of tinted glass to increase the energy performance of the building.
Proposed Amendment - Policy Area 9:
Revise the text as highlighted in red strike-out and underline in Attachment D, Page 23,
item 5 to remove the prohibition on reflective glass and permit tinted, low-reflectivity
glass to maximize energy performance of the building.
Staff Recommendation - Policy Area 9:
Staff supports this amendment as it only permits low-reflectivity glass and only when it
supports the building's energy performance. The prohibition on the use of reflective
glass stems from the CCSP objective of minimizing glare impacts on pedestrians.
While any glazing can create glare based on the position of the sun relative to the glass
and the subject, glass with reflective qualities increases the likelihood of glare impacts.
The proposed project includes a variety of blue-tinted and white-coated glazing. The
heaviest coating coefficient proposed is 30 percent, which is relatively translucent in
comparison to mirrored glasses.
Planning Commission Recommendation - Policy Area 9:
The Planning Commission recommended approval of this amendment to the CCSP.
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 9.48, a development agreement is a contract
between the City and a developer that authorizes the type and amount of development
26
that may occur within a specific period of time. Development agreements are typically
used to provide developers with guaranteed development rights in exchange for clear
public benefits. A development agreement must comply with the General Plan and
Specific Plans but can supercede zoning regulations by establishing its own set of
development standards.
The Development Agreement attached to this report (Attachment W) is the document
proposed by the RAND Corporation. The document has been revised since the
Planning Commission hearing in response to staff and Planning Commission
recommendations. City staff agrees with the majority of the contents, however, there are
still significant provisions staff cannot support, as outlined in this report. While staff and
RAND representatives have worked for several months to resolve all of the outstanding
issues, several significant issues remain. These areas of disagreement are highlighted
in the proposed Development Agreement and are discussed in detail in this report. The
Planning Commission recommendations are also included in this report
• Aqreement Overview
The Development Agreement is divided into Articles, each describing or authorizing
specific elements of the total development. The Agreement consists of 15 Articles and
16 exhibits. The significant elements of the Development Agreement are discussed in
detail later in this report. The following summarizes the contents and staff position on
the Articles:
27
Article 1: Defines key terms used in the Agreement. The definitions are consistent with
existing City practices and descriptions. Staff supports Article 1 as proposed.
Article 2: Describes the Project, including building design, height, parking, permitted
uses, development standards, child care contributions, vested rights, project
modifications, and public improvements, with references to key exhibits, including the
project plans. As discussed further in this report, staff does not support this section of
the Agreement as proposed by the applicant. Staff recommends modifications to the
project design, Section 2.4.2 (d), projections of height, Section 2.5.2, minor
modifications of the project, Section 2.5.3, modifications requiring amendments to the
Agreement, Section 2.5.5, duration of vested rights, Section 2.6.1, permitted uses,
Section 2.6.2, transportation management, and Section 2.7.1 (b), Main Street Circle.
Article 3: Describes the construction of the project, including construction mitigation,
staging, and hours, with references to key exhibits. As proposed and supported by staff,
the Agreement extends permitted construction hours under certain conditions. Staff
supports Article 3 as proposed.
Article 4: Describes fees and mitigation measures associated with the Project, including
the Early Childhood Education contribution. Staff generally supports Article 4, except for
the timing of RAND's child care payment at the superstructure building permit rather
than at the first building permit, as is consistent with other fees.
Article 5: Describes the City's codes and regulations governing the Project. These
provisions are consistent with current City practice and procedures. Staff supports
Article 5 as proposed.
Article 6: Describes the roles of the Architectural Review Board and Landmarks
Commission in review of the Project. These provisions limit the review authority of the
Architectural Review Board and provide the City Council with all design authority except
that related to signage and exterior and courtyard landscaping. These provisions also
exempt the project from Landmarks Commission review of the demolition application.
Staff supports Article 6 as proposed.
Article 7: Describes the process of obtaining building permits and other technical
permits for the Project. These provisions are generally consistent with current City
procedures and practices. The provisions allow for the issuance of a demolition permit
for improvements on the Agency parcel without approval of a replacement project as
currently required in the City's Demolition Ordinance, and authorizes City approval of a
Temporary Use Permit for RAND's use of the Ocean Avenue parcels for construction
staging and employee parking. Staff supports Article 7 as proposed.
Article 8: Describes the process for amendment of the Development Agreement. Staff
supports Article 8 as proposed.
Article 9: Defines the term of the agreement. Staff supports Article 9 as proposed.
28
Article 10: Describes the process for periodic review of the applicant's compliance with
the Development Agreement. These provisions are consistent with recent actions on
other Development Agreements. Staff supports Article 10 as proposed.
Article 11: Describes the process and procedures in the event of a failure to perform the
obligations contained in the Development Agreement. These provisions are consistent
with recent actions on other Development Agreements. Staff supports Article 11 as
proposed.
Article 12: Describes rights and procedures for notifying mortgagees. These provisions
are consistent with recent actions on other Development Agreements. Staff supports
Article 12 as proposed.
Article 13: Describes property transfers. Staff supports Article 13 as proposed.
Article 14: Identifies indemnification responsibilities. These provisions are consistent
with recent actions on other Development Agreements. Staff supports Article 14 as
proposed.
Article 15: Describes the contractual obligations of both parties to the agreement.
Staff does not support Section 15.8 (c) related to excusable delays and Section 15.23
related to public access to the property.
The following provides analysis and staff and Planning Commission recommendations
on the Development Agreement issues:
• Proiect Desiqn
The Development Agreement includes approval of the plans for the Project. These
plans provide details regarding the proposed building orientation, height, massing,
setbacks, stepbacks, open space, access, and parking. In addition, under Article 6 of
the Development Agreement, the City Council is acting as the Architectural Review
Board (ARB) in the review and approval of the project. The City Council is responsible
for review and approval of all design elements including colors and materials but
29
excluding signage and exterior and courtyard landscaping which will be reviewed by the
ARB.
The proposed RAND Headquarters Building is an elliptical-shaped modern building.
The east face of the ellipse curves at a convex angle relative to the Main Street right-of-
way, while the west face of the ellipse curves at a concave angle. Proposed building
height is 72 feet above average natural grade. Due to a sharp drop in natural grade in
the southwest portion of the site, the average natural grade of the entire parcel is over 4
feet lower than the grade of Main Street adjacent to the parcel. The building level that is
approximately at grade with Main Street, is defined by the zoning code as the second
building story as it is 4 feet, 8 inches higher than average natural grade. The highest
level of parking thereby is defined as the first building story and the entire building is
defined as a six-story structure. Although technically required to be included in the floor
area calculations, the highest level of parking, with the exception of the shredder room
and the shipping and receiving area, has not been included in the 308,869 square foot
floor area calculation as it is subterranean at Main Street. The Development Agreement
includes a provision that the highest parking level can only be used for parking, shipping
and building support uses as identified in the project plans. If the highest parking level
were to be included in the floor area calculation, the total floor area of the project would
be nearly 370,000 square feet.
The proposed design includes an elliptical-shaped interior courtyard that begins at the
second story in the northern portion of the building and at the fourth story in the
30
southern portion of the building. Open-bridged walkways over the interior courtyard
connect the east and west wings of the building at the fifth and sixth stories.
Unenclosed exterior terrace stepbacks are provided at the southeast and northwest
faces of the third level, with additional small terrace stepbacks at the fourth-level
northeast point, sixth-level north and south points, and sixth-level west edge of the
building. These terraces have not been included in the floor area calculation and may
not be enclosed in the future without increasing the total floor area calculation and
thereby necessitating an amendment of the Development Agreement.
Due to the elliptical shape of the building, the proposed setbacks adjacent to the Main
Street right-of-way range from over 50 feet at the south portion of the parcel to a
sidewalk encroachment of 42 inches adjacent to the reduced 65-foot radius Main Street
Circle. Setbacks adjacent to the proposed Vicente Terrace range from over 50 feet to 5
feet, with minimum 20-foot setbacks at the property line adjacent to the Kenter storm
drain and to the centerline of the First Court alley. The total amount of exterior open
space provided is approximately 50,000 square feet, with a lot coverage of
approximately 69 percent. The interior courtyard provides approximately 30,000 square
feet of private open space.
The height and massing of the building is influenced by a"racetrack"-style office layout
with a large internal courtyard and a high level of building security. RAND selected this
office layout in order to replicate the continuous hallways that circle throughout their
existing facilities. The continuous hallways are intended to stimulate and facilitate
31
informal exchanges of ideas among RAND employees and reduce dead-end hallways.
The layout is also intended to be energy efficient and non-hierarchical by allowing most
offices to have immediate access to natural light and ventilation. The large internal
courtyard is designed to replace the large amount of open space provided within the
existing RAND facility's nine interior courtyards. The high level of building security is
evidenced by a small number of entry points, including only one pedestrian access point
for employees and visitors and an additional pedestrian access point for employees
only.
The proposed design creates a continuous building farade of over 700 feet along Main
Street, with a continuous building height of approximately 69 feet above the Main Street
grade. The project utilizes several design elements in an attempt to reduce the
overwhelming mass of the building relative to pedestrians and passersby. These
elements include street-level step-outs with landscaped terrace roofs above at the
southeast and northwest faces and northeast point, a street-level opening on the
eastern face adjacent to the Main Street Circle, third-level projections above the Vicente
Terrace and Main Street driveways, and varied permutations of glasses, concrete
panels, vertical aluminum fins, horizontal ledges with aluminum caps, concrete columns
and stacked masonry walls.
The building farade is separated into four separate quadrants, with variations in the
organization and treatment of building materials in an attempt to separate the mass of
the building into separate areas. The northeast quadrant of the building, adjacent to the
32
future Main Street Circle and across from the County Courthouse, features a large,
approximately 250-foot wide street-level opening that leads to the interior courtyard.
The northern 100 feet of the opening to the courtyard is separated from the front
setback by an approximately 10-foot high buff-colored masonry wall which is setback
from the building face by approximately 15 feet and includes a location for the building
identification signage. Open grille-work with an entry gate encloses the remainder of
the ground-level opening, while a curved vehicular drop-off area and adjacent
pedestrian pathway are poured with a buff-colored concrete. The third-story is
predominately faced with clear and opaque white-coated glasses, while the fourth
through sixth-story farades include vertical aluminum fins painted off-white on their
north faces and buff on their south faces, concrete ledges with light-gray aluminum
caps, and a variety of blue tinted, opaque white-coated, and patterned white-coated
glasses interspersed with light-gray aluminum panels. The northernmost section of this
farade includes a two-story step-out faced with blue-tinted glass and aluminum panels,
with the fourth through sixth-stories faced with off-white plaster panels, light-gray ribbed
aluminum panels and blue-tinted glass. Off-white plaster panels face the roofline and
parapet.
The southeast farade includes a different organization of blue-tinted glasses, off-white
plaster panels, dual-colored vertical aluminum fins, horizontal concrete ledges with
aluminum caps, stacked masonry walls, ribbed aluminum panels, and landscaped
stepbacks to create variation among the second, third and fourth through sixth levels.
The entire length of the Main Street roofline is unbroken, with the exception of an
33
approximately 17-foot width where the roofline drops slightly at a four-level glass
curtainwall.
The western farade of the building is similarly separated into north and south sections
that vary by the organization of glass, concrete, plaster, stacked masonry and aluminum
elements. Due to a sharp drop in the natural grade at the southwest portion of the site,
the first level of parking is partially above grade at this farade. This first-story facade
includes an opening to the loading dock and stacked masonry walls. Display windows
are integrated into the wall south of the loading dock, though the adjacent landscaped
area makes the windows inaccessible for close inspection by pedestrians. A 10-foot
high, green-colored wire mesh wall that screens electrical transformers runs for 45 feet
north of the loading dock, followed by another 70 feet of retaining wall that drops from
approximately 10 feet above adjacent grade to approximately 2 feet in height to support
the adjacent landscaped slope. The eastern half of First Court alley and the adjacent
RAND property are proposed to be used for truck access to the loading dock and will be
poured with a gray-colored concrete in order to identify this area as accessible to
pedestrians. The northwest farade includes openings to the internal courtyard at the
second and third stories, including a pedestrian entrance for RAND employees and
escorted guests. As is the case with the Main Street farade, the entire length of the
west-facing roofline is unbroken, with the exception of an approximately 17-foot width
where the roofline drops slightly at a five-level glass-faced stairwell.
34
Staff Recommendation: Staff believes that the massing of the building, even with the
incorporation of the architectural treatments described above, is not conducive to a
pedestrian-oriented environment. The CCSP includes several measures to encourage
a pedestrian-oriented environment, including the use of arcades and colonnades,
movable canvas awnings, horizontal and vertical punched wall openings, and breaking
of the building planes and parapets. While the proposed design incorporates some of
these elements, their use is not sufficient to offset the overall massing of the building.
Staff recommends that the proposed design be revised to incorporate the following
elements:
^ Compliance with the CCSP policies regarding pedestrian corridors and public
courtyards
^ Greater incorporation of stepbacks at several levels of the building to decrease
the mass of the building relative to pedestrians;
^ Greater incorporation of a variety of vertical and horizontal punched openings in
the building farade to create visual interest;
^ Relocation of the electrical transformers into the building structure to improve the
building's orientation toward the future Village Open Space area;
^ Redesign of the rear loading area to improve its pedestrian orientation toward the
Village Open Space; if such redesign is not possible, relocate the loading area to
the south side of the building;
^ Increased breaks in the parapet plane to decrease the monolithic feel of the
roofline;
35
^ Elimination of the 42-inch building overhang encroachment over the sidewalk of
the future Main Street Circle; and
^ Incorporation of the elements recommended below under Parking and Circulation
to minimize disruption of pedestrian pathways by automobiles and trucks
entering and exiting the site.
Planning Commission Recommendation: A majority of the Planning Commissioners
recommended that the project design be amended as discussed above, with the
additional recommendation that the City Council pay special attention to any further
requested building stepbacks to ensure that they do not detract from the integrity of the
building design. The Planning Commission expressed a variety of views on the
proposed building design, ranging from strong concern to support of the proposed
building design. Some Commissioners expressed concern regarding giving general
direction to increase stepbacks without understanding the repercussions on the building
design. Five of the six Commissioners were able to support a motion that included a
request that the City Council pay special attention to the appropriate incorporation of
stepbacks. The Commissioner who voted against the motion expressed satisfaction
with the building design and concern regarding further required stepbacks.
• Parkina and Circulation
The proposed project includes three and one-half to four levels of subterranean parking
to accommodate 825 to 1030 parking spaces. A vehicular drop-off zone is proposed
adjacent to the entry of the facility, with entry and exit on Main Street. Access to the
36
subterranean parking facility is proposed from Main Street and Vicente Terrace, a new
street proposed to be constructed by RAND between Main Street and Ocean Avenue, in
accordance with the CCSP. A truck loading dock with three loading spaces is proposed
with access from the First Court Alley.
Staff Recommendation: Staff does not support the number of driveways and access
points proposed for Main Street and recommends the project be revised to either
eliminate the driveway parking access on Main Street, or if the access is to remain,
eliminate the circular drop-off. The CCSP envisions Main Street as a pedestrian-
oriented street with no driveways. Providing the parking access from Main Street
creates significant automobile interference with pedestrian use of the Main Street
sidewalk, it disrupts the flow of pedestrian movement and it reinforces the car as the
dominant form of transportation at the expense of pedestrians, bicyclists and transit
users. The EIR prepared for the project analyzed the circulation impacts of limiting
access to Vicente Terrace. This analysis shows that the resultant impacts at one to
three nearby intersections (Ocean/Pico, Main/Pico, Fourth/Pico) can be fully mitigated.
If the Main Street driveway is to remain, staff does not support the vehicular drop-off
zone adjacent to the entry of the facility, which takes entry from and exits onto Main
Street. This drop-off strip would create two additional curb cuts on Main Street, which
could further interfere with pedestrians' use of the Main Street sidewalk.
37
Staff does not support the design of the truck loading dock adjacent to future Village
Open Space. The CCSP envisions this area as the center of a pedestrian-oriented
mixed-use village, with a strong pedestrian orientation of all buildings towards this area.
The design of the loading dock is contrary to the pedestrian orientation of this area.
Staff recommends that the loading dock be redesigned to address the pedestrian nature
of the first court alley/walkway. If this redesign cannot be successfully accomplished,
staff recommends that the dock be located below street level with access from Vicente
Terrace. Staff supports the provision of 3 loading dock spaces, rather than the four
required by code, because RAND has a low volume of truck service to the building.
Staff supports the provision of 825 parking spaces, which is less than the 1030 spaces
required by code. Empirical parking counts completed by the EIR consultants show that
RAND's peak parking demand is 781 spaces. Provision of 825 spaces would meet
RAND's parking needs without significantly easing the pressure to maintain strong
transportation demand management programs to fit their parking supply. Staff supports
the provision of 1030 parking spaces only if the Coastal Commission requires this
amount of parking and the use of the building is limited to a single-tenant institutional
research and development use.
Planning Commission Recommendation: The Planning Commission recommended
that driveways to the subterranean parking be allowed from Main Street and Vicente
Terrace and recommended that the City Council consider allowing access from Olympic
Drive rather than Main Street. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the
38
vehicle drop-off area with entry and exit from Main Street, redesign of the truck dock or
relocation to Vicente Terrace, and 1030 parking spaces only in the event of a Coastal
Commission requirement.
• Vested Riqhts
RAND has proposed that the Agreement vest their right to develop for seven years. As
proposed, RAND would have up to three years after approval of the Development
Agreement to obtain a building permit. After a building permit is issued, RAND would
have up to four years to complete construction. RAND would also have the ability to ask
for extensions of time from either one of the time limitations at the discretion of the
Planning Director. The proposed Development Agreement also includes language
whereby the filing of any lawsuit against the project would constitute an excusable
delay.
Staff Recommendation: Staff does not agree with RAND's proposal. The proposed
language is a significant departure from the vested rights of other similar projects by
providing an additional year to pull a building permit. The proposed language also
includes delays that must be approved by the Planning Director but which are more
generous than is granted to other similar projects. Recent experience with prior
Development Agreements such as the Arboretum and Watergarden Agreements has
shown that extended vested rights can significantly limit the City's ability to ensure
compliance with the most up-to-date City policies.
39
Staff recommends that the development rights expire if a building permit is not obtained
within two years from the date the Development Agreement is approved and if a
certificate of occupancy is not obtained within four years of obtaining a building permit.
Staff supports the ability for time extensions, but only at the sole discretion of the
Planning Director. These requirements are generally consistent with permit entitlements
for other similar projects. Staff also does not support provisions that allow the filing of
any lawsuit against the project to constitute an excusable delay.
Planning Commission Recommendation: The Planning Commission recommended
that the Development Agreement permit two years to obtain a building permit and four
years thereafter to obtain a certificate of occupancy. The Planning Commission
recommended that the filing of a lawsuit not constitute an excusable delay.
• Permitted Uses
RAND has proposed that the Development Agreement expand the types of institutional
office uses that will be permitted on the site to include multi-tenant administrative,
research, analysis, educational, philanthropic or charitable uses that are comparable to
RAND in terms of traffic and parking impacts.
Staff Recommendation: Staff does not support this request as provided in the
analysis related to CCSP Amendment Policy Area 4.
40
Planning Commission Recommendation: The Planning Commission recommended
against this request as discussed above regarding CCSP Amendment Policy Area 4.
• Fees and Mitiqation Measures
Past development agreements approved by the City have required significant off-site
improvements and payment of large impact fees, such as traffic mitigation fees,
construction of affordable housing units, development of public parks, and
neighborhood outreach for employment opportunities. The proposed development
agreement assesses impact fees on a"net" basis, where the fee is only charged for the
13,869 square feet of additional space that will be included in the new facility relative to
the existing facility. In addition, the EIR includes analysis of the project on both a"gross"
and "net" basis and the proposed development agreement assesses environmental
mitigation measures based on the "net" analysis. Because developers do not normally
receive fee discounts or environmental credits for the demolition of existing facilities,
applying fees and environmental impacts on a net basis is a departure from the City's
standard practices and represents a policy decision for the City Council.
Impact fees are designed to help mitigate the effects of development on resources such
as housing, parks, and utilities. Applying these fees on a net basis provides a credit for
the existing amount of development that is already in the area. However, when these
impact fees have never been paid to begin with, it can be argued that a development is
already having an unmitigated impact on these resources. If the application of these
41
fees on a net basis eventually results in underfunding of any of these impacts funds, the
general fund or other funding sources may have to complete the required funding.
Similar policy issues are associated with using net analysis for the EIR mitigation
measures, which primarily revolve around traffic impacts. While a development's
existing trips are already in the base traffic counts, the impacts of these trips may have
never been mitigated. Traffic mitigation measures and special funds for signal
synchronization, shuttles, neighborhood traffic mitigation measures and pedestrian
enhancements may require funding from sources other than the applicant to help
mitigate these impacts.
Staff Recommendation: The RAND project is unlike typical development projects in
that it involves the demolition and replacement of an existing facility which houses a
non-profit institution which has operated in the Santa Monica community since 1946.
The building is not planned to accommodate additional employees or a change in
RAND's operations, but rather includes a small amount of additional space
(approximately 13,869 square feet) for improved support facilities. RAND has also
recently sold the majority of its land holdings to the Santa Monica Redevelopment
Agency, which will enable the City to pursue its goals for development of the Civic
Center.
In recognition of the unique nature of this project, the fact that RAND is not increasing
the number of employees at the site, the desire to maintain a valuable employer, and
42
the $1.7 million limitation contained in the OPA, staff recommends that the proposed
development agreement not include the same level of mitigation and public
improvements that are required of other development agreements. This
recommendation is made on the basis that RAND will occupy the building and the
institutional use definition will not be expanded.
Because development agreements provide additional flexibility in the application of fees,
staff recommends that the payment of impact fees, including the housing and parks
mitigation fee, sewer capital facilities charge, and water demand fee, be assessed on a
net basis. Staff also recommends that the mitigation measures associated with the net
environmental analysis be required of the project. The payment of net impact fees
would only apply to the RAND project within the context of the Development Agreement.
Any other development in the Civic Center would be required to pay full impact fees.
Outside of impact fees and EIR mitigation measures, staff recommends that RAND pay
full City processing fees, including plan check and permit fees. Staff recommends that
RAND be required to construct the Main Street improvements adjacent to their site,
including street lights, sidewalks, parkways, and street trees, as well as full construction
of Vicente Terrace between Main Street and Ocean Avenue. A RAND contribution and
participation in early childhood education and development, as discussed below, is also
recommended.
43
Planning Commission Recommendation: The Planning Commission recommended
that development impact fees and mitigation measures be applied on a net basis and
that RAND be required to implement the public improvements identified in the
Development Agreement.
• Early Childhood Development
Staff of the Community and Cultural Services Department and City Manager's Office, as
well as members of the Child Care Task Force, have spent several weeks working on
RAND's obligation with respect to early childhood education and development. The
proposed Development Agreement obligates RAND to participate in early childhood
development in the following ways:
o Contribute $500,000 to support a future early childhood development center
in the Civic Center area and to provide tuition subsidies for RAND employees
who are qualified based on income and family size;
o Prepare and implement a plan to secure outside funding to support the
childhood development center as a model of early childhood education;
o Develop web-based tools to provide the local community with the latest
research on child-related issues; and
o Convene an annual conference on early childhood development research.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of these provisions, with the
exception that the $500,000 contribution should be paid prior to issuance of the first
building permit.
44
Planning Commission Recommendation: The Planning Commission recommended
approval of these provisions, with the exception that the $500,000 contribution should
be paid prior to issuance of the first building permit.
• Subsequent Review
The Development Agreement provides that the City Council has approval authority for
the building design, with the exception of signage, exterior landscaping, and courtyard
landscaping, which will be reviewed subsequently by the Architectural Review Board.
The Development Agreement also exempts the project from the Landmarks Review
Process for demolition of buildings more than 40 years old, and requires the City
Council to make the final determination regarding the demolition of the existing facility.
Staff Recommendation: Staff supports these provisions.
Planning Commission Recommendation: The Planning Commission recommended
approval of these provisions.
• Sustainable Desian
The proposed project will be required to comply with new requirements of the Green
Building Ordinances that will be considered by the City Council later this year, including
meeting an energy conservation standard that is 25 percent more aggressive than 1998
Title 24 requirements. In addition, the building will be required to use recycled water
45
from the Urban Runoff Reclamation Facility for landscape irrigation. The Task Force on
the Environment has recommended that the project meet the LEED (Leadership in
Energy Environmental Design) certification standard for sustainable building design.
Staff Recommendation: Staff has spent many months analyzing and preparing the
Green Building Guidelines and the future Green Building Ordinances that will apply to
all development projects in Santa Monica. Because these guidelines have been
reviewed and approved by the City Council, staff cannot support the imposition of other
requirements that have not been approved by the City Council. Staff supports the
provisions within the Agreement requiring the project to comply with the future Green
Building Ordinances.
Planning Commission Recommendation: The Planning Commission recommended
approval of the staff recommendation in this matter.
CEQA ANALYSIS
An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared for the proposed project in
accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Copies of the Draft
EIR were made available on June 6, 2000 for a 45-day public review period, which
closed on July 21, 2000. A total of 6 comment letters on the draft EIR were received.
These comment letters, as well as the response to comments, are included in the Final
EIR (Attachment Z). In addition, a public scoping meeting was held on
46
January 10, 2000 in order to provide the public with an opportunity to identify issues to
be analyzed in the EIR.
The EIR includes three levels of analysis of the proposed project. The first level of
analysis, called "Option 1" in the EIR, assesses the net impacts of the RAND
Corporation's move from a 295,000 square foot building to a 308,869 square foot
building, a net increase of 13,869 square feet. The Option 1 analysis assumes a
"credit" is applied to account for the existing RAND building square footage and thereby
only looks at the impacts of the additional 13,869 square feet. Empirical vehicle trip
generation information, which is based on the actual number of trips generated by the
existing RAND building, is used for the Option 1 analysis.
The second level of analysis, called "Option 2" in the EIR, assesses the gross impacts
of development of a 308,869 square foot building to be occupied only by the RAND
Corporation. The Option 2 analysis assumes no "credit" is applied to account for the
existing RAND building square footage and thereby looks at the fully impacts of a new
308,869 square foot building. Empirical vehicle trip generation information, which is
based on the actual number of trips generated by the existing RAND building, is used
for the Option 2 analysis.
The third level of analysis, called "Option 3" in the EIR, assesses the gross impacts of
development of a 308,869 square foot building to be used for general office use. The
Option 3 analysis assumes no "credit" is applied to account for the existing RAND
47
building square footage and thereby looks at the fully impacts of a new 308,869 square
foot building. Vehicle trip generation rates are based on rates established by the
Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) for general office uses.
While it is a departure from the City's standard methodology of reviewing projects, staff
recommends that the Option 1 analysis be applied for review of the proposed project.
This analysis recognizes that because RAND's vehicle trips and other environmental
externalities are currently part of the City's base operating condition, only the trips and
externalities associated with the additional 13,869 square feet qualify as "new" impacts
that must be mitigated. While it is true that many of these existing impacts have never
been mitigated by RAND, staff recommends that the impacts and mitigation measures
only be applied toward the increase in building size. However, if the City Council
approves RAND's request for expanding permitted uses on the site, staff recommends
that the Option 3 analysis and mitigation measures be applied to reflect the gross
impacts of general office use at the site. This is because the expanded uses will create
greater impacts than the current RAND operation and therefore additional mitigations
will be required.
In the areas of Aesthetics, Air Quality, Geology/Soils, Hazards and Hazardous
Materials, Noise, Population/Housing, Public Services, Shadows, and Utilities/Services
Systems, the EIR identifies significant impacts with recommended mitigation measures
which will reduce the impacts to less than significant levels. As discussed below,
significant and unavoidable impacts that cannot be mitigated are identified by the EIR in
48
the areas of Construction Effects, Cultural Resources, Land Use/Planning,
Neighborhood Impacts, and Transportation/Traffic. In order to approve the project, the
City Council must certify the EIR and adopt a statement of overriding considerations. A
statement of overriding considerations is a finding by the City Council that the benefits
of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts. Staff
recommends that a statement of overriding considerations is warranted if the proposed
project is modified as recommended in this report.
Construction Effects
The EIR identifies significant impacts during construction of the project, including a
temporary increase in truck traffic, temporary fugitive dust and air emissions from
construction equipment, intermittent high noise levels, and high levels of solid waste
generation during demolition. While most of these impacts can be mitigated by the
measures identified in the EIR, air emissions from construction equipment would
exceed established NOX thresholds. Although this is a short-term impact that is tied to
the length of construction activities, it is significant and cannot be mitigated. A
statement of overriding considerations would be required to approve the project. Staff
believes this action is justified as the short-term impacts of construction are outweighed
by the benefits of a consolidation of RAND's facilities.
Cultural Resources
The EIR identifies the "waffle building" portion of the existing RAND complex as meeting
the criteria for consideration for listing in the National Register of Historic Places and the
49
California Register of Historic Places, as well as the criteria for consideration as a Santa
Monica Landmark. The building potentially meets the criteria for National and California
listings because of the RAND Corporation's strong association with the Cold War era of
American History and because it is a well-maintained example of the Corporate
International Style of architecture, which was practiced in Los Angeles between the end
of World War II and 1960. The existing RAND complex meets the criteria for
consideration as a Santa Monica Landmark for the reasons mentioned above, as well
as the fact that the RAND Corporation has a long history as a major employer in Santa
Monica that is connected to the aircraft and defense industries which were prominent in
Santa Monica following World War II.
The proposed project includes the demolition of the existing RAND complex. Because
of the potential historic value to the existing facility, its demolition is considered a
significant and unavoidable project impact. In order to approve the project as proposed,
a statement of overriding considerations must be adopted. Staff supports this as
warranted for the following reasons:
• The benefits of using the land on which the RAND complex is located to help meet
public goals with respect to open space, housing and other issues outweigh the
impacts of the demolishing this potentially historic institutional facility.
• The sprawling nature of the existing RAND complex is inconsistent with the policies
and goals that have been established for the area in the Civic Center Specific Plan.
These goals increasing pedestrian penetrability through the area, demolishing the
RAND buildings that are specifically called out as "nondescript and institutional in
50
nature," and extending Olympic Drive and its pedestrian promenade between Main
Street and Ocean Avenue.
• The primary element that contributes to the potentially historic significance of the
building is the fact that it was built for and has been occupied by the RAND
Corporation for nearly 50 years. This historic element is chiefly tied to the occupant
of the building, rather than to the building itself. As the proposed Development
Agreement would enable the RAND Corporation to continue to operate in this area
of Santa Monica, its approval would maintain this historic element.
• The other element that potentially contributes to the historic significance of the
building is its integrity as an example of the Corporate International Style. However,
the importance of this architectural style for National Register evaluation has not
been established.
Land Use/Planninq
The EIR identifies significant land use and planning impacts related to the amendments
to the CCSP and LUCE that would be required to approve the project as proposed.
These amendments include reducing the size of the Main Street Circle, expanding the
permitted uses on the site, increasing the amount of permitted parking, and eliminating
the requirements for a publicly accessible internal courtyard and a neighborhood-
serving commercial element to the project. Amending the CCSP and LUCE to allow a
broader office use of the building is considered to have significant and unavoidable
impacts. As discussed above under General Plan Amendments, staff recommends that
this amendment not be accepted. However, if the City Council deems these changes to
51
be acceptable, the City Council should adopt a statement of overriding considerations
and outline why the benefits of the project outweigh these significant adverse
environmental impacts.
Transportation/Traffic
The EIR analyzed a total of 36 key intersections within Santa Monica to assess the
impacts of the proposed project. Citywide traffic volume information collected in May
and June 1999 was used for the analysis. In addition, new in/out driveway counts were
conducted at each of the RAND parking lot driveways in December 1999 to develop
empirical trip generation rates for the proposed project. Consistent with the City of
Santa Monica guidelines for EIR traffic impact analysis, traffic conditions were analyzed
using intersection delay-based methodology. This methodology, known as the Highway
Capacity Manual (HCM) Operational Analysis, determines the average stopped delay
incurred per vehicle.
The EIR determined that 2 to 6 intersections would be significantly impacted by the
proposed project, depending on whether the analysis is performed on a gross or net
basis and whether the building is occupied by RAND or a broader range of office users.
RAND's empirical trip generation rates are lower than what would be expected of a
similarly sized office use due to RAND's aggressive transportation demand
management programs, including ridesharing and telecommuting. Using empirical trip
generation rates is recommended as these rates reflect RAND's actual trip generation
and because allowing broader office use of the building is not recommended. Staff also
52
recommends that the traffic analysis based on a net increase of 13,869 square feet
(Option I analysis) be used in determining the traffic impacts to reflect the fact that
RAND is replacing facilities whose traffic is already part of the circulation system.
The net empirical analysis determined that the project would have a significant impact at
two intersections: Main Street and Olympic Drive and the westbound approach of the
new street, Vicente Terrace, at Ocean Avenue. No feasible measures have been
identified to mitigate the impacts at these intersections, and these impacts are
considered to be significant and unavoidable. In order to approve the project, a
statement of overriding considerations must be adopted. Staff believes this is justified
because the benefits of a consolidation of RAND facilities outweigh the adverse impacts
at these two intersections.
The EIR analyzed the traffic impacts of allowing only one project driveway from Vicente
Terrace to the subterranean parking, rather than providing a second driveway from Main
Street. Staff recommends the single driveway alternative as it minimizes the disruption
of the Main Street pedestrian experience. The traffic analysis determined that
eliminating this second access point would cause significant impacts at one additional
intersection, Ocean Avenue/Neilson Way and Pico Boulevard. However, by modifying
the signal and lane striping to create two left turn lanes from westbound Pico Boulevard
onto southbound Ocean Avenue/Neilson Way, this significant impact can be fully
mitigated.
53
A neighborhood traffic impact analysis was also completed for five neighborhood streets
in the vicinity of the project. One neighborhood street, Fourth Street south of Pico
Boulevard, is significantly impacted under the net empirical traffic analysis. Because of
its high traffic volume, one additional project trip on Fourth Street is considered to be
significant. The traffic analysis shows that the proposed project could add up to two
additional project trips to this street. No feasible measures are available to mitigate this
impact. In order to approve the project, a statement of overriding considerations is
required. Staff believes that this is warranted as the benefits of consolidating RAND's
facilities outweigh the adverse impacts of two additional trips on Fourth Street.
Neiqhborhood Impacts
Significant neighborhood impacts are identified in the areas of construction noise, light,
glare, and shadows, which can be mitigated with the implementation of the measures
identified in the EIR. Significant impacts that cannot be mitigated include construction-
related air emissions (see Construction Effects above) and neighborhood traffic impacts
on Fourth Street south of Pico (see Traffic / Transportation above). A statement of
overriding considerations would be required to approve the project. Staff believes this
action is justified, as the negative impacts on the neighborhood would be outweighed by
the benefits of a consolidation of RAND's facilities.
Aesthetics
Although the EIR found no significant and unavoidable impacts related to aesthetics, the
project will result in the destruction of the majority of trees on the site. Currently there
54
are 22 trees on the project site. Based on a report prepared by RAND, and approved
by the City's Forester, all but four of the existing trees are unsuitable for transplantation
and will be destroyed. Mitigations in the EIR require three trees to be planted on the site
for every tree that is destroyed.
Alternatives
The EIR also considered six alternatives to the proposed project, as follows:
• No Project Alternative: no demolition or construction would occur;
• CCSP Alternative: development in accordance with the CCSP;
• Open Space Alternative: the site is developed as open space and a public park;
• Housing Alternative: the site is developed for up to 350 units of housing;
• Alternative Design Alternative: the site is developed with a new RAND facility
which is more consistent with the intent of the CCSP; and
• RAND Preservation Alternative: the site is developed with the proposed project
and the existing RAND facilities are retained for use by a new tenant.
The EIR determined that the Open Space Alternative meets CEQA's requirement for
identification of the environmentally superior alternative.
Planning Commission Recommendation: The Planning Commission recommended
that the City Council certify the environmental impact report.
55
RENT CONTROLSTATUS
The RAND properties include a 12-unit apartment building at 1711 Ocean Avenue and a
19-unit motel at 1665 Ocean Avenue, which are proposed for demolition as part of the
development agreement. The RAND corporation has withdrawn these units from the
rental market pursuant to the provisions of the Ellis Act.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 9.04.20.20.080, the applicant has posted a sign on
the property stating the project application information, name and telephone number of
applicant, site address, public hearing information and City Planning phone number. In
addition, pursuant to Municipal Code Section 9.48.110, notice of the public hearing was
sent to all owners and residential and commercial tenants of property located within a
500-foot radius of the project site, as well as published in Our Times at least ten
consecutive calendar days prior to the hearing. Attachment B provides a copy of the
public notice.
In conjunction with the EIR preparation, a notice of public scoping meeting and
preparation of the EIR, as well as notice of availability of the DEIR, was sent to all
property owners and tenants within a 500-foot radius. The applicant also held two
neighborhood meetings on Saturday, August 12 and Monday, August 14
56
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
The RAND Corporation is not only an internationally recognized non-profit research
institution, but an important member of the Santa Monica community as well. The City
will continue to realize significant public benefits from approving a development
agreement permitting RAND to continue to operate in the community. However, it is
also critical that RAND's new facility is responsive to the community's goals and
objectives as outlined in the Civic Center Specific Plan. Staff recommends approval of
the proposed Development Agreement if the project is modified as delineated in this
report. The following chart summarizes staff and Planning Commission
recommendations with respect to critical issues related to the Development Agreement
and the proposed amendments to the CCSP and Land Use and Circulation Element.
Project Issue Proposed Pr4ject ' Staff Planning
'' Recommendation Commission
Recommendation
LUCE: Permit multi-tenant Deny Deny
Permitted land institutional uses
uses
CCSP: Institutional use relocated Support Support
Relocate to Main Street
Institutional
Use
CCSP: Text Update to reflect Agency Support Support
references purchase and consistency
CCSP: Main Reduce from 95-foot Support Support
Street Circle radius to 65-foot radius
CCSP: Main Increase sidewalk widths Support Support
Street section by 3 feet; reduce medians
by 2 feet, reduce parkway
by 4 feet, reduce private
land dedication by 2 feet
CCSP: Multi-tenant admin, Deny Deny; modify language
Permitted land research, analysis, to permit subsidiaries
uses on educational, philanthropic of RAND and clarify
project site or charitable uses; definition of RAND
57
Prqject Issue ~~~ Propqsed Project ~ ! ~taff '~ Planning
'' Recommendation CQmmission
Recornmendation
CCSP: No pedestrian corridors Include pedestrian No recommendation
Pedestrian access through site or
corridors make courtyard & both
through site pedestrian entrances
open to public
CCSP: 825 spaces, 1030 spaces Support Support
Parking if required by Coastal
Commission
CCSP: Retail None included Support Support
or restaurant
component
CCSP: 5 stories and 56' to 6 Support building No recommendation
Building height stories and 72' above height; limit
average natural grade; mechanical projections
10' projections above to 12'
roofline to 14' projections
CCSP: Low-reflectivity, tinted Support Support
Reflective glass for energy
glass performance
DA: Stepbacks Incorporated into parts of Greater incorporation Greater incorporation
facade at third, fourth and of stepbacks at all of stepbacks at all
sixth floors levels levels; be certain does
not detract from
integrity of design
DA: Punched Three to four vertical Greater incorporation Greater incorporation
openings in openings on each face of of vertical and of vertical and
facade building horizontal openings horizontal openings
DA: Line of One small break on each Increase breaks in Increase breaks in
parapet side of building parapet parapet
DA: Parking Access from Main Street Access from Vicente Access from Vicente
access and Vicente Terrace Terrace only Terrace and Main
Street; consider
access from Olympic
Drive rather than Main
Street
DA: Vehicle Circular driveway with two Eliminate proposed Support
drop-off area curb cuts on Main Street vehicle drop-off area if
parking access from
Vicente Terrace and
Main Street, support if
access limited to
Vicente Terrace
DA: Truck West side of building Redesign for Redesign for
loading adjacent to future Village pedestrian orientation; pedestrian orientation
Open Space if not possible, place or place on south side
on south side of of building at Vicente
building at Vicente Terrace
Terrace
58
Prqject Issue ~~~ Propqsed Project ~ ! ~taff '~ Planning
'' Recommendation CQmmission
Recornmendation
DA: Electrical Behind wire mesh wall Place transformers in Place transformers in
transformers adjacent to future Village building structure or in building structure or in
Open Space underground vault underground vault
DA: Vested 7 years with defined Maximum 6 years Maximum 6 years
development extensions
rights
DA: Sidewalk 42" building overhang No overhang over No overhang over
encroachment over sidewalk of future public sidewalk public sidewalk
Main Street Circle
DA: Fees and Calculated on "net" basis Support Support
mitigation for increase in square
measures footage
DA: Early $500,000 upfront Support Support
childhood contribution with on-going
development programming support
DA: Comply with proposed Support Support
Sustainable future City requirements
design
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT
RAND will be responsible for all conditions of approval, public improvements,
environmental mitigation measures and fees identified in the Development Agreement.
The Owner Participation Agreement between the Santa Monica Redevelopment Agency
and RAND requires the Agency to pay up to $2.3 million of RAND's demolition costs in
the event these costs exceed $1.7 million. Staff estimates the total cost of the
measures proposed in the Development Agreement, including early childhood
education and development, to approximate the $1.7 million cap. However, if actual
costs exceed these estimates, or if additional fees or mitigation measures are required
of RAND in the Development Agreement, the Agency may be liable for some portion of
RAND's demolition costs.
59
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council take the following actions:
1. Certify the Final Environmental Impact Report and, if the project is amended as
recommended in this staff report, adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations.
2. Deny the proposed amendment to the Land Use and Circulation Element of the
General Plan.
3. Adopt a resolution amending only those CCSP policies recommended in this report.
4. Introduce for first reading an Ordinance adopting the Development Agreement, with
amendments to the text and building design as recommended in this report.
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FINDING
The Development Agreement is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land
uses and programs specified in the General Plan and the Civic Center Specific Plan.
Prepared by: Suzanne Frick, Director, Planning and Community Development
Andy Agle, Deputy Director, Planning and Community Development
Attachments
A. Civic Center Specific Plan Conformance - Attached
B. Notice of Public Hearing - Attached
THE FOLLOWING ATTACHMENTS ARE NOT AVAILABLE ELECTRONCIALLY BUT
ARE AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW AT THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE.
C. Radius and Location Map
D. Civic Center Specific Plan Proposed Text Amendments
E. Existing Civic Center Specific Plan Land Use Diagram
F. Proposed Amended Civic Center Specific Plan Land Use Diagram
G. Existing Civic Center Specific Plan Land Use Program Table
H. Proposed Amended Civic Center Specific Plan Land Use Program Table
I. Existing Civic Center Specific Plan Open Space Plan
J. Proposed Amended Civic Center Specific Plan Open Space Plan
K. Existing Civic Center Specific Plan Parcel 2 and 3- Property Development
Standards
60
L. Proposed Amended Civic Center Specific Plan Parcel 2 and 3- Property
Development Standards
M. Existing Civic Center Specific Plan Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation Diagram
N. Proposed Amended Civic Center Specific Plan Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation
Diagram
O. Existing Civic Center Specific Plan Vehicular Circulation Diagram
P. Proposed Amended Civic Center Specific Plan Vehicular Circulation Diagram
Q. Existing Civic Center Specific Plan Transit Diagram
R. Proposed Amended Civic Center Specific Plan Transit Diagram
S. Existing Civic Center Specific Plan Main Street Circle Typical Section
T. Proposed Amended Civic Center Specific Plan Main Street Circle Typical Section
U. Existing Civic Center Specific Plan Main Street Typical Section
V. Proposed Amended Civic Center Specific Plan Main Street Circle Typical Section
W. Proposed Development Agreement
X. Proposed Mitigation Measures and Conditions of Approval
Y. Applicant's Fiscal Impact Statement
Z. Final Environmental Impact Report
AA. Correspondence
BB. Project Photosimulation Perspectives
FOR REVIEW OF THE FOLLOWING, PLEASE LOCATE THE CORRESPONDING
RESOLUTION NUMBER IN THE SYSTEM:
CC. Resolution Certifying the Final EIR SEE ADOPTED RESO. #9571 (CCS)
DD. Resolution Amending the Land Use and Circulation Element - NOT ADOPTED
EE. Resolution Amending the Civic Center Specific Plan SEE ADOPTED RESO.
#9579 (CCS) FROM 10/3/00 COUNCIL MEETING
FF. Resolution Adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations SEE
ADOPTED RESO. #9572 (CCS)
THE FOLLOWING ATTACHMENTS ARE NOT AVAILABLE ELECTRONCIALLY BUT
ARE AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW AT THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE.
GG.Ordinance Approving the Development Agreement
HH. Site Plan, Floor Plans, Elevations
61
ATTACHMENT A
CIVIC CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN CONFORMANCE
' Devetoprnent CCSP / Code Standards Project
Gategory
Permitted Use Mixed-use, residential emphasis Multi-tenant Institutional
Dwelling Units 350 units None
Height of Building 56' 72'
Number of Stories 5 stories maximum 6 stories above average natural
grade
Pedestrian Ways Two (2) 30-foot wide pedestrian None
ways connecting Main Street with
the future Village Green
Main Street Setback 10' 15'
Main Street Circle 10' Building overhang encroaches
Setback into right-of-way for Main Street
Circle sidewalk
Building Height 25% of floor area of uppermost 25% of floor area, which
Projections floor may exceed the building exceeds the building height by
height by 10 feet for nonhabitable 14 feet
penthouse and mechanical areas.
Parking Access Locate driveways in a manner that Driveways from Main Street
does not compromise the and Vicente Terrace. Vehicle
pedestrian environment, transit entry and exit to surface drop-
service, or adjacent land uses and off area proposed on Main
open space areas. Street.
Parking Space CCSP: 750 spaces 825 subterranean spaces
Number Code: 1 space per 300 square feet provided under parking plan A.
or 1030 spaces 1030 spaces provided under
parking plan B.
Carpool Parking 10% of total parking spaces or 83 83 carpool spaces provided
spaces under parking plan A and under parking plan A and 103
103 spaces under parking plan B provided under parking plan B.
Bicycle Parking 5% of total parking spaces or 42 42 subterranean bicycle
spaces under parking plan A and parking spaces provided under
52 spaces under parking plan B parking plan A and 52 provided
under parking plan B.
Bicycle Support Shower and locker facilities Shower and locker facilities
provided.
Off-street Loading 4 spaces for office uses over 3 spaces provided
100,001 square feet.
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING
BEFORE THE SANTA MONICA CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Development Agreement 00-001;
Final Environmental Impact Report 00-002;
Civic Center Specific Plan Amendment 00-001;
Land Use Element Amendment 00-001
1700 Main Street, Santa Monica
APPLICANT: The RAND Corporation
A Public Hearing will be held by the City Council on the following requests:
Proposed is a Development Agreement between the City of Santa Monica and
the RAND Corporation and amendments to the Civic Center Specific Plan
(CCSP) and the Land Use and Circulation Element. The Development
Agreement includes vesting of the development entitlements, identification of
mitigation measures and review of project plans. The proposed development
consists of demolition of the 295,000 square feet of existing RAND facilities and
construction of 308,869 square feet of new corporate office facilities in a single
building. Proposed building height is six stories and 72 feet above natural grade.
The project would include three and one-half to four levels of subterranean
parking to accommodate 827 to 1030 parking spaces. A drop-off vehicle zone is
proposed adjacent to the entry of the facility, with entry and exit on Main Street.
Access to the subterranean parking facility is proposed from Main Street and
Vicente Terrace, a new street proposed to be constructed between Main Street
and Ocean Avenue in accordance with the CCSP. A truck loading dock is
proposed with access from the First Court Alley.
As proposed by the applicant, the Development Agreement would vest the
development rights for the project for over seven years. The proposed project is
accompanied by a series of amendments to the CCSP that are necessary to
approve the project as proposed. These amendments are associated with the
proposed location of the project on Main Street, rather than on the Ocean
Avenue location identified in the CCSP, and with the design and use of the
building as proposed by RAND. The applicant has proposed a broadening of
the types of office uses that are permitted at the site, approval of which will
require an amendment to the Land Use and Circulation Element.
The City Council will consider the following actions: approval of the Development
Agreement and the proposed project, adoption of a resolution amending the
CCSP, adoption of a resolution amending of the Land Use and Circulation
Element, approval of a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and certification
of the Final Environmental Impact Report evaluating the environmental impacts
of the proposed project.
ATTACHMENT B
HEARING DATE/TIME: TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 2000 AT 7:00 P.M.
LOCATION: CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
1685 MAIN STREET
SANTA MONICA, CA
HOW TO COMMENT
The City of Santa Monica encourages public comment on this project. You may
comment at the City Council public hearing or by writing a letter. Written
information received before 3:00 p.m. on the Wednesday before the h3earing will
be given to the City Council in their packet. Information received after that time
will be given to the City Council prior to the meeting. Address your letters to:
City Clerk RE: RAND Development Agreement
1685 Main Street, Room 102
Santa Monica, CA 90401
MORE INFORMATION
For more information about this project, please contact Andy Agle, Deputy
Director, at (310) 458-2275. Information is also availalble on the City's web site
at www.pen.ci.santa-monica.ca.us. The meeting facility is wheelchair-accessible.
If you have any disability-related request, please contact 310-458-8701 or TTD
310-458-8696 at least three days prior to the hearing. Santa Monica Bus Lines
1, 2, 3, and 7 serve City Hall.
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65009(b), if this matter is
subsequently challenged in Court, the challenge may be limited to only those
issues raised at the Public Hearing described in this notice, or in written
correspondence delivered to the City of Santa Monica at, or prior to, the Public
Hearing.
ESPAIVOL
Esto es una noticia de una audiencia publica para revisar applicaciones
proponiendo desarrollo en Santa Monica. Para mas informacion, Ilame a Elsa
Kapsinow a (310) 458-2275.