SR-11-14-1989-8A
e
CA:RMM:rmd996ajhpca
city council Meeting 11-14-89
t/i p- tJ/~
e f!.A
NOV 1 4 1989
Santa Monica, California
STAFF REPORT
TO:
Mayor and City council
FROM:
city Attorney
SUBJECT:
Ordinance Approving the Development Agreement
Between Reliance Development Group, Inc. and
the city of Santa Monica
At its meeting on October 10, 1989, the City Council
introduced for first reading a development agreement between the
city and Reliance Development Group, Inc. At the time the City
Council introduced the ordinance for first reading, certain
exhibits to the development agreement had not been prepared and,
therefore, were not before the City Council. Accordingly, it is
necessary to re-introduce the ordinance for first reading.
The development agreement attached to the accompanying
ordinance is now complete and all changes made by the City
council at its October 10, 1989, meeting have been incorporated
into the documents.
The language added to the Development Agreement by the City
Council at its October 10, 1989, meeting which would restrict
traffic from cutting through the site between Walgrove/23rd
Street and Bundy Drive after the start of construction has been
modified by City staff to clarify its intent.
The language added by the City Council to section 3 (g)
provided:
Y-A
NOV 1 4 1969
- 1 -
.
.
Airport Avenue shall be closed to through
traffic when the building permit is
issued for the first building in Phase I
of the project so that no traffic (other
than emergency vehicles) may thereafter
traverse Airport Avenue from Bundy Drive
to 23rd StreetjWalgrove Avenue or from
23rd streetjWalgrove Avenue to Bundy
Drive subject to section 47. All Project
construction traffic must access the
Project from Bundy Drive.
The newly revised language reads as follows:
Airport Avenue shall be closed to through
traffic following the date on which the
building permit for Building 1 or
Building 2 in Phase I is issued,
whichever occurs first. As used in this
subsection (g), "through traffic" shall
mean (l) any traffic travelling between
Bundy Drive and Walgrove/23rd street
whose destination is not Santa Monica
Airport or the Airport Surplus Parcel;
(2) any traffic travelling from
Walgrovej23rd Street whose destination is
the Airport Residual Land; (3) any
traffic travelling from the Airport
Residual Land whose exiting destination
is Walgrovej23rd street. As used in this
- 2 -
.
.
subsection (g), "through traffic" shall
not include emergency vehicular traffic
or traffic using Airport Avenue to access
or exit the Project via Bundy Drive. All
Project-related traffic (including
construction-related traffic) shall
access and exit the Project from roads
(including Airport Avenue) leading
directly to Bundy Drive.
(It should be noted that additional restrictions on traffic
contained in Section 3(g) remain unchanged.)
Finally, a referendum petition has been filed with the city
Clerk against the adoption of Resolution Number 7917 (CCS)
adopting amendments to the General Plan relating to this project.
Assuming this referendum petition contains sufficient verified
signatures, the effectiveness of Resolution Number 7917 (CCS) is
stayed commencing on the date of filing of the referendum.
Under applicable laws, the Development Agreement is
required to be consistent with the General Plan. In light of the
fact that Resolution Number 7917 (CCS) appears to be stayed, a
question arises as to whether or not the city Council can
introduce, approve, or execute the Development Agreement before
completion of the referendum process. In order to resolve this
question, the accompanying ordinance has been revised to provide
for the repeal of the ordinance should the referendum process
result in the repeal or disapproval of Resolution Number 7917
(CCS). The language reads as follows:
- 3 -
e
.
SECTION 6. This Ordinance and the
attached Development Agreement between
Reliance Development Group, Inc., a
Delaware corporation, and the City of
Santa Monica shall be void and of no
further force or effect if, following a
referendum petition: (1) the City Council
repeals Resolution Number 7917 (CCS) in
lieu of submitting it to the voters for
their approval as provided for in
Elections Code section 4055 or (2) a
majority of voters voting on the
Resolution fail to approve Resolution
Number 7917 (CCS).
RECOMMENDATION
It is respectfully recommended that the accompanying
ordinance be introduced for first reading.
- 4 -
-
.
CA:RMM:rmd995jhpca
City Council Meeting 11-14-89
Santa Monica, California
ORDINANCE NUMBER
(City Council Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SANTA MONICA APPROVING THE DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT BETWEEN RELIANCE DEVELOPMENT
GROUP, INC. AND THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1.
The Development Agreement attached hereto as
Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference between Reliance
Development Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and the City of
Santa Monica, a municipal corporation, is hereby approved.
SECTION 2.
Each and every term and condition of the
Development Agreement approved in Section 1 of this Ordinance
shall be and is made a part of the Santa Monica Municipal Code
and any appendices thereto.
The City Council of the City of
Santa Monica finds that public necessity, public convenience, and
general welfare require that any provision of the Santa Monica
Municipal Code or appendices thereto inconsistent with the
provisions of this Development Agreement, to the extent of such
inconsistencies and no further, is hereby repealed or modified to
that extent necessary to make fully effective the provisions of
this Development Agreement.
- 1 -
.
.
Elections Code section 4055 or (2) a majority of voters voting on
the Resolution fail to approve Resolution Number 7917 (CCS).
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
'If
r ~ '~,":--t.- '\ ..0'"
oJ --"'\... -"" V T \.. ...
ROBERT M. MYERS
City Attorney
y..~')------
{ J
/
- 3 -
qIO-o/S" 1..A.
OCT - 3 1989
STAFF REPORT
AIRPORT RESIDUAL LAND DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
SANTA MONICA CITY COUNCIL
OCTOBER 3, 1989
1..A
OCT - 3 1989
TABLE OF CONTENTS
page
Introduction
1
overview
3
site Location and Description
4
project Description
Project Phasing
Project site Plan and Design
Landscape and Garden Amenities
Project circulation
Project Parking
5
6
7
8
8
9
Background on Airport AgreeMents
9
!dentiflcatlon of Develop~ent Optlons fo~ Resldual Land Parcel 10
Development Goal and Ob]ectlves
11
Developer Selectlon Process
12
CEQA Cornpl1ance/Environmental ReVlew Process
12
Preparatlon of EIR
Draft ErR
First Supplemental EnVlron~ental Analysls
Second Supplemental EnVlron~ental Analysls
13
14
15
15
Traffic and Circulatlon
16
Alternative Access options
17
Air Quality
19
Alternatives
20
Development Agreement
20
Ground Lease Agreement
21
Disposition and Development Agreement
Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions
22
23
Municipal Code and General Plan Conformance
24
General Plan Amendment
24
Proposed Land Use Element objective and Policies
Proposed Urban Design Objective and Policies
25
26
Budget I Financial Impact
27
One Time Fees and Charges
Annual Tax Revenue
Annual Payments
27
28
28
Planning Commission Actions and Recommendations
29
staff Recommendations
32
CEQA Recommendations 33
General Plan Amendment Recommendation 34
Development Agreement Recommendations 34
Ground Lease Agreement Recommendation 34
Disposition and Development Agreement 34
Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions 34
Phase 4 Community Planning Process
35
Attachments
A. project Site Plans
B. parking Comparlson Charts
c. Final Environmental Impact Report (Volume 4)
D. Summary of EIR Trafflc Analysls, Comments on the
Analysis, and Responses to Comments
E. Intersection Impact Tables
F. Summary of Impacts of ProJect Alternatives
G. Development Agreement and Summary of Agreement
H. Modifications to Development Agreement for "No Impact"
Project
I. Lease Agreement
J. Disposltion and Development Agreement
K. Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictlons
L. General Plan Compllance Table
M. General Plan Amendment
N. Comparison of Ground Rent Income
O. statement of Overriding Considerations
P. Findings for Approval of Development Agreement
C/ED:EDD:PPD
Council Meeting: October 3, 1989
Santa Monica, California
TO: The Mayor and city Council
FROM: City staff
SUBJECT: Recommendation to Certify Final Environmental Impact
Report; Adopt statement of Overriding Considerations;
Adopt General Plan Amendment No. 11; Adopt Development
Agreement: Approve Lease Agreement: Approve Disposition
and Development Agreement; and Approve Declaration of
, Covenants, Conditions, and Restriction for Development
of the Residual Land Parcel at the Santa Monica Airport
INTRODUCTION
This report provide~
recommendations concern~ng
parcel of residual land at
the southeast corner of the
the City council with staff's
the development of the 37.56 acre
the Santa Monica Airport located in
City of Santa Monica. This report:
1) summarizes the process by which Reliance Development
Group was selected by the City council to prepare
detailed development plans for the property;
2) describes changes that have been made to the project to
reduce or eliminate significant environmental impacts
based on environmental analyses, Planning Commission
recommendations, and public comments;
3) describes the intent of the architect and developer in
the design of the project and site plan;
4) outlines the Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
preparation process, summarizes its key findings,
recommends its certification, and recommends adoption of
a statement of Overriding Considerations;
5) summarizes the proposed General Plan Amendment and
recommends its approval;
6) summarizes the Development Agreement for the project and
recommends its approval;
7) summarizes the Lease Agreement with Reliance Development
Group and recommends it approval;
8) summarizes the Disposition and Development Agreement and
recommends its approval; and
- 1 -
9) summarizes the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and
Restrictions and recommends its approval.
This report also contains the Planning Commission's actions and
recommendations to the City council on certifying the Final EIR
and approving the General Plan Amendment No. 11 and draft
Development Agreement. The Planning commission recommended to
the City Council that the Council approve a no impact proj ect
containing 600,000 - 750,000 gross square feet of floor area to
be developed in two phases. The Commission also recommended that
the City council conduct an independent evaluation of the
business terms of the proposed lease.
Reliance Development Group, selected by the city Council in
October 1987 to develop the project, originally proposed to build
one of ,two alternative development schemes totalling between
1,278,600 and 1,340,000 square feet (l,360,500 and 1,418,200
gross square feet) of development to be constructed in four
phases. Scenario "A" consisted of offices, retail, restaurant,
and soundstage/studio uses. scenario "B" eliminated the studio
complex and developed only office, retail, and restaurant uses.
However, staff does not recommend approval of the originally
proposed project but suggests two alternatives:
1) 1,015,000 square feet (l,078,100 gross square feet) of
development if the city council desires to approve a
project that provides significant revenue to the city
with minimal significant impacts (Alternative 3A as
described in the Final EIR).
2) 822,000 square feet (873,000 gross square feet) of
development if the city Council wishes to approve a
project that generates no significant environmental
impacts but is willing to accept less annual and
long-term revenue from the property. (Alternative 3C as
described in the Final EIR).
If the Council selects either one of these alternatives, the
project will:
1) be developed in three phases rather than four on 26.33
to 28.53 acres rather than 36.73 acres of residual land
in the City of Santa Monica as originally proposed,
2) eliminate the Studio Scenario "A" of the originally
proposed project from consideration at this time since
the feasibility and desirability of building a studio
complex in a three phase project has not been analyzed
or evaluated, and
3) delete the former Phase 4 acreage so the City can retain
8.20 to 10.40 acres of residual land to develop with
community arts, education, and recreational uses.
- 2 -
This staff report delineates what in staff's opinion are the two
most viable options available to the City council --
1) approval of a project (Alternative 3A of the Final EIR)
that is estimated to generate $2.4 billion over the full
term of the lease and generate significant traffic
impacts at only 3 intersections during the morning rush
hour and a significant air quality impact at 1 nearby
intersection; or
2) approval of a smaller project (Alternative 3C of the
Final EIR) that will generate less revenue and cause no
significant environmental impacts.
A project larger than the upper end of the range recommended by
City staff will generate greater revenue to the city but will
result in an unacceptible increase in the number of significant
environmental impacts. A project smaller than the lower end of
the range will result in a project that is economically
infeasible to construct and will result in no project being built
under the current financial terms, if at all. The developer has
adv~sed the City that any reductions in the project below the
873,000 gross square foot level would require substantial
renegotiation of the business deal for the developer to determine
ifhe is willing to proceed.
If approved, either project will result in a 24% to 38% reduction
in the project size from that originally proposed by the
developer.
However, the Planning Commission has also recommended an option
to the City council that it believes eliminates significant
impacts from the project. That project would contain 600,000 to
750,000 square feet and be constructed in 2 phases.
OVERVIEW
Development of the residual land parcel at the Santa Monica
Airport located at Bundy Drive and Airport Avenue represents the
culmination of a five year planning process. Agreements approved
by the City of Santa Monica and the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) in 1984 provided for the reconfiguration of
the Airport facility in such a manner as to leave available a
large parcel of City-owned land for alternative uses. The City
prepared a number of planning and market studies to narrow the
range and scale of uses for the parcel and conducted a public
process to prepare a Request for Development Proposal (RFP) that
outlined the City's goal and objectives for development of the
parcel as well as the land use and development standards for the
site. Many of these development standards for the project were
based on preliminary traffic studies prepared by consultants for
the City and on the City's desire that the project fit within the
context of the surrounding neighborhoods.
The specific development parameters for the project -- size,
layout, height, setback, design standards, project amenities --
- 3 -
have been refined as the formal environmental analyses of the
project have progressed. These parameters are contained in the
Development Agreement for the proj ect as are other provisions
that are intended to mitigate the environmental impacts of the
proj ect and to respond to other community concerns about the
project.
The City has involved the community at each step in the process
to pI an, rev iew , and cons ider this proj ect. workshops were
conducted with neighborhood groups at each key step in the
environmental review process to answer questions and solicit
comments. The City met a number times with key planning and
traffic staff from the City of Los Angeles to explain the project
and to answer their questions. Santa Monica City officials met
with Los Angeles Councilmembers Ruth Galanter and Marvin Braude
and their staffs to answer questions and to respond to their
concerns and issues.
The proj ect and all documents recommended for approval in this
staff report will allow development of a project that will
achieve the City's goal and obj ecti ves to develop a long-term
revenue stream to the City while eliminating all or virtually all
significant environmental impacts on the surrounding community.
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The project site is an irregularly shaped parcel of residual land
located at the Santa Monica Airport. The site is located at the
southeast corner of the ci- of Santa Monica at the intersection
of Bundy Drive and Airport Avenue. The east and south sides of
the property abut the City'S boundaries with the City of Los
Angeles. Surrounding uses consist of the Santa Monica Airport to
the north and west, a single-family residential neighborhood
across Bundy Drive in the City of Los Angeles to the east, and a
commercial office complex and single-family residential
neighborhood in the City of Los Angeles to the south.
The project will require less land area to accommodate the
commercial development than was originally proposed. Depending
on the City council's actions, the development proj ect will be
constructed on 26.33 to to 28.53 acres of residual land. The
City will retain between 8.2 to 10.4 acres of residual land to
develop with community uses. (0.83 acres of residual land in the
City of Los Angeles is not part of this project.)
Original Project
Original Project Parcel Area:
~esidual Land not in Project:
TOTAL RESIDUAL LAND
36.73 acres (in Santa Monica)
0.83 acres (in Los Angeles)
37~56 aores
- 4 -
Minimal I~pact Project
Revised Project Parcel Area:
city Retained Surplus Land:
Residual Land not in Project:
28.53 acres (in Santa Monica)
8.20 acres (in Santa Monica)
0.83 acres (in Los Angeles)
TOTAL RESIDUAL LAND
37.56 acres
No Impact Project
Revised Project Parcel Area:
city Retained Surplus Land:
Residual Land not in Project:
26.33 acres (in Santa Monica)
10.40 acres (in Santa Monica)
0.83 acres (in Los Angeles)
TOTAL RESIDUAL LAND
37.56 acres
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project to be developed on the Santa Monica Airport Residual
Land Development Parcel consists of a mixed-use development
containing office uses with support retail, restaurant, child day
care, and ancillary uses and conununi ty uses. (The originally
proposed development scheme containing a studio complex with
soundstages, production offices, and warehouse/storage space has
been dropped from consideration since Phase 4 of the original
project has been deleted.)
The originally proposed proj ect totaled up to 1,340,000 square
feet (l,4l8,200 gross square feet) of development to be
constructed in four phases.
Depending on the city council's action, the project would contain
either:
1. 1,015,000 square feet (1,078,100 gross square feet) of
development to be constructed in three phases and up to
124,800 square feet of building area for recreational,
arts, education, and other non-commercial community uses
constructed on the former "phase 4" acreage of the
parcel, or
2. 822,000 square feet (873,000 gross square feet) of
development to be constructed in two or three phases and
up to 124,800 square feet of building area for
recreation, arts, education, and other non-commercial
uses on the former "Phase 4" acreage.
The minimal impact project (#1 above) would contain seven,
six-story (84') office buildings totalling approximately 977,400
square feet (1,039,200 gross square feet) of office space: retail
space totalling about 21,370 square feet (21,800 gross square
feet): restaurant uses totalling about 7,250 square feet (8,040
square feet); and a child day care center of about 8,700 square
feet (9,000 gross square feet). There would be four parking
- 5 -
structures
property.
located in the project to serve all uses
(See Attachment A1: Minimal Impact site plan.)
on
the
The no impact project (#2 above) uses would contain six,
six-story (84') office buildings totalling approximately 784,400
square feet (834,000 gross square feet) of office space; retail
space totalling about 2l,370 square feet (2l,800 gross square
feet); restaurant uses totalling about 7,250 square feet (8,040
square feet); and a child day care center of about 8,700 square
feet (9,000 gross square feet). There would be four parking
structures located in the project to serve all uses on the
property.
(See Attachment A: No Impact project site Plan)
In general, the location and height of buildings in the project
respond to the scale of the adj acent community. The tallest
structures would be located on the north side of the parcel
adj acent to the Santa Monica Airport away from the small scale
single-family neighborhood to the south of the project. The
lower height parking structure will be located on the south side
of the parcel and will be consistent with the scale of the
neighborhood to the south.
The development project would be constructed by Reliance
Development Group on City-owned land which will be leased to the
developer. Arts, education, recreation, and community uses will
be considered by the city on that portion of the residual land
parcel it retains. A subsequent planning process is recommended
to refine the location, use, and management of recreation, arts,
education, and community uses on this portion of the residual
land site; to determine the number of peak hour vehicular trips
generated by these uses; and to adjust the size of the Reliance
project accordingly.
project Phasing
The original project was to be completed in four phases. The
projects discussed in this staff report can be corn~leted in three
phases. Each phase will provide adequate serv~ces, physical
improvements, circulation, open space, and parking to serve the
needs of that phase. A subdivision map application would be
filed in the future to subdivide the property into parcels
coinciding with the property boundaries associated with each
building and phase.
Phase 1 of the project would contain approximately 366,000 square
feet (386,600 gross square feet) of development. The developer
must take possession of the first portion of the site and
commence paying ground rent to the City one year after execution
of the Disposition and Development Agreement (ODA). Construction
of Phase 1 must commence within 30 months of signing the DDA.
Phase 2 of the project would contain approximately 371,100 square
feet (396,600 gross square feet) of floor area. The developer
must take possession of the property on which Phase 2 will be
- 6 -
built and begin paying ground rent for that portion of the
property 4 years after the ODA is signed. Construction of Phase
2 buildings should commence in late 1993 if market conditions
permit but is not required to commence until 9 years after
execution of the Ground Lease to accommodate potential
fluctuations in the market for office space.
The size of Phase 3 of the project would vary depending on the
actions taken by the City Council. If the Council approves a
minimal impact project, Phase 3 would contain 277,600 square feet
(294,800 gross square feet). If the City Council approves a no
impact project, Phase 3 would contain about 85,000 square feet
(90,000 gross square feet). The developer must accept possession
of the Phase 3 portion of the property within 6 years after the
DDA is signed and begin paying the city ground rent for that
portion ,of the property at that time. Construction of Phase 3
buildings should start in late 1995 if market conditions warrent
but must commence within 13 years of signing the DDA. Phase 3
may be developed at the same time as Phase 2 due to the
relatively low amount of floor area in Phase 3 of the project.
Any proj ect approved within the range described in this staff
report reduces the size of the proj ect sufficiently to obviate
the need to build a fourth phase. As a result, the surplus land
devoted to the former Phase 4 will be retained by the City for
primarily community uses but Airport-related, or
Airport-compatible uses would be permitted as well, if desired.
Once begun, actual construction of each phase should take about
12 to 18 months to complete but in no case more than 30 months
after construction has commenced. It is anticipated that
construction of the recommended proj ect could be completed by
mid-1997 rather than mid-199B as anticipated for the original
project if market conditions allow for the development of each
phase in a timely manner as expected.
project Site Plan and Design
The developer and architects for the project have attempted to
create a plan that is substantially different from that of the
usual business park. The prevailing design of business parks
features freestanding buildings surrounded by surface parking
lots with a limited amount of usable open space remaining for
landscaped areas. Ordinarily, these landscaped spaces provide
some aesthetic and greenery relief, but lack any substantial
function for the enj oyment of users of the complex and the
surrounding community. The proposed development differs from
this design because office buildings, parking structures, and
roads are located around the perimeter of the site. The
remaining available land is consolidated into a central, shared
open space. Due to the size of these central plazas and gardens,
landscaping may be achieved on a larger scale than if the
individual building pads were to be landscaped independently.
The architects have designed the buildings to reinforce the
campUS-like feeling of the development, as required by the City's
- 7 -
stated objectives for development of the property. A variety of
building shapes and sizes are used to form the proj ect. The
different buildings will be unified by a shared palette of colors
and materials which will create a consistent aesthetic treatment.
The architects envision building materials to include buff
colored masonry accented with colored marble and granite at the
base and lightly tinted non-glare glass.
Landscape and Garden Amenities
The primary organizing feature of the proj ect is a series of
linked gardens that stretch from Bundy Drive to the western end
of the development around which the buildings are oriented. To
achieve this central garden space, the architects placed access
roads, the office buildings and parking structures around the
perimet~ of the site, thus creating three clearly defined,
auto-free, open spaces at the center of the project, similar to a
college campus or town square. Each of the three gardens
provides a focal point for each development phase. As a result
of this design and the timing of improvements, each phase
achieves a look of completeness without relying on the
construction of subsequent phases.
The architects have designed each garden to have its own distinct
character. Each garden serves a different purpose, attempts to
evoke a different mood, and contains landscape materials that
symbolize the southern California environment. The architects
have organized the buildings in Phase ~ of the development around
the Cypress Garden which is oriented toward Bundy Drive and is
designed to welcome visitors to the project. The Cypress Garden
contains a grove of cypress trees representative of a
Mediterranean civic plaza. cypress trees are drought-tolerant.
Phase 2 is oriented around the Palm Court and Hedgerow Garden
which are the centerpieces of the development. These two open
spaces provide the primary connection between the second phase's
parking facilities and office buildings. The Palm Court is
landscaped with a grove of mature palm trees and contains a
large, terraced pool of water. The adjacent Hedgerow Garden is
located next to retail shops and restaurants that screen the
lower floors of one of the proj ect t s parking structures. This
garden is comprised of an expanse of lawn bordered by a
serpentine hedge of shrubs.
The buildings contained in Phase 3 of the development surround
the Orange Grove Garden containing a cluster of mature orange
trees.
The elegance of the original project's site plan and gardens has
been maintained in the site plan for any project within the
recommended project size range.
Project circulation
The main entrance to the project is located on the west side of
Bundy Drive approximately 35' north of the current location of
- 8 -
Airport Avenue. This main entrance road will be 65 I wide and
will accommodate two in-bound and four out-bound lanes. The
entrance avenue will extend for a distance of approximately 300l
into the project site, at which point traffic is routed around a
60-foot diameter landscaped median which comprises an entry focal
point. Two secondary roads are located approximately 550' north
and 200' south of the main entrance. These roads allow only
right turns in and out.
Circulation is provided around the perimeter of Phases 1, 2, and
3 via a 33' wide drive. The need for a secondary leg of this
perimeter road extending into the originally proposed Phase 4
portion of the site would be eliminated in the revised proj ect
except to provide emergency access to the project.
Project ,Parking
Parking for the project is provided in four parking structures
which extend above and below grade. Each structure is located in
close proximity to the buildings they serve. In this recommended
project, the developer has expanded Parking Stucture #1 adjacent
to Building 1 in Phase 1 of the proj ect to better serve that
building and has eliminated the originally proposed underground
parking level which extended beneath a maj ori ty of the area
covered by the central water feature and Palm Court. The revised
project eliminates the need for the western-most of the two
parking structures that would have been located in Phase 4 of the
project.
The placement of the parking structures at the perimeter of the
site increases the amount of centrally located, usable C01\U'l\on
open space which may be provided for the project, thus permitting
the campus like layout free from vehicular interference sought by
the developer. In order for this concept to work effectively,
the Development Agreement stipulates that safe and attractive
pedestrian access be provided between each of the parking
structures and the buildings they are intended to serve.
Total parking required by the city'S Zoning Code for the
completed project ranges from 3,466 parking spaces for the
minimal impact project to 2,823 - 2,917 spaces for the no impact
project alternatives. The developer must provide at least the
minimum number of spaces required by Code but is currently
planning to provide between 277 and 453 more spaces than
required. (See Attachment B.)
BACKGROUND ON AIRPORT AGREEMENTS
The development of the residual land parcel at the Santa Monica
Airport is the CUlmination of a major planning program conducted
by the City of Santa Monica. This planning program was an effort
by the City to resolve ongoing community issues concerning the
operation of the Airport, to plan for the appropriate use and/or
reuse of Airport property, and to use a City-owned asset in a
- 9 -
financially responsible manner to increase revenue for the City
that could be spent to help meet the needs of the community.
In November 1983, after a series of planning and noise studies,
publ ic hearings, and workshops, the City Counci 1 adopted the
Airport Layout Plan and Noise Mitigation program for the Santa
Monica Airport. The Layout Plan recommended, among other things,
that Airport operations and related businesses be consolidated
and relocated primarily to the north side of the airfield, away
from the adjacent residential community in the City of Los
Angeles. The planned reconfiguration of Airport facilities
resulted in 37.56 acres of Airport property designated as
IIresidual land" not needed for aviation purposes.
It should be noted that 0.83 acres (36,134 square feet) of the
total 37.56 acres of Airport property which was designated as
residual land is located in the city of Los Angeles. This
portion of the residual land property is not included as part of
the project for either the original project or the revised
project.
In January 1984, the city approved an Airport Master Agreement
with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). This Agreement
requires the relocation of Airport facilities and the improvement
of the airfield as outlined in the Layout Plan and obligates the
city to operate the Airport until the year 2015. This Master
Agreement also prohibits the city from selling the residual land
parcel, restricts the use of the site to only "airport
compatible" uses, and mandates that the Airport remain in
continuous operation during all improvement and development
activity_
The relocation of Airport facilities and construction of
improvements to the airfield are occurring as a project separate
from the development of the residual land parcel.
IDENTIFICATION OF DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS FOR RESIDUAL LAND PARCEL
Once the basic plan for the Airport facility was adopted and
agreements with the FAA were executed, the City of Santa Monica
began to investigate its options to develop the residual land
parcel and to select a developer for the site. The City
conducted a market study to help determine the range of
appropriate uses for the property and prepared a preliminary
traffic analysis to estimate the appropriate scale of development
for the property based on the traffic conditions of the
surrounding street system.
In July 1985, the City Council directed staff to draft a Request
for Development Proposal (RFP) in conjunction with the City
Planning Commission that would both identify the type of
development the City desired for the Residual Land Parcel and
invite developers to submit development schemes to the city for
its consideration. City staff prepared a draft RFP for the
- 10 -
Planning Commission's consideration. The Planning Commission
held a public hearing on the draft RFP in January 1986 and
revised the document to respond to community comments and
Commission concerns. The Commission unanimously approved the
revised draft RFP. In January 1986, this revised draft RFP was
transmi tted to the Architectural Rev iew Board and the Airport
Commission for their review and comment.
The City council reviewed the revised draft RFP along with
Planning Commission, Architectural Review Board, and Airport
Commission comments and approved the Final RFP in February 1986.
The approved Final RFP and application packet were issued in
April 1986.
DEVELOPMENT GOAL AND OBJECTIVES
The city I s RFP contained not only the land use and development
standards for the site but also the City's goal and objectives
for the use of the property. The goal and objectives articulate
the City 1 S purpose for developing the property and the desired
result of that development as follows.
Goal:
Transform an underutilized pUblic land asset into an
innovative, aesthetically superior, high quality working
environment that produces significant new revenue,
employment, business opportunity and related benefits
for project site users, and the city in general.
Objectives:
a) To create a project that is financially feasible
and that provides a significant revenue stream to
the city.
b) To develop a project that minimizes significant
adverse impacts on the surrounding area.
c) To design a project with buildings and public open
spaces that are architecturally superior in design
and detailing, provide a campus-like setting, are
sensi ti ve to the scale and character of the area
and the City, and are aesthetically harmonious.
d)
To - develop a project that meets the
today I s market and the future needs of
users.
needs of
its many
e)
To establish a construction phasing schedule
will promote the successful completion of
project and the timely delivery of revenue
other project benefits.
that
the
and
- 11 -
f) To ensure that the project is well maintained over
time and will remaJ.n a positJ.ve asset to the city
and the developer.
DEVELOPER SELECTION PROCESS
In June 1986, the city received proposals from eight major
development firms. A Selection Advisory Committee consisting of
City staff set out to evaluate each proposal. The Committee
reviewed each developer's financial capability to undertake a
project of this size, the firm's experience with projects of
similar scale and character, its experience in working with
public agencies on similar pUblic/private partnerships, as well
as the, qualifications of key staff, management experience,
organization and management approach, and responsiveness to the
City's RFP of proposed lease terms and preliminary project
design.
Three development teams emerged as the most financially capable
and experienced of the group. In October 1986, each of the three
finalists were given several months to prepare more detailed and
refined development plans for the City's consideration and to
provide more information on projected development costs and
phasing of construction. Each developer was also requested to
provide the City with a lease offer for the City's consideration.
In March 1987, City staff received the detailed development
proposals and lease offers from the three development teams
chosen by the Selection Advisory committee. The Committee
evaluated each development proposal in a number of land use and
lease agreement areas and recommended to the City council that it
select Reliance Development Group to develop the property.
In October 1987, following a public hearing, the City Council
authorized the City Manager to exclusively negotiate with
Reliance Development Group all lease, development, land
disposition and other agreements that are necessary for
development of the property.
CEQA COMPLIANCE/ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS
The Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) on the project
consists of four volumes:
o Volume 1: Revised Draft EIR,
o Volume 2: Responses To Comments on the Draft EIR, and
o Volume 3: Supplemental EIR and Response to Comments on
the Draft SEIR (SEIR#l).
o Volume 4: Supplemental EIR No.2 and Response to
Comments.
- 12 -
All four volumes of the Final EIR must be considered in
deliberations regarding the project. If the recommended project
is approved, the Ci ty Counc~l must also adopt a statement of
Overrid~ng Considerations under Section 15091 of the CEQA
Guidelines for each significant impact which cannot be mitigated
to below a level of significance. Further, the statement of
Overriding Considerations has been written to include all
intersections in the City of Los Angeles significantly impacted
before mitigations to ensure that the project may proceed if the
City of Los Angeles blocks implementation of the street and
intersection improvements called for as mitigation measures in
that city. City of Santa Monica staff and its consultants
believe all mitigation measures are feasible, necessary, and
effective. However, it is possible that, for whatever reason,
the City of Los Angeles may determine not to allow such measures
to be implementation. The Statement of overriding Considerations
will allow the project to move forward under these circumstances
in accordance with CEQA.
On July 20, 1988, Volumes 1 and 2 were distributed to the City
council. Volume 3 was attached to the November 30, 1988 Planning
Commission staff report on the project. Volume 4 is attached to
this report. (See Attachment C: Final EIR Volume 4.)
Preparation of the EIR
Preparation of the EIR began in November 1987. City staff
determined that the EIR must analyze the potential environmental
impacts that may result from development of the proposed project
on: earth, air quality, water, energy, noise, light and glare,
shadows, risk of upset, human health, population, land use,
housing demand, utilities, right-of-way, transportation &
circulation, public services, fiscal, recreation, cultural
resources, aesthetics and neighborhood effects.
Staff selected EIP Associates and Kaku Associates to prepare the
EIR. EIP Associates prepared the Water Garden I s ErR and had
extensive experience with similar projects. Kaku Associates, the
traffic consultant working with EIP Associates, had extensive
experience in preparing traffic analyses in both Santa Monica and
Los Angeles and had an excellent understanding of the traffic
conditions in the wests ide area of Los Angeles and the analytical
methodologies appropriate for the area.
The City of Santa Monica encourages public participation in the
EIR preparation process beyond that required by the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) so as to make the EIR documents
as complete and accurate as possible. To this end, staff sent a
Notice of Preparation (NOP) of the ErR to approximately 8,000
residents living in the area surrounding the project, to nearby
Los Angeles and Santa Monica neighborhood groups, to Los Angeles
Councilmembers Braude and Galanter; to Los Angeles city staff,
and to County and State agencies that would have potential
concerns about the project. The public review period mandated by
State law (CEQA) for the Notice of Preparation is 30 days; the
NOP public review period allotted by the City was over 45 days.
- 13 -
city staff also conducted a number of EIR scoping meetings to
introduce community groups to the proj ect, prov ide them with a
timeline for the EIR preparation and project approval processes,
and identify environmental concerns that community
representatives thought should be studied in the EIR. staff met
with: the Technical Look Committee (interdepartmental City staff
review), santa Monica neighborhood groups (briefings to which
were invited Sunset Park Area Neighbors [SPAN], Pico Neighborhood
Association, Mid-City Neighbors and the Ocean Park COIllIllunity
Organization), Los Angeles neighborhood groups (Homeowners
Organized to Monitor their Environment [H.O.M.E.], North Westdale
Homeowners, Westdale Homeowners, Hilltop), the Santa Monica
Airport Commission, Councilmembers Braude and Galanter I s staffs
and city of Los Angeles Planning Department and Department of
Transportation staff.
Draft EIR
On April 15, 1988, the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR)
was made available to the pUblic. Staff mailed the Notice of
Completion (NOC) of the DEIR to approximately 1,000 interested
persons and project-adjacent residents. Copies of the DEIR and
NOC were sent to Los Angeles City, Los Angeles County, the State
Clearinghouse, the FAA, Santa Monica and Los Angeles neighborhood
associations, and Los Angeles Councilmembers Braude and Galanter.
DEIR workshops were conducted by the ErR consultants and the
Planning Division with the leadership of all interested Santa
Monica and Los Angeles neighborhood associations. In addition,
Santa Monica and Los Angeles neighborhood groups met with the
developer to discuss the overall project plan, potential
neighborhood impacts, and proposed DEIR mitigation measures and
findings.
The DEIR found that the project would result in beneficial
impacts related to Hydrology, Aesthetics, Public Services
(schools), Fiscal, and Recreation. The document found that all
potentially significant environmental impacts could be mitigated
to less than significant levels except for significant adverse
air quality impacts resulting from the project at two
intersections near the project.
The OEIR found that the orginally proposed project would result
in no significant traffic impacts since the traffic analysis in
this volume of the ErR assumed that Centinela Avenue south of the
proj ect would be widened as proposed in the adopted Coastal
Transportation Corridor Specific Plan of the City of Los Angeles
(Ordinance No. 160.394).
Forty comment letters were received in response to the DEIR. The
majority of comments focused on the topics of Traffic,
Alternatives, Aesthetics, Air Quality, and Access. The EIR
consultants and City staff responded to all comments in Volume 2:
Response to Comments on the Draft EIR.
- 14 -
The ci ty of Los Angeles Planning Department staff and
Councilmember Galanter stated in their comment letters that the
City of Los Angeles did not intend to widen centinela Avenue as
proposed in its adopted Specific Plan for the area south of the
City of Santa Monica.
supplemental Environmental Impact Report No. 1
As required by CEQA, a supplemental environmental impact report
must be prepared when new information arises subsequent to the
preparation of a draft EIR that may create the possibility of
additional significant impacts that were not addressed in the
original draft document.
To ensure a full and complete environmental analysis and the
requisite public comment on that analysis, City staff determined
it was appropriate to prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact
Report (SEIR # 1) that eval ua ted the potential impacts of the
project if centinela Avenue south of the project was not widened.
The SEIR #1 focused on three topics originally studied in the
DEIR: Traffic, Air Quality, and Project Alternatives. The
traffic analysis contained in the SEIR #1 assumed that Centinela
Avenue south of the Airport site would not be widened and the air
quality analysis was conducted based upon the new traffic impact
analysis. Two additional project alternatives were analyzed in
greater detail -- a Three Phase project comprised of 1,078,068
gross square feet and a Two Phase project comprised of 791,775
gross square feet.
Sixty-nine comment letters were received in response to the Draft
SEIR #1. The comments focused on the three topics studied in the
SEIR, Traffic, Air Quality and Alternatives. The EIR consultants
and City staff responded to all comments in Volume 3:
Supplemental EIR #1.
Both the City of Los Angeles and Culver City requested that
additional intersections be analyzed for significant impacts.
These intersections were:
o Bundy Drive/Pico Boulevard (Los Angeles)
o Centinela Avenue/Washington Boulevard (Culver City)
o Centinela Avenue/Washington Place (Culver City)
o Walgrove Avenue/Washington Boulevard (Culver city)
o Inglewood BOUlevard/Washington Boulevard (Culver City)
To respond to these requests, the EIR consultants conducted an
analysis of traffic impacts at the above intersections. That
analysis showed that no significant traffic impacts would be
generated by the project at these intersections that could not be
mitigated.
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report No. 2
- 15 -
The Planning Commission held two public hearings on the project
and Volumes 1-3 of this EIR on November 30, 1988, and December 7,
1988.
However, on December 1st, shortly after the first Planning
commission hearing on the project, the state Supreme Court
released its decision on the "Laurel Heights Improvement
Association of San Francisco, Inc. vs. Regents of University of
California." The ruling on this case provided new standards
regarding the level of detail necessary to discussing project
alternatives in an EIR.
The City hired an outside legal counsel specializing in EIR and
land use law. His recommendation was to prepare a second
supplement to the EIR that followed the neW standards provided in
the Laurel Heights case and other recent court decisions.
SEIR #2 was prepared to expand the project alternatives analysis
contained in Volumes land 3. A total of 15 distinct
alternatives were examined in SEIR #2. These included nine land
use alternatives that had been analyzed or discussed at some
point during the planning process for the project began in the
early 1980s and six project alternatives were contained in
Volumes 1 and 3 which were brought forward into this analysis and
in some cases modified slightly. SEIR #2 also provided
additional information on access options and wastewater issues
which addressed points of concern raised at the two Planning
Commission public hearings held on November 30, 1988 and December
7, 1988.
The SEIR #2 traffic analysis studied 37 intersections. The five
addi tional intersections discussed in "Response to Comments on
SEIR #1" were included in the traffic analysis of SEIR #2 at the
request of Culver city and the city of Los Angeles.
Twenty-seven comment letters were received in response to the
Draft SEIR #2. Comments focused on the two main topics studied
in SEIR #2, Alternatives and Traffic. The EIR consultants and
city staff responded to all comments in Volume 4 of the EIR.
TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION
The FEIR (Volumes 1-4) analyzes the potential traffic impacts
resulting from the project, from a broad range of project
alternatives, and from various project access options. The
traffic ana.lysis prepared for the FEIR studied 37 key
intersections in Santa Monica, Los Angeles, and Culver city. The
traffic analysis consistently used conservative assumptions. A
summary of the traffic analysis contained among the four volumes
of the EIR, sampling of the most common pUblic comments on that
analysis, and staff's response to those comments is contained in
Attachment 0: Summary of Traffic Analysis.
- 16 -
Santa Monica's criteria for determining a "significant" traffic
impact is the same as that used in the city of Los Angeles. If
the addition of project traffic to an intersection results in an
increase of 0 .02 or greater in the Volume to Capaci ty Ratio
(V/C), and the intersection is projected to operate at a level of
service (LOS) of E or F after the addition of the proj ect
traffic, that intersection is considered to be significantly
impacted.
The Final EIR found that the minimal impact project Alternative
3A (Three Phase Proj ect) with arts, education, recreation, and
community uses on the "Phase 4" portion of the site would
significantly impact up to 18 intersections before mitigation.
Only 3 intersections during the morning peak hour would remain
significantly impacted after implementing the recommended street
and intecsection improvements, a Transportation Demand Management
(TOM) program to reduce peak hour trips by 15% , and adding
impacted intersections in the City of Los Angeles to that City's
Automated Traffic Surveillance and Control (ATSAC) system which
increases intersection capacities by 7% (see Attachment E:
Intersection Impact Tables).
The FEIR found that the no impact project at 822,000 square feet
(873,000 gross square feet) with arts, education, recreation, and
community uses (Alternative 3C) would significantly impact up to
16 intersections before mitigation but that NO intersections
would remain significantly impacted after implementing the
recommended mitigation.
Alternative Access options
Access to the proposed project is provided by one main road and
two secondary roads to Bundy Or i ve . The FEIR examined the
feasibility of a number of access options and the changes in
traffic patterns and traffic impacts that would result.
The first option provided access to the proj ect from Walgrove
Avenue/23rd Street along Airport Avenue in addition to access to
Bundy Drive. The FEIR found that if access was provided to Bundy
and Walgrove/23rd Street, 11 intersections would be significantly
impacted during the morning peak period (as compared to 10 if
only Bundy access is permitted) and 17 during the evening peak
period (compared to 15). This access option shifts impacts from
Bundy Drive, a major arterial, to local serving residential
streets thus significantly impacting the residential
neighborhoods west and south of the Airport property in both Los
Angeles and Santa Monica. The FEIR concludes that the
significant impacts on these residential streets and the steep
grade and sharp curves at Walgrove Avenue and 23rd street make
this access option undesirable.
The FEIR also studied the changes to traffic patterns and traffic
impacts if additional project access was provided to Centinela
Avenue north the project by means of a perimeter road around the
end of the Airport runway, a tunnel, or a satellite parking lot
- 17 -
at the end of centinela connected to the project with a shuttle
in addition to Bundy Drive.
The FEIR examined the feasibility of using the existing Airport
perimeter road connecting Airport facilities on the north and
south sides of the runway. Preliminary studies prepared for the
FEIR found that the existing roadway is too narrow to carry large
numbers of vehicles. The FEIR then investigated the feasibility
of widening the existing Airport perimeter road to accommodate
Airport and proj ect traffic. However, both of these options
utilizing the airport perimeter road proved infeasible since the
FAA, which governs the existing Airport perimeter road, stated
that it will not allow the use of the Airport perimeter road for
residual land project traffic. The road can be used only by
Airport users and cannot be used by the general public.
The FEIR then studied the feasibility of constructing a second
"public" perimeter road to Centinela Avenue parallel to the
existing Airport perimeter road. Preliminary engineering studies
undertaken for this analysis found that the construction of the
second perimeter road would preclude the widening of Bundy Drive
adjacent to the project using Airport property. There was
insufficient property between the end of the runway and Bundy
Drive to construct both improvements so the FEIR analysis studied
the second perimeter road and the widening of Bundy Drive on
Airport property separately.
The FEIR examined the feasibility of constructing a tunnel below
the runway to connect the project to Centinela Avenue. The FEIR
found that the tunnel would cost $8-9 million to construct and
would require that the City amend its agreement with the FAA to
utilize Airport land intended to be used for Airport uses for
tunnel portals and ramps that would not service Airport uses. The
FEIR found this option did not effectively mitigate project
impacts and was not cost-effective.
Finally, the FEIR analyzed a satellite parking lot north of the
runway connected to the project with a shuttle bus or van. The
FEIR found that the satellite lot/shuttle bus would cost about
$235,000 per year to operate, would reduce the desirability of
the project compared to other projects that don't require
employees to park in satellite lots, would use property
designated for Airport uses requiring amendment of agreements
with the FAA, and would not significantly shift traffic patterns
or reduce impacts.
For each of these options providing additional access to the
project from the north, the FEIR found that for the originally
proposed project, 13 intersections would be significantly
impacted during the morning peak period (as compared to 10 if
onl~ Bundy access is permitted) and 17 during the evening peak
per~od (compared to 15).
If the second perimeter road is constructed, precluding the
widening of Bundy Drive, five intersections would remain
significantly impacted after other mitigation measures are
- l8 -
implemented. If Bundy Drive adjacent to the project is widened
using Airport property, only three intersections would be left
significantly impacted by the revised project after mitigation.
staff recommends that the project's access remain on Bundy Drive,
that no perimeter road be built (thus allowing for the required
widening of Bundy Drive adjacent to the project), and no western
access be permitted because more intersections are significantlY
impacted if additional access to the north or west is permitted,
because of the high capital cost to construct a tunnel below the
runway and annual cost to operate a satellite parking lot,
because these options are not cost-effective and because of the
inability of the City to use land designated for Airport uses for
project related improvements.
The city should maintain the ability to widen Bundy Drive
adjacent to the project which is precluded by constructing a
second perimeter road. This widening will not only reduce the
number of significantly impacted intersections from five to only
three but also allow the City to increase the increased capacity
of the street which will be needed to accommodate both project
traffic and future traffic growth in the area. Elimination of
all peak hour vehicular trips from the uses in "phase 4" of the
project or reducing the size of the project will result in no
intersections significantly impacted.
AIR QUALITY
The FEIR identified two types of air quality impacts associated
with the project: 1) short-term impacts during construction from
dirt, dust, suspended particulates, and construction related
mobile emissions, and 2) long-term impacts from automobile
emissions, particularly carbon monoxide (CO).
According to the FEIR, the short-term construction impacts would
not be significant in that they can be mitigated through dust
abatement and adequate equipment maintenance.
The FEIR's analysis of long-term air quality impacts focuses on
carbon monoxide (CO) emissions, as these are one of the most
important pollutants from motor vehicles. The analysis involves
a worst-case, conservative scenario that assumed severe
meteorologic conditions, construction of all cumulative projects
in the surrounding subregion, no traffic mitigation programs to
reduce the traffic generated by any project in the area, and a 2%
background traffic growth factor.
The FEIR concludes that the minimal impact project would have
significant long-term air quality impacts at one intersection, as
compared with 2 intersections for the originally proposed
p:oject. The FEIR finds that the no impact project alternatives
w~ll generate no significant air quality impacts.
- 19 -
ALTERNATIVES
The FEIR analyzed a total of 15 different alternatives to the
originally proposed Airport Residual Land Development Project.
Those alternatives are:
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
3A
3B
3C
Alternative 4
Alternative 5
Alternative 6
Alternative 7
Alternative 8
Alternative 9
Alternative 10
Alternative l1
Alternative l2
Alternative 13
Alternative 14
Alternative 15
Reduced studio
Reduced Office
Three Phase Project
Three Phase project on 27 acres
(Minimal Impact Project at 1,015,000 sf.)
Three Phase/Reduced Height on 37 acres
Three Phase/Reduced Density
(No Impact project at 822,000 square feet)
Two Phase
Business Park
Research and Development/Light Industrial
Airport Expansion
No Project
Regional Shopping Mall
Neighborhood Commercial Center
Residential
Hotel
Regional Park
Off-Site Alternative: City Yards
Off-Site Alternative: Bus Yards
These alternatives were identified from studies and analyses of
potential uses for the site prepared during the initial planning
stages of the city I s efforts project to develop the parcel,
logical variations of the proposed project, and large City-owned
off-site locations that could accommodate a project of a similar
size.
All Alternatives in the FEIR were compared to the originally
proposed four phase project. (See Attachment F: Summary of
Impacts of Project Alternatives.)
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
The Development Agreement contains the land use and development
standards that will regulate the uses, height, size, design, and
scale of the Airport Residual Land Development proj ect. The
Agreement also delineates the responsibilities and obligations of
both the Developer and the City before, during, and after
construction of the project.
A draft Development Agreement was submitted by the Developer when
the application for the project was submitted. As the City
prepared the Environmental Impact Report and conducted its
- 20 -
neighborhood workshops and meetings, City staff met with the
Developer and recommended that numerous changes be made to the
draft document. These modifications were intended to incorporate
the recommendations contained in the environmental documents on
the project and to respond to community and neighborhood concerns
about the project.
The Development Agreement is included in Attachment G and a
summary of that Agreement is included as Attachment G2. The
Development Agreement was written for the minimal impact project.
No changes are necessary if the City Council approved this
alternative. However, if the City Council approved the no impact
project, specific changes to the draft Development Agreement
document are necessary These changes are contained in
Attachment H: Recommended Modifications to Development Agreement.
GROUND LEASE AGREEMENT
The Ground Lease Agreement between the City of Santa Monica and
Reliance Development Group contains the business terms for the
leasing of the site to Reliance for development of the residual
land project. (See Attachment I: Ground Lease.) The Ground
Lease was prepared with the guidance of outside legal counsel who
specializes in real estate matters and ground leases.
The lease provides the city with both a guaranteed source of
ground rent income from the property and an opportunity to
participate in the various types of profits the developer may
realize from the development project.
The lease requires that Reliance Development Group pay the City a
guaranteed base rent commencing when Reliance takes possession of
the land for each phase of development. The guaranteed base rent
for Phase 1 will commence one year after execution of the
Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) i for Phase 2, four
years after execution of the DDAi and for Phase 3, six years
after exectution of the DDA.
The annual guaranteed base rent paid to the City equals $3.30 per
rentable square feet of development to be constructed in each
phase or approximately $1,160,000 per year for Phase 1 and an
additional $1,225,000 per year for Phase 2. If the city Council
approves the minimal impact proj ect, Phase 3 will generate an
additional $916,000 per year. If the Council approves the no
impact alternative, Phase 3 will generate about $279,000
annually.
In 1996, after the developer has taken possession of the land for
all three phases of the project, guaranteed ground rent is
estimated to total $3,272,000 annually for the minimal impact
project and $2,792,000 annually for the no impact project.
The lease provides for the escalation of the initial guaranteed
base rent rate to keep up with inflation. The first rent
- 21 -
increase will occur on January 1, 1999, with a minimum increase
of 25% and a maximum increase of 69%. In 1999, the total
guaranteed base rent paid to the City for all phases will be
approximately $4,853,000 annually (assuming 4% annual inflation)
for the minimal impact project and $4,133,000 annually for the no
impact project alternative. After 1999, the guaranteed base rent
will increase every five years.
The Ground Lease also requires Reliance Development Group to pay
the City a share of the net revenue it receives from tenants in
the proj ect and a share of the net proceeds resulting from the
sale of the leasehold interest or from refinancing the project.
The City will receive 16% of the net tenant rental revenue, 15%
of the net sale proceeds, and 8.5% of the net refinancing
proceeds. Assuming conservative tenant rents and inflation,
participation rent could increase the total amount of the City's
income from the property by 35% over the full term of the lease.
In 1996, once the proj ect is fully built out and generating
income to the developer, the proj ect is estimated to generate
$870,000 annually in participation rent to the City.
The Ground Lease also, among other things, requires certain
guarantees to ensure construction of the project and the payment
of rent and provides processes to remedy or cure defaults.
DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
The Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) contains the all
of the provision regulating the transfer of the property to
Reliance Development Group. (See Attachment J: Disposition and
Development Agreement.)
The DDA mandates the timing each phase is to be conveyed to
Reliance and delineates the area of the phases to be leased. The
ODA also describes the improvements to be constructed on each
phase. All phases are to be leased in accordance with the DDA
and each phase must comply with the terms of the DDA, Development
Agreement, and Ground Lease. The DDA:
1. allows for small shifts in the boundary lines between Phases
as long as they do not materially alter the amount of land
being conveyed at one time;
2. allows Reliance to accelerate the take down of each phase as
long as the prior phase has been completed, all guarantees
are in place, and the property is taken subj ect to any
unexpired leases the City may have on that portion of the
property:
3. permits the City to use the residual land property until it
is leased for development as long as the City's use does not
prevent the City from conveying the property to Reliance on
schedule. However, the City must consider Reliance'S request
to modify or avoid a use if the use could have a material
- 22 -
adverse effect on Reliance's proJect but the city may screen
potentially adverse uses from view rather than avoid or
modify the use;
4. requires completion of all buildings, traffic improvements,
infrastructure, mitigations measures, and landscaping and
common area improvements required for each phase;
5. requires that Reliance execute the Ground Lease, CC & Rs, and
any guarantees for each Phase prior to taking possession of
the phase;
6. allows for the increase in guaranteed base rent if more space
in each building is rented than was originally anticipated;
7. contains prov~s~ons related to title reports and title
insurance;
8. requires that the construction of buildings in Phases 2 and 3
commence within 13 years of execution of the DDA and that any
construction, once it is started, be completed within 30
months;
9. defines the level of quality of construction of the buildings
in the project;
10. requires an employment service that targets qualified local
area residents and provides employment opportunities for them
at the project;
11. provides for the cleanup of toxic substances if they are
found on the parcel. If toxic clean up exceeds $1,000,000
for each of the first and second Phases, and $1.5 million for
third phase, the city may terminate all agreements and stop
the project. The project may continue if Reliance pays for
all toxic clean up costs over the city's limits;
12. provides for the City to borrow up to $5 million from
Reliance at 9% interest for any purpose it chooses. The loan
can be paid back from ground rent paid to the City but in no
case will the payment need to exceed 50% of the City's rent
in anyone year; and
13. requires Reliance to guarantee completion of construction
once it is begun and guarantee five years of base rent for
each phase until construction of all improvements in that
phase is complete, 1 year of base rent until the buildings
are at least 80% leased, and 6 months thereafter for the term
of the Ground Lease.
DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS, AND RESTRICTIONS
The Declaration of Covenants 1
(CC&Rs):
Conditions and Restrictions
- 23 -
1. describes and defines the separate real property interests
associated with the project:
2. establishes the common area plan to coordinate and integrate
the phased development:
3.
establishes and
egress, access,
utilities:
creates reciprocal easements
circulation, maintenance,
for ingress,
passage, and
4. provides for the creation of a non-profit association to
budget, assess, and collect assessments from project owners
to pay taxes and insurance attributable to the common areas;
5. delineates the responsibilities of the association for
oper~tion, maintenance, repair, easements, streets, drives,
lights, the water feature and landscaping, and all other
shared improvements;
6. requires that all private and common area improvements be
maintained in good and clean order and condition consistent
with the standards provided in the Ground Lease:
7. requires all parties to make all necessary and appropriate
capital and operating repairs within reasonable periods of
time:
8. allows each parking structure to be owned by a separate
entity but requires that all structures be managed and
operated by the association; and
9. regulates subsequent construction activity in the project
once it is initally complete so this activity does not
interfere with other project owners and with the use of the
common areas.
The CC & Rs also permit the City, after the Ground Lease expires
on a portion of the property, to relocate easements, to connect
new improvements constructed by the City to the remaining
existing proj ect 's common areas, to use the remaining existing
common areas if the city share in the cost to maintain those
areas, and vice versa.
(See Attachment K: Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and
Restrictions.)
~UNICIPAL conE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE
The project is proposed to be approved by adoption of a
development agreement because development of the proj ect will
occur in a number of phases over an extended period of time. The
development agreement will provide a consistent set of land use
and development standards for the entire period of project
- 24 -
development and a program of mitigation measures and other
developer obligations to help minimize impacts.
Sections 9800-9820 of the Municipal Code establish procedures for
adopting development agreements. To approve a development
agreement, the city Council must determ:Lne that the proposed
development agreement "is consistent with the General Plan and
any applicable specific Plan. II However, development standards
such as density, maximum height or permitted uses contained in a
development agreement may vary from those established in the
zoning district by Code.
As the General Plan Compliance Table contained in Attachment L
indicates, the revised project is in conformity with the General
Plan and proposed General Plan Amendment as contained in
Attachment M: General Plan Amendment. with approval of the
proposed General Plan Amendment as discussed below, the project
will be compatible with the allowable intensity of development,
land uses, heights, setbacks and other development standards
established for the Airport residual land parcel.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
The Land Use Element of the General Plan does not address the
project site in great detail. As part of the project approval
process, a General Plan Amendment is proposed that will refine
and add language to the City's Land Use Element that incorporates
the goal, objectives, and development standards approved by the
City in the RFP for the project. The major purpose of the
proposed General Plan Amendment is to add a new land use district
which will be called the Airport Commercial District. The
proposed General Plan Amendment is provided as Attachment M:
General Plan Amendment.
The new Airport Commercial District would allow development of a
"well-landscaped, campus-like environment to include such uses as
studio and support facilities, hotel, restaurant, research and
development offices, laboratories, light manufacturing
facilities, general offices, small business incubator facilities,
child care facilities, support retail services, and other uses
compatible with these (and surrounding) uses." It should be made
clear that not all of these uses would ultimately be located on
the residual land parcel. Uses to be permitted in the project
are regulated by the Development Agreement for the project.
The new Airport Commercial District encompasses only the Reliance
developed land (Phases 1 through 3). The City-retained former
t1phase 4" of the project would remain in the current Public Lands
District of the City's General Plan.
Proposed Land Use Element Objective and Policies
Objective 1.14 states that the Airport Commercial District is
proposed to t1facilitate transformation of a City-held land asset
- 25 -
into an innovative aesthetically superior, high quality office
and working environment that produces employment, business
opportunities and related benefits... II. All development will
comply with the Airport Master Agreement executed by the city and
Federal Aviation Administration and approved by Resolution No.
6814 (CCS) adopted January 24, 1984.
Three new policies are proposed to be added to the Land Use
Element. Policy No. 1.14.1 lim1ts building height to a maximum
of 84 feet, exclusive of specific features; establishes an
allowable intensity of 0.85 F.A.R. for occupied buildings: and
provides for an additional F.A.R. of 0.98 to be used exclusively
for above-grade parking structures if a comprehensive development
plan, such as a development agreement, is approved. (If the no
impact project alternative is approved by the City Council, the
FAR fo~ occupied buildings can be reduced to 0.75 FAR as
recommended by the City Council.)
Policy No. 1.14.2 requires uses to be "Airport compatiblell in
accordance with the Airport Master Agreement. The Request for
Development Proposal for the Airport residual land parcel set
parameters for development of the site based on the provisions of
the Airport Master Agreement, Land Use and Circulation Elements,
and the recommendations of the Planning commission on that RFP.
These parameters listed the following as desired uses: research
and development offices and laboratories, including support
assembly and light manufacturing: general offices; small business
incubator facilities and support programs; retail outlets and
restaurants intended primarily for the convenience of employees
working within the projecti and other uses determined to be
compatible with the Airport. Unacceptable uses were defined as
those uses that are not compatible with Airport operations or are
not consistent with City-wide land use policies, including
residential, medical office, specialty and general retail, public
assembly, and heavy industrial uses.
Policy 1.14.3 requires the provision of a child day care center
facility within any development on the Airport Residual Land.
The Development Agreement expands on the specific requirements
regarding the fulfillment of this requirement.
Proposed Urban Design Objective and Policies
Objective 3.6 states that the Airport Commercial District is
intended to accommodate airport-compatible businesses in a
well-landscaped, campus-like environment Which will be compatible
with neighboring residential areas. Five new policies are
proposed to guide design of the development.
Policy 3.6.1 requires that the development include buildings that
are arChitecturally superior in design and detailing, sensitive
to the scale and character of the area and City, aesthetically
harmonious and which provide a campus-like setting with public
open spaces. Design of the proposed development conforms to
these criteria. Buildings will have large setbacks from property
- 26 -
lines and are designed around a campus-like theme incorporating
large, focal landscaped areas.
Policy 3.6.2 encourages the design of building elements and
articulation which produce visual interest, especially at the
pedestrian level. Several of the proposed buildings feature
curved facades defining an interesting geometry to the site
design, in addition to tiering and recessing of building facades.
The palette of exterior finishes will be approved by the
Architectural Review Board to ensure visual interest to the
project.
Pol icy 3 . 6.3
Agreement and
requirements.
requires compliance with
applicable Federal
the Airport Master
Aviation Regulation
Policy 3.6.4 specifies that public art be incorporated in the
Airport commercial District. The proposed site design is
particularly well suited to accomplish this in that wide expanses
of gardens, water features and usable open space are provided
which may easily accommodate art forms such as sculptures,
murals, special events and the like.
Policy 3.6.5 requires the development of a comprehensive
landscaping program which will create park-like open space
available to all employees, visitors and the general public,
consistent with security considerations. This has been achieved
through the design of four, accessible, theme gardens; plazas; a
courtyard and water gardens with bridge and fountain features.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT
The project will provide economic benefits to the City of Santa
Monica resulting from one time fees and charges, annual tax
revenues, and annual payments.
One Time Fees and Charges
Santa Monica Municipal Code section 9046 specifies housing and
parks mitigation measures which may be satisfied by payment of a
one-time, in-lieu fee to the City. Based on this program, the
developer will pay an estimated in-lieu housing/parks mitigation
fee of $5,850,000 if the council approves the minimal impact
project and $4,738,500 if the Council approves the no impact
project alternative.
The minimal impact project will generate approximately $243,500
in development impact fees for the Santa Monica/Malibu Unified
School District. The no impact project alternative will generate
about $197,200.
The minimal impact project will generate
building permit, planning application, and
about $488,700 in
engineering fees
- 27 -
related to processing and approving the development. The no
impact project alternative w~ll generate about $396,800.
Annual Tax Revenue
The minimal impact project will generate a net increase in annual
revenue to the City of approximately $1,271,400 (1996 dollars)
annually at buildout in possessory interest property taxes,
retail sales tax, utility user's tax, business license fees,
fines, and forfeitures. The no impact project alternative will
generate about $1,030,000 (1996 dollars) annually.
Annual Payments
The City of Santa Monica will retain ownership of the land on
which the project will be constructed. The City will lease the
land to the developer for 55 years but the developer may request
up to two 10 year extensions of the lease.
The developer will pay the city rent for the land based on the
number of rentable square feet of floor area to be constructed in
each phase. The original project proposed by Reliance
Development Group was estimated to generate $29.8 million in
guaranteed ground rent revenue to the City in the first 10 year
term of the lease. The minimal impact proj ect will generate
approximately $27,940,000 in guaranteed ground rent to the City
in the first 10 years of the lease. The no impact proj ect
alternative are estimated to generate $25,786,000 in guaranteed
ground rent in the first 10 years of the lease.
The annual base rent will escalate every 5 years to keep pace
with inflation so annual guaranteed ground rent will increase as
the project matures.
In addition to guaranteed ground rent, the City will receive rent
based on a percentage of the net annual revenue paid to the
developer by the project tenants and of the net profits from any
sale of the leasehold interest or refinancing of loans. As
tenants' lease rates increase, the city's ground rent from
participation in the project revenue will also increase.
As a result, the annual guaranteed and participation rent
payments to the City (in actual dollars) from the minimal impact
project is estimated to equal:
$ 1,160,000 in the second year of the lease increasing to
$ 5,142,000 per year in year 11 increasing up to
$ 8,l34,OOO per year in year 21 increasing up to
$12,564,000 per year in year 31 increasing up to
$54,278,000 per year in year 56 increasing up to
$116,239,000 in the last year of the lease (75th year)
Total revenue to the City in guaranteed and participation ground
rent (in actual dollars) for the minimal impact project is
estimated at:
- 28 -
$ 27,940,000 in the first 10 years
$ 102,891,000 in the first 20 years
$ 744,113,000 in the first 55 years
$2,377,040,000 in the full 75 year term of the lease
For the no impact project alternative, the annual guaranteed and
participation ground rent payments to the City (in actual
dollars) is estimated to equal:
$ 1/160,000 in the second year of the lease increasing to
$ 4,393,000 per year in year 11 increasing up to
$ 6,947,000 per year in year 21 increasing up to
$10/726,000 per year in year 31 increasing up to
$46,322,000 per year in year 56 increasing up to
$99,191,000 in the last year of the lease (75th year)
Total revenue to theCity in guaranteed and participation ground
rent (in actual dollars) for the no impact project alternative is
estimated at:
$ 25,786,000 in the first 10 years
$ 88,400,000 in the first 20 years
$ 635,734,000 in the first 5S years
$2,029,222,000 in the full 75 year term of the lease
(See Attachment N: Comparison of Ground Rent Revenue.)
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The City Planning Commission held a public hearing on the
proposed project on September 13, 1989 at which 65 people spoke
about the project (40 in opposition, 20 in support, and 5
neutral). The Commission continued the meeting to september 14th
in order to ask questions of the developer and City staff. (Only
five Planning commissioners were present at the public hearing
and subsequent deliberation and recommendation meetings.
Commissioner Rosenstein was asked by the City council to not
participate in the process and Commissioner Kaufman had a
conflict of interest.) The Commission continued the september
14th meeting to September 21st.
On September 21st, the Planning Commission met to consider the
proposed proj ect and to approve a recommendations to the city
Council on certifying the Final EIR, approving General Plan
Amendment Number 11, and approving the draft Development
Agreement for the project.
The Planning commission discussed a broad range of topics during
its deliberation of the project. Individual Commissioners:
1. questioned the validity of using the newest ITE Manual for
trip generation rates (4th Edition) versus an older version
of the manual to determine the number of trips generated by
the project,
- 29 -
2. questioned the accuracy of the traffic data contained in the
FEIR when the average daily tr1ps identified for the Airport
in the " cumulative pro] ects 1 ist II in an ErR for another
project was larger than the da1ly trip figure contained in
the EIR specifically prepared for the Airport project,
3. questioned the finding that the project would not generate
significant traffic impacts in Sunset Park,
4. questioned the amount of revenue estimated to be generated by
the project,
5. disagreed with the use of an inflexible development agreement
that did not allow the City to change its mind on the
appropriateness of development on the parcel,
6. felt that the Commission should place greater consideration
on the fiscal analysis since the revenue was the primary
reason to proceed with the proposed project, and
7. felt that the public should vote on the project since it
committed public land to a single use for a long period of
time.
commissioner Mechur suggested that the following
conditions be forwarded to the City Council which
recommended conditions of approval for the project:
1. Require that a Neighborhood Protection Plan be approved
for Sunset Park within one year after issuance of the
Certificate of Occupancy for the first building in the
project.
list of
contained
2. Require that a portion of the arts fee from the project
(25%) be directed to art programs in the city's schools
and to school beautification.
3. Require that a portion of the project (up to 10%)
revenue be used for Sunset Park neighborhood
improvements such as street and alley paving, street
tree planting, adding bike paths, utility
undergrounding, park upkeep and refurbishment,
construction of a new park building at the Clover Park
extension, street improvements to discourage cut-through
traffic, affordable housing, street lighting where
requested, sidewalk repairs, and increasing police
patrols.
4. Require that 1% of the annual proj ect revenue not to
exceed $100,000 per year be placed in an Airport Trust
Fund to be used to study reuse options for the Airport
property if the City decides to close the Airport in the
year 2015. (Note: The City cannot assume it can close
the Airport in 2015. That date is when the City's
current agreement with the FAA expires.}
- 30 -
5. Require that a portion of the revenue be used for
special programs in Sunset Park schools.
6. Require that 50% of the Hous1ng Mitigation Fee be used
for affordable hous1ng 1n Sunset Park.
7. Require that the TDM program include the purchase of
vans for vanpools and that the TDM program implement
changes in work shifts if the TDM trip reduction goal is
not met.
8. Require that showers and bicycle lockers be provided to
encourage employees to ride bikes to work.
The Planning commission made a number of motions at its September
21st meeting.
Commissioner Mechur moved and Commissioner Pyne seconded the
motion to certify the EIR. Commissioners Farivar stated that
there were discrepencies with other EIRs and was not convinced
that the EIR consultants used appropriate methodologies to
analyze traffic impacts. commissioner Lambert stated that she
had reservations about the EIR, that she understood that experts
often disagree as to methodology and assumptions but didn't
believe any of the experts, and felt that EIRs contradict her
personnal experience in certain instinces. Chairmember Nelson
stated that the ErR on the project was one of the most
comprehensive he has read which, sentiment was reiterated by
Commissioner Pyne.
The Planning Commission approved the motion to recommend
certification of the Final EIR by a vote of 4 yes and 1 no
(Farivar).
Commissioner Pyne moved and Chairperson Nelson seconded the
motion to approve the no impact project Alternative 3C [Three
Phase -- Reduced Density or 822,000 square feet (873,000 gross
square feet)] subj ect to conditions of approval related to the
use of project revenue listed by Commissioner Mechur.
Commissioner Mechur stated that he could not support the no
impact Alternative 3c and made a substitute motion to recommend
approval of a 4 story project built in three phases or a 6 story
project built in two phases containing 750,000 square feet with
his recommended list of uses for the project revenue. The
substitute motion died for lack of a second.
Commissioner Farivar made another substitute motion to recommend
that the City Council reduce the size of the no impact
Al ternative 3C by 20%, that the City Council hire an outside
expert to analyze the financial deal, and that the project be
placed on the ballot because the 75 year lease term exceeded the
City Council police powers and because future City Council's
should be able to influence the future scope of the development.
The substitute motion was seconded by Commissioner Mechur. The
substitute motion failed 1 yes (Farivar) and 4 no.
- 31 -
Commissioner Nelson withdrew his second from the main motion
stating that he wanted to facilitate a vote on a motion that
could gain the support of at least four Cott~issioners. The main
motion was removed from considerat~on.
Commissioner pyne moved to recommend approval of an 800,000
square foot project with Commissioner Mechur1s list of
recommended uses for the revenue and recommended that the City
Council conduct an independent evaluation of the business deal.
The motion died for lack of a second.
commissioner Mechur moved and Chairperson Nelson seconded the
motion to recommend approval of a no impact project of 750,000
gross square feet to be developed in two phases and to recommend
that the City Council conduct an independent evaluation of the
business, deal. Commissioner Farivar asked that the project size
range from 600,000 gross square feet to 750,000 gross square
feet. Commissioner Mechur and Chairperson Nelson agreed to
include this change in the motion. After extended discussion,
commissioner Lambert agreed to support the motion to facilitate
approval of a Commission recommendation on the project. The
motion passed 4 yes, 0 no, 1 abstention (pyne).
Commissioner Farivar moved to recommend that the City council
seriously consider placing the the Planning commission-
recommended project on the ballot along with other alternatives
for a vote of the residents. Seconded by Commissioner Mechur,
the motion failed 3 yes (l1echur, Lambert, Farivar) to 2 no
(Nelson, pyne).
Chairperson Nelson moved and Commissioner Mechur seconded the
motion to recommend approval of General Plan Amendment Number 11
as presented by staff with the FAR permitted for the proj ect
reduced to 0.75 FAR. The motion passed unanimously.
Chairperson Nelson moved to recommend approval of the Statement
of overriding Considerations. Seconded, the motion failed 3 yes,
I no (Farivar), 1 abstention (pyne).
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
staff has identified the range of choices for the City council to
consider in its deliberations on approval of the development
project for the residual land parcel at the Santa Monica Airport.
This range was identified based on the findings contained in the
Final EIR on the project and on staff I s understanding of the
future financial well-being of the City of Santa Monica.
The Council may desire to approve the 1,015,000 square foot
(1,078,100 gross square feet) proj ect that generates a
significant amount of stable new income to the City that is not
limited in its use due to the City's Gann limit or other funding
restrictions and that results in minimal environmental impacts on
the immediate area. A larger project would generate an
- 32 -
unacceptable increase in the number and severity of impacts on
the surrounding area.
The Council may desire to approve a project that generates less
income to the City but that is consistent with the Planning
Commission's recommendation to approve a project with NO
SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS. The Final ErR on the project clearly shows
that no significant environmental impacts are generated by a
project that contains 822,000 square feet (873,000 gross square
feet). A project smaller than this level will reduce the project
far below the level necessary to eliminate all significant
environmental impacts. More importantly, a project smaller than
this level will result in a project that is economically
infeasible to build given the high quality of the construction
and landscape amenities, the amount and scale of on-site
infrastructure improvements needed to serve the project, the
costs of mitigation, and generous amount of community amenities
to be derived from development of this land. The developer is
unwilling to build a project smaller than this level without
significant new financial concessions from the City.
To approve this project, the city Council must certify the EIR;
adopt a finding of overriding consideration for potentially
unmitigated significant adverse impacts if there are anYi approve
a resolution approving General Plan Amendment Number lli approve
an ordinance adopting the Development Agreement for the project;
and approve resolutions directing the City Manager to negotiate
and execute the Ground Lease Agreement, DDA, and CC&Rs consistent
the documents attached to this staff report.
Approval of the statement of Overriding Considerations for all
impacts in the City of Los Angeles is necessary to ensure that
the project can move forward if for some reason the City of Los
Angeles blocks the developer or the City of Santa Monica from
implementing the mitigations called for in the Final EIR and
Development Agreement which are all feasible and reasonable
improvements. Not approving this Statement permits the City of
Los Angeles to make Santa Monica land use decisions more
appropriately made by the City Council of the city of Santa
Monica and should not be transfered to another jurisdiction.
CEQA Recommendations
1. The Planning commission and City staff recommend that the
City council certify the Final Environmental Impact Report
consisting of Volumes 1, 2, 3, and 4 (SCH #88020320) as
complying with the California Environmental Quality Act
(cEQA) and the City'S Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA
and as adequately analyzing the project.
2. Staff recommends that the city Council adopt the findings of
overriding consideration contained in Attachment 0: statement
of Overriding Considerations as required by CEQA which finds
that the benefits of the project override the potentially
unavoidable environmental risks of the project.
- 33 -
General Plan Amendment Recommendation and Finding
1. Staff recommends that the city Council adopt the General Plan
Amendment contained in Attachment M if the Council approved
the minimal impact project in that it is required for the
public necessity, public convenience and general welfare
because it will add comprehensive standards and policies by
which to guide development within the Airport Residual
Property which will be compatible with the Airport Master
Agreement while meeting the City's goal to transform an
underutilized public land asset into an innovative,
aesthetically superior, high quality working environment that
produces significant new revenue, employment, business
opportunity and related benefits for project site users and
the City in general.
2. If the City council approves the no impact project
alternative, staff recommends that the City Council modify
the General Plan Amendment contained in Attachment M to
reduce the permitted FAR for occupied buildings to 0.75 FAR
which reflects the Planning Commission's recommended
modifications to the Amendment and which will accommodate the
no impact project building area.
Development Agreement Recommendations and Findings
1. staff recommends that the city Council approve the attached
ordinance (Attachment G) adopting the Development Agreement
as contained in Attachment G if the city Council approves the
minimal impact project (Alternative 3A).
2. If the City Council approves the no impact project
alternatives, staff recommends that the City council adopt
the attached ordinance (Attachment G) adopting the
Development Agreement with the modifications contained in
Attachment H and with the finding contained in Attachment p:
Findings for Approval of Development Agreement for the
Airport Residual Land Development Project.
Ground Lease Agreement Recommendation
staff recommends that the City Council approve the attached
resolution (Attachment I) authorizing the City Manager to
negotiate and execute the Ground Lease between the city of Santa
Monica and Reliance Development Group consistent with the
document contained in Attachment I.
Disposition and Development Agreement
staff recommends that the City Council approve the attached
resolution (Attachment J) authorizing the City Manager to
negotiate and execute the Disposition and Development Agreement
(DDA) between the City of Santa Monica and Reliance Development
Group DDA consistent with the document contained in Attachment J.
Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions
- 34 -
staff recommends that the City Council approve the attached
resolution (Attachment K) authorizing the city Manager to
negotiate and execute the the Declaration of covenants,
Conditions, and Restrictions (CC & Rs) between the City of Santa
Monica and Reliance Development Group (CC & Rs) consistent with
the document contained in Attachment K.
Phase 4 Community Planning Process
staff recommends that the City Council direct City staff to
commence a community planning process to:
1. Determine the specific uses to be located on the surplus
portion of the residual land parcel,
2. Determine the desireability of retaining the "Barker Hanger"
located on City-retained land in "phase 4" of the residual
land parcel and, if retained, determine the appropriate use
or reuse of the building, including retaining the present use
of the building for Airport-related and Airport-compatible
uses.
3. Determine the peak hour vehicular trips generated by the uses
to be include on this portion of the parcel,
4. Adjust the Reliance development proj ect accordingly within
the bounds recommended in this staff report.
Prepared by: Peggy Curran, Director
community and Economic Development Department
Paul Berlant, Director of Planning
City Planning Division
Christopher S. Rudd, Sr. Administrative Analyst
Economic Development Division
Suzanne Frick, Principal Planner
City Planning Division
Johanna Marie GUlliCk, Associate Planner
EIR Case Planner
City Planning Division
Attachments: A.
Project Site Plans
B. Parking Comparison Charts
C. Final Environmental Impact Report (Volume 4)
- 35 -
D. Summary of EIR Trafflc Analysis, Comments on
the Analysis, and Responses to Comments
E. Intersection Impact Tables
F. summary of Impacts of project Alternatives
G. Development Agreement and Summary of Agreement
H. Recommended Modifications to Development
Agreement
I. Lease Agreement
J. Disposition and Development Agreement
K. Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and
Restrictions.
L. General Plan Compliance Table
M. General Plan Amendmant
N. Comparison of Ground Rent Income
o. statement of Overriding considerations
P. Findings for Approval of Development Agreement
w/air2cc
september 28, 1989
- 36 -
t..."f. A 0-- . i.. i__i F.... _""_
Pre.. i df" It t.
'0'1'~ ./ ~1-,rfTl~r'l
vice Prc'ildent.
IrDr-e 1...
Recording secretary:
Jafl 7.:irncac:
Corresponding Secretar)"
t.-J'lr"',..; Sip (""
TU:ilsu ,et:
t-.11<lr:V Sfel'"
Directors'
J~. ~ 0 !v..I-:::-p
.ja~" Bc:'ke-
(:;:)'-(1: pre;~.,.'e.se"-
Lv1a B~~-....~.e'ser
E~ c. t. i~~rl
J~f""1c.c: r'!.'.)~ .~Irg
E.,,..::::;I;....I r"r.-:.;r"'v::r
r: I~ I.... 'I.. kerc:"',
~_I",=::: r_;r....t::'5
':;;::Irl/ I .I~~"'"
J e-" .~"") ~:.. ~.- 0;::
Hpr:~. .(n.z
t!""~:-J !"~~~z.
J....I~r> j.o:.~'Jf;'-"~r.
i-la..'~'a j ~t:: r..,
EI ~ K""C~fr't'lur<l
B- an C',zcu"lal'
Je~''''r.p. f"1:1';,."19
rv1'::;;'--:FHPf PI-k-:!-,
CllPccd t1;:::pd
GI'l'jvs rj"o,j
C~"'d q,.,p~.
~~-'... S~~'si~g
JIT S~lwl"aha'"
Er:: 5.0<;
AI'rp 5;-1111"-
S~"2~rpP ')Ir::ttc.
'!j~'.21' Z=1.......'"'~O:::
SPAN
Sunset Park Associated Neighbors
1 ')'jR C),I" "'treet · ~anta Motllca California 90405
<lei _.-J ~"'_
... ........~., ~,A"",~. v""..-'-+--IAA/..,..44A..AA.- ,..u......~\.....Jl'L~v-..-..........~(.'-...........J.-1.-~~...,A........).,_JJ...t-I.....
..... ~;.../l.-"'..{.
October 2, 1989
i
I .. I
ISanta Mon1ca C1ty Counc11
1685 Main street
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Airport Residual Land Project
:Re:
t
I
!Dear Council Members:
I
IAS you are all aware our organization has been
actively involved in the public process for
I developments in and around our neighborhood for
the past six years. This involvement has been
!multilevel: individual members, committees and
I the Board of Directors. Our members have been
[particularly concerned about this project. A
I great deal of time and effort has gone into our
I participation.
;
i The Board of Directors of S.P.A.N., in
Iresponse to concerns of our members, has adopted a
;1 position in opposition of the above referenced
proj ect. We remain opposed for a variety of
Ireasons which adversely effect our quality of
Ilife, individually and collectively.
i
! Neighborhood Traffic Protection. For the
[past few years, S.P.A.N. has insisted that the
itraffic problems in our area were becoming
I'intolerable. The added traffic from this project,
as well as other projects planned for this area,
:will only acerbate these conditions. We feel
Ithat the residential character of the neighborhood
must be not only protected, but enhanced. Thus
Ifar, there has been a lot of talk and excitement
:on the topic of neighborhood traffic protections,
!but nothing concrete. certainly, a comprehensive
:p~ogram acceptable to the majority of the
:community is some time off. Therefore, S.P.A.N.
;will be opposed to the issuance of any building
,permits unless and until the Neighborhood Traffic
Protection program is agreed upon and implemented
in Sunset Park.
Allocation of Lease Payments.. The city has not shown a
great degree of foresight in the spending of its income. Instead
of investing in infrastructure, we have seen social programs.
This has lead to the sad condition that new development is used
to fund infrastructure improvements and as older infrastructure
improvements need replacing, the city needs to approve new
proj ects to generate the revenue to pay for such improvements.
S.P.A.N. recognizes that infrastructure improvements are needed,
but we remain dubious as to the advisability of relying on new
development to fund such improvements. Nonetheless this is the
system that is currently in place. since the proposed project is
located in our neighborhood and we will receive the brunt of any
impacts, we feel that it is imperative that lease income from the
project be first allocated to infrastructure improvements in
Sunset Park. Residents have a hard time understanding why they
have to pay for these improvements out of their own pockets while
suffering under the impacts of very substantial existing
residentially incompatible land uses.
Additionally, S.P.A.N. is very concerned that public assets
in our area, especially the parks, not be withdrawn from
resident's use because of neglect. Parks need care and guarding
or they will become unusable for the residents, like the parks
and promenade in the downtown area. Promises that were made by
the city at the time of the Clover Park expansion have yet to be
funded. Each day the concern increases that these assets will be
overrun and area residents only be able to use them at their own,
substantial risk. We need only look to the recent attack on a
lifeguard at Santa Monica beach to illustrate our concerns.
If and only if these concerns are addressed and solved would
S. P.A.N. be willing to consider the project at the Planning
Commission's recommended scale.
Sinc"ely yours,
/!;/(/ ~ /"
/~> \. h
~ . /'" I
The/Board of Dlrector
Sunset Park Associated Neighbors
SRLT?BURG pqy BEPG~q~
TEL 1-2~3-473-3629
~
'"
A - Approved
B - Built
D - Defeated
P - Pending
No.
Na.lne/Location
};.and Use
1
1500 Appian Way
Aquarium
2
730 Arizona
Office
Retail
3
Office
Retail
100 Broadway
4
309 Broadway
Retail
Office
Apartment
Theatre
5
Retail
Off ice '?A:206 SF
920 Broadway
6
Colorado Place.
(Phase II)
Theatra
7
Water Garden
2425 Olympic
Office/Bank
Medical Office
Retail
Re.staurant
High Quality
Health club
Day Care
8
Santa Monica Beach
Hotel
9
2233 Pico Blvd.
Retail
10
2301 pico Blvd.
Retail
11
pi co at Cloverfield Retail
Dc: O~.89 17"20 No 005 p.02
July 21, 1989
Size
64,000
SF
17,624
2,739
SF
SF
A&B
72,105
24,859
SF
SF
14,300 SF
57,000 SF
32 D.U.
tS,800 SF
A
21,538 SF A
44 D. U. 38)~~ SF
2,000 Seat
l,137J577 SF
75,000 SF
40,000 SF
5Q,000 SF
A
25,000 SF
7,000 SF
194
Rl1
63,000 SF D
54,391 SF P
62,770 SF
SRLTZBUPG PRY BERGMQ~
T~L' 1-213-473-3689
Oct 03,89 17.20 No 005 P 03
12 Airport Expansion
13 1201 Santa Monica Atrium 1,200 SF A
Mall (3rd st. Retail 6,007 SF
Promenade) Office 24,700 SF
Restaurant
High Turnover 4,372 SF
14 1300 Santa Monica Theatre 4,970 Screens
15 Kramer Motors Car Dealership 4,372 SF
16 st. John's Hospital Parking Expansion 270 Spaces
17 Colorado Place Motel 270,283 SF A
(Phase II) Office/Bank 672:,215 SF
Medical Office 35,000 SF
Health Club 37,048 SF
Retail 10,000 SF
Restaurant 25,000 SF
High Quality
18 Greenwood II & III Office 212,000 SF 1'-.
19 1260 Lincoln Blvd. Office 34,88B SF
20 Edge-mar Farns Office 81000 SF A&B
Retail 18,000 SF
21 3105 Main street Retail 7,28~ SF A
Hotel 62,967 SF
22 1700 Ocean Avenue Hotel 349 RM 1o.&B
292,000 SF
23 1733 Ocean Avenue Office 60,000 SF A
Retail 28,000 SF
Restaurant 10,000 SF
High Turnover
24 1746 Ocean Avenue Hotel 186 R.~
SPLTZBURG PRY BEPGMR~
TEL. 1-213-473-3689
Oct 03.?9 17 20 ~c O~5 P 04
25 1828 Ocean Avenue Retail 45,990 SF
Restaurant 16,000 SF
High Quality
Office 10,600 SF
26 GTE Building Office 163,938 SF A&B
27 Parks ide Medical Medical Office. 28,000 SF A&B
2:8 Confort Inn Motel 66 R..VJ: D
29 Mira~ar Sheraton Expansion 270 Spaces
Parking Structure
30 1438 2nd street Youth Hostel 200 Bods A
31 Unity By The Sea Church 8,294 SF P
Retail 4,068 SF
Office 21,283 SF
32 Parking Structure #5 Expansion 332 Spaces
33 Community services Office 23,300 SF A
34 4th street Hotel Hotel 140,000 SF A
1723 255 R!1
Retail 13,200 SF
Office 26,400 SF
35 1636 5th stre.e.t Office 11,700 SF ASB
36 YMCA Addition Health Club 31,000 SF A&3
37 1245 16th street Medical Office 60,000 SF A&B
38 1452 16th street Office 23,934 SF A&B
39 St. John's Hospital Parking Expansion 277 Spaces
SRLTZBURG PRY BEPG~RN
TEL 1-213-47~-2689
Oct 03.89 17 20 ~o 005 P.05
8d:r'4~~~m/7 40#4/ 6'/;:
Name/Looation ~~~ Q~~ ~
A
2320-2550 Broadway
Colorado Place II
Office
450,OOOSF
A
1406 Montana
Retail 17,624 SF
Retail 11,250 SF
Restaurant 1,600 SF
Retail 3,011 SF
Retail 4,991 SF
Retail 9,736 SF
Restaurant 5,170 SF
~Qt'ill ilr 2.1, ~e f!!f
-Offiac J,660 31'
..A.-:,: ~. ~t ll~ "::--~:. :;~ I ;:::~ cr
A
1310 Montana
A
1101 Montana
A
1610 Broadway
A
525 Broadway
A
1721 Broad~ay
~
-9~e Brlilaal,re:y
J"11..!It CalRp19t:ge
A 1301 Broadway Retail 4,280 SF
A 2425 Olympic Medical Office 75,000 SF
A Santa Monica Blvd. Hotel 194 RM
1 pica 120,016SF
--P<w .~1~~""1"1 Dl "S. -Rotai 1:- 5-4, ~9-1 SF
....oi!l..e -^~.(:~ ............
-- - - - - ...,.
A 1447 Cloverfield Office/ 2,000 SF
Restaurant 34,000 SF
A 2526 Pico Re.staurant 3,763 SF
A 1300 Third street Theatre 45,000 SF
ProMenade
SRLTZ5UPG RAY BEPGMq~
TEL 1-~13-473-3629
A
1313 Third street
Promenade
1256-1260 3rd
street Promenade
A
*"
U8:::.--
r _...
1'~VH.L,",....
............. .., ,
1.-,......,.", ...
:;~4.1 1. i...i:l
~y=-
~~~~~~-~~~~~~~~~~
A
1790 Santa Monica
A
1801 Santa Monica
A
1919 Santa Monica
A
1932 Santa Monica
Part. A
3007 Santa Monica
A
2601 Wilshire
A
1340 Lincoln
A
2809 Lincoln
A
2207 Lincoln
Oct 03,89 27"20 No 005 p 05
Theatre
Office
"Atri~\
2~tilil
.off iQ@-
_RQ~ 1-;." \- ~ Rot
TT.!~"" fTI" "Y".,.........., rr-.,...
.........";:J.. - ---. r__ . ---
Auto Sales
Auto service
Office Rotail
Hotel
Hotel
Retail
Restaurant
Retail/Fast Food
Restaurant
A
1301 Santa Monica Blvd. Retail
A
711 Olympic
A
1447-1453 Ocean
A
Industrial
Hotel
3134 Santa Monica Blvd. Retail
32,391 SF
22,500 SF
l,:JOO aF
~/ eo)' 3F
- ~ --,..,,, -.,-,
."''t, fVV ...,...-
-4,31" 3F
34,050 SF
52,875 SF
41,240 SF
56,000 SF
30,000 SF
68 Roo~s
2,342 SF
2,341 SF
28,700 SF
1,629 SF
3,500 SF
40,000 SF
70,570 SF
2,500 SF
SRLT2BUPG ppy B~PGMPN
TEL" 1-213-473-3629
Oct 03.29 17 20 No 005 P 07
A
2336 Santa Monica Blvd Office
28,000 SF
A
1535-1537 Ocean Restaurant
14,900 SF
A 1250 4th Street Office 73,795 SF
Retail 20,320 SF
A 1407-13 5th Street Office 25,794 SF
Retail 2,615 SF
A 1721 22nd street Industrial 18, 100 SF
Office 18,900 SF
A 1655-70 20th Office 42,000 SF
A Business Pa):");: Office 85,000 SF
Expansion Health 20,000 SF
Ocean Park Blvd. Club
A&B 3440 Ocean Park Restaurant 5,419 SF
Blvd.
{dIU ~e1M/ -t 6~(j/ o&;
~~2,q
Legend: A "" Approved ?-o ~
0 ;:: Defeated
B ;; Built
p "'" Pending
c:\60'::'O\stuff
..
.{:... _oPrecision
_~ ~... I'-esearch
Jennifer L Polhemus, M.A.
252 I Tlmn ,-ecund Street. Santa MOnIca, Cahfoffila 90405-3102
(213) 399-1441
TO: SANTA MONICA CITY COUNCIL
RE: FINANCIAL IMPACT OF RELIANCE PROPOSAL FOR AIRPORT RESIDUAL LAND
DATE: OCTOBER 3, 1989
I. The projected revenue benefits from this project must be
reduced by the additlonal costs that the City will incur.
Estimated
Amount
A. C1ty'S 50% share of traffic mitlgation costs
over $1.8 million (3a) or $1.6 million (3c)
(such costs should 1nclude improvements to
Airport Ave. and 23rd Street for SHe traffic) $
B. Cost of resolving rlght-of-way disputes with
eX1st1ng Airport lessees (C&K Aviation and
possibly others) $
C. Cost of remedy for tOX1C subsoil (limited to
$3.5 million per DDA; then City has option to
stop the ProJect) $
D. Cost of resolving the Barker Hangar matter
(not relevant under Alternative 3c) $
E. Cost of litigating/resolving potent1al City
of Los Angeles disputes regarding traffic and
mltigations $
F. Cost of litigating/resolving lawsuits re-
gardlng the parkland lssue (regardless of
City's opinion on merit of suit) $
G. Cost to City's hous1ng stock not covered by
.1.nadequate "in-lieu hous.1.ng and parks mit-
19at.1.0n fee" (See p. 4 of this memo) $
H. Other costs, not covered above, that Staff may
.1.dentify pursuant to Clty Council request $
I. Total Additional Costs $
Page 2
Memo to City Council
10/3/89
II. The expected revenue benefits have not been adequately
projected.
A. Revenue should be analyzed in terms of present value
(1989 dollars). In Attachment N to the Staff Report, the
"NPV $" sections are the most relevant.
B. C1ty Staff has refused to provide the assumptions used to
project future revenue.
1. ProJections of the C1ty'S partic1pation in net income
and refinancing proceeds are completely dependent upon
assumpt10ns regarding occupancy, lease rates, and
Reliance's expenses. The City Staff will not provide
details regarding these assumptions or projections to
the pub11c.
2. Pro formas in an earl1er Staff Report assume
occupancy of 50% 1n the f1rst year of each phase, and 95%
in every year thereafter. This is obviously over-
opt1m~st1c.
C. Future revenue prO]ect1ons have been provided only for
d1screte per10ds of 5, 10, 20, 55, and 75 years. The
va11d1ty of the proJect~ons cannot be evaluated without
annual figures or, at the very least, a list of assump-
t10ns used.
D. An ~ndependent financ1al/economic consultant should be
reta1ned to analyze the proposal and revenue projections.
The projections require knowledge and experience that is
beyond that of the City Staff. A consultant was used
earlier to evaluate lease offers made by the three
fina11sts. However, Re11ance's offer has been rev1sed
substantially since that p01nt, and a new analysis should
be performed by a new, qua11fled, independent consultant.
III. A compelling need for addit10nal City revenues, beyond
those that w~ll occur wlthout thlS proJect, has not been
demonstrated.
A. The Staff has not prepared a well-reasoned analysis of
future budgetary needs, and the alternatlve methods of
meeting those needs. The Plann1ng Commission requested
such a report, and on September 19, 1989 (after the
publlC hearlng) the Staff prepared an over-broad memo on
the subject.
Page 3
Memo to City Council
10/3/89
B. My crlticisms of the memo:
1. It adds up projected capital costs, $63-$82 million,
without providing a tlmel1ne as to when they would be
lncurred. ThlS impl1es that they are all immediate needs
to be funded.
2. Some items on the llSt will probably be financed by
bonds, and therefore do not belong on the llSt (e.g.,
Maln Library Expanslon $10-$12 mlll1on, New Police
Fac11lty $12-$15 mill1on).
3. The Pier Parking Structure ($11 mlllion) will be
partlally self-flnanclng.
4. No source references were prov1ded. The memo
apparently was prepared to Justify its own concluslon.
C. Santa Monica provides a level of services already higher
than other cities 1n L.A. County. Our population lS not
growlng appreciably. One maJor reason that the eXlsting
level of services is stra1ned is due to the rapid
commerclal overdevelopment 1n our City, not lDcreased
needs of the stable population.
D. The Staff has not considered Federal econOffilC conditions,
1ncludlng the very real posslbllity that Federal Govern-
ment expenditures on schools, social services, and the
infrastructure may increase as military expenditures
decrease.
IV. The Clty CounCll and the publlC have not been given enough
data regardlng the financial benefits offered by this
ProJect. A Statement of Overrldlng Considerations is ob-
vlously not merited.
A. There has been no lndependent, qualified appralsal of
the property.
B. There has been no lndependent, qualified financial/
economic analysis performed of the proposal.
C. The Clty Staff has not provlded detail sufficlent that
its work could be crltlcally analyzed. The Staff Report
purports to summarize the facts, but actually it mis-
states them.
Page 4
Memo to City Council
10/3/89
D. Reliance, Staff, and "Santa Monicans for the Airport
Endowment" have made false statements to the City
Council and the pUblic regarding the revenues from this
project. They have all stated that $28 million 1S
guaranteed in the first ten years.
1. Attachment N of the Staff Report shows that only $21
million is guaranteed durlng the first 10 years.
2. In present value termsr only $12.4 million is guar-
anteed in the flrst 10 years.
3. Peggy Curran testified before the Planning Commis-
sion that the present value of revenue (guar. & part.)
for the lease term was $60 million. It should be made
clear that $60 million is for 75 years, not 55 years.
v. The ".l.n-lieu housing m1.tigation fee" of $2.45 million (3a)
does not adequately reflect the real cost to the City's
hous1ng stock brought about by this proJect. The actual
cost 1S over $11 million.
A. The housing mitigat10n fee is meant to cover the cost of
replac1ng the affordable hous1ng lost as a result of
increased housing demand, wh1.ch results from additional
off1ce workers seeking hous1ng in Santa Monica.
B. The 1982 report "Office Development in Santa Monica:
The Municipal Fiscal and Housing Impact," prepared by
Hamilton, et. al., (Reliance's consultants on this pro-
Ject) explains the theory beh1nd thl.S fee.
c. The report also measures the actual housing cost of
office development, 1n terms of the number of units the
C1ty would have to replace to ma.l.nta1n the status quo.
D. Using the average figure stated 1.0 the report of I unit
per 4500 square feet, and a current cost estimate of
$50,000 per unit, the real cost to the City is $11.3
m1l11.0n. Thl.S assumes the 3a "m1nimal 1mpact" project.
E. Although the City Zonlng Code requ1.res a private de-
veloper to pay much less than the real cost, only $2.45
ml.ll1.on, the burden should be greater 1n this project
where the City is acting as co-developer.
F. The "housing mitigatl.on fee" understates the City's
actual cost by almost $9 milllon.
ATTACHMENT C
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
ON THE AIRPORT RESIDUAL LAND DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
VOLUME NUMBER 4
The City Council received Volume 4 of the Final EIR on September
1, 1989, so it is not contained in this report.
Copies are available for review at the following locations:
1. Planning and Zoning Division offices, Room 212, 1685 Main
Street, Santa Monica
2. City Clerk's office, Room 102, 1685 Main street, Santa Monica
3. Santa Monica Main Library, 1343 6th street, Santa Monica
Copies may be purchased for $4 from the Planning and Zoning
office, Room 212 in City Hall.
Copies of Volume 1, 2, and 3 of the Final EIR are also available
for review at the above locations and may be purchased in the
Planning and Zoning Office for $4 per volume.
air2ccc
- 1 -
. ATTACHMEN'l' D
..
AIRPORT RESIDUAL LAND DEVELOPMENT PROJEC~
SUMMARY OF TRAFFIC ANALYSES CONTAINED IN THE FINAL EIR,
COMMENTS ON THE ANALYSES, AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this report is to summarize the traffic analysis
prepared for the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) and
provide responses to typical questions and comments that have
been raised about the analysis. The intent of the report is to
centralize all the information regarding traffic from the four
volumes of the FEIR and other sources.
The report is organized by topic. The beginning of each section
describes how the traffic analysis was prepared. Below each
description are the questions or comments typically made on that
topic and the response to those questions or comments. The
material is derived primarily from all four volumes of the FEIR.
INTERSECTIONS ANALYZED
Area of Analysis
The traffic analysis prepared for the Final Environmental Impact
Report (FEIR) on the Airport Residual Land Development proj ect
studied the potential impacts the project would have on 37 key
intersections in the region surrounding the project. These
intersections are those most likely to be potentially impacted by
the project and are located along those routes most likely to be
used by project employees and visitors.
In addition to the 33 intersections indicated on the map in
Attachment 1, the FEIR also studied the impacts at four
intersections in CuI ver ci ty at Walgrove Avenue / Washington
Boulevard, Centinela Avenue / Washington Boulevard, Centinela
Avenue / Washington Place, and Inglewood Boulevard / Washington
Boulevard.
The FEIR does not address potential traffic impacts on
Lincoln Boulevard and on traffic in venice west of Lincoln.
The study area was identified jointly by the Traffic
Engineer of the City of Santa Monica and the staff of
the City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation who
determined that the area encompassing these
intersections would be the most likely to be potentially
significantly impacted. While other intersections
outside of the study area may experience project related
traffic impacts, it was determined that these
intersections would not be significantly impacted by the
project due to the distance to the project, travel
patterns, and other factors.
- 1 -
EXISTING TRAFFIC
Existing traffic counts
Existing traffic counts used in the FEIR were obtained from the
city of Santa Monica's Traffic Division, the Los Angeles
Department of Transportation (LADOT), the state of California
Department of Transportation (CalTrans). If traffic counts from
these sources were more than 6 months old, "existing" levels of
traffic were estimated by increasing the traffic data by 2%
annually. If traffic counts for an intersection were more than
18 months old, new counts were performed by the FEIR traffic
consultant.
How were the traffic counts conducted?
The traffic counts reflect a typical weekday during the
course of the year. Using techniques which are approved
by the LADOT and the city of Santa Monica and employed
nationally, counts were taken on one day at each
location. The LADOT supplied the traffic counts used in
the FEIR for the intersection of Bundy/National.
Are the Irexistinqn traffic counts too old?
The majority of the traffic counts used in this analysis
were conducted in 1988. Those that were older were
factored upward to reflect the growth that may have
occurred in the interim. The growth factors were
obtained from the City of Los Angeles Department of
Transportation (LADOT). The existing 1988 traffic count
information was determined to be adequate by the City
Parking and Traffic Engineer.
Was traffic from the Santa Monica college Humanities Center,
DC-3, and the Museum of Flying included in the existing
traffic tables?
The Traffic Analysis in the FEIR is intended to
represent a "snapshot" taken at the time the EIR was
prepared. That "snapshot" was taken at a time before
these proj ects became known or were approved. This
"snapshot" was presented in the FEIR and included 156
known "cumulative" proj ects as well as a 2% per year
growth factor for regional growth and unknown projects.
Projects such as the three mentioned fall within this
"unknown" factor.
It should be noted that several projects have been
reduced in size, changed in scope or use, denied
approval, or abandoned since the "snapshot" was taken,
including the Shurgin project, Water Gardens, Playa
Vista, and Admiralty Place. The traffic generated by
these proj ects have not been deleted from the traffic
analysis just as the traffic from the Santa Monica
- 2 -
College Humanities Center, Dc-3, and Museum of Flying
has not been included.
Were the trips generated by Colorado Place Phase 3
undercounted'l
Some floor area for colorade Place Phase 3 was
inadvertently left off of the cumulative projects list
used by the consultants who prepared the EIR. However,
a Usensitivitylt analysis was prepared to determine if
this exclusion altered the findings of the EIRts traffic
study. The analysis found that the V/C ratio was
increased at some of the intersections within the study
area, but this adjustment did not affect the overall
results of the traffic analysis in the FEIR. No
additional intersections are significantly impacted by
the project with the addition of the Colorado Place
Phase 3 traffic to the Cumulative Base forecast.
Description of existing conditions
The FEIR traffic analysis uses the Critical Movement Analysis
(cMA) method to determine the capaci ty of an intersection to
carry traffic. This capacity of the intersection depends on such
factors as the turning movements in all directions at the
intersection, the signal timing, and other characteristics such
as the presence of bus stops, truck traffic, pedestrians, etc.
Once the capacity is determined, existing traffic counts for the
intersection are then used to determine the utilization rate for
the intersection which is expressed as the traffic volume to
intersection capacity (VIe) ratio. Each VjC ratio also has a
Level of Service (LOS) category that best describes the operation
of the intersection (IIA"= excellent, "Fit ... failure).
Is the critical Movement Analysis appropriate to apply to a
project in a hiqh density urban area1
The critical movement analysis method for conducting the
intersection capacity analysis was used for all traffic
studies for this project. It is an appropriate method
for high-density urban areas. It is a commonly used
method in the Los Angeles metropolitan area and is the
method officially prescribed for use by the City of Los
Angeles Department of Transportation for traffic studies
in Los Angeles including the downtown area.
PROJECTED TRAFFIC AND TRIP DISTRIBUTION
The FEIR traffic consultants forecast future traffic conditions
in the area, based on two potential sources of future traffic --
specific development projects proposed to be constructed in the
area and non-specific sources.
Traffic Generated by Cumulative Development in Area
- 3 -
The consultants for the FEIR traffic analysis assembled a list of
156 projects that were proposed to be constructed in the
surrounding 93 square mile subregion utilizing information
obtained from the planning departments for the cities of Santa
Monica, Los Angeles, and Culver City. The traffic analysis
assumed that no existing buildings were demolished to construct
these new proj acts, that all proj ects would be constructed by
1997, that none of these projects would be reduced in scope or
size, that none of the project developers would be required to
reduce the amount of traffic generated by the project, and that
none of the projects provided street or intersection improvements
to mitigate their impacts.
Annual Background Growth in Traffic
The consultants for the traffic analysis also assumed that
traffic in the subregion would increase by 2% annually. This
increase in traffic is intended to account for future projects
that will be proposed between the date the FEIR was prepared and
1997 and for general regional increases in the number of trips
made by area residents, visitors, and employees.
The FEIR uses an unrealistically high estimate of future
traffic volumes by using a high annual background traffic
growth rate, by including 156 projects in addition to the 2%
annual growth rate, by assuming that all 156 projects are
constructed and none of these projects mitigate their traffic
impacts, and by not considering reductions on development
activity in the area due to sewer permit allocation programs
in LA and santa Monica and reductions in property development
standards.
The use of a 2% per year growth factor is not excessive.
The inclusion of 156 projects in the cumulative projects
list is indicative of the comprehensivness of the
traffic impact analysis. The traffic impact analysis
uses conservative assumptions in the development of
future traffic projections to be sure that traffic
growth is not underestimated.
The 2% annual growth rate appears low.
The LADOT has indicated that traffic growth in the area
has increased at about 2% per year. The use of the 2%
per year in conjunction with the addition of the traffic
generated by the 156 cumulative projects in the area
accurately reflects the potential growth in traffic in
the area.
Why wasn' t traffic generated by Colorado Place Phase 3 and
Water Gardens included in the traffio analysis for the
Airport project?
The traffic forecasts developed in the FEIR does include
traffic expected to be generated by the Water Garden and
Colorado Place projects.
- 4 -
;-
Trip distribution
To determine potential traffic impacts, the traffic consultants
projected in which direction traffic would flow, based on studies
done for the City's Land Use and circulation Elements and
information received from the LADOT, the 1980 Census, and other
studies on population and employment distribution. The FEIR
estimates that 48% of the traffic will use the freeways to enter
and exit the area and 52% of the project traffic will use surface
streets (25% of the total traffic traveling on surface streets to
the north, 15% traveling south, 6% traveling east, and 6%
traveling west through Sunset Park and Santa Monica. (See
Attachment 1.)
What trip distribution model was used? Were trips routed to
bypass critically congested intersections?
The trip distribution and assignment methodology used in
the study have been well documented in the FEIR. Figure
4.3-4 of Volume 1 illustrates the general distribution
pattern of project-generated traffic. Figures 4.3-5a to
4.3-9b illustrate the projected assignment of
project-generated traffic by phase to the specific
intersections in the study area. Figures 4. 3-lla and
4.3-llb in volume 1 illustrate the assignment of future
CUmulative Base traffic volumes to the specific
intersections in the study area. These volumes
represent the existing traffic, the effects of regional
growth in the area, and the traffic from the 156
cumulative projects in the area. Figures 4.3-12a to
4.3-l7b in Volume 1 illustrate traffic from the
cumulative project traffic for each phase and for the
two land use alternatives of the project. A careful
inspection of these figures would reveal that trips were
not routed to avoid congested intersections. A review
of the intersection capacity analysis for the Cumulative
Base condition and the Cumulative Plus Project condition
under various phases and land uses indicates that a
number of the intersections in the study area are
expected to operate at LOS E or F. The analysis has not
minimized the impact of the cumulative traffic or the
project traffic on the study area.
ESTIMATED PROJECT TRAFFIC
Trip Generation Rates
To forcast the number of trips to be generated by the project,
the consultants for the traffic analysis used the trip generation
rates contained in the Institute of Transportation Engineers
manual (4th Edition). For the office component of the project,
the consultants used the trip generation rate for office projects
containing over ~,ooo,ooo square feet. The consultants used the
trip generation rates for general retail uses for the retail
component of the project. For the restaurant component of the
- 5 -
project, the consultants used the trip generation rate for
sit-down restaurants.
The consultant assumed that 80% of the trips generated by the
retail component would be by employees and visitors in the
project and only 20% of the trips would be generated by patrons
who would drive to the project to use just the retail shops. The
consultant assumed that 50% of the trips generated by the
restaurant and day care components would be by project employees
and visitors and that 50% of the trips would be made by patrons
and parents not visiting or working on the project.
The Coastal Transporation Corridor Specific Plan trip
qeneration rates should be used since they better reflect the
traffic conditions on the westside of Los Angeles.
The traffic analysis included in the FEIR is based on
pI anning assumptions, techniques, and base data which
are reliable and consistent with all national standards
used in the traffic engineering profession. There is no
basis to the assertion that the trip generation rates
from the Coastal Transportation Corridor Specific Plan
(CTC) "better reflect West Los Angeles trip data." The
CTC rates are primarily derived from the ITE Trip
Generation Manual 3rd Edition. The ITE Trip Generation
Manual 3rd Edition, like the 4th Edition, is a document
based on data obtained from national averages. There is
no evidence that the CTC data is based on empirical data
collected specifically from the West Los Angeles area.
The 4th Edition is actually based on newer national data
and includes a far greater data base including data
originally used in the 3rd edition. It is a nationally
accepted document and its use has superseded the use of
the 3rd Edition in most areas.
The 4th Edition also has several advantages over the 3rd
Edition. The key advantage is the use of logarithmic
formulae to calculate precise trip rates for the actual
size of the project. The 3rd Edition presents trip
generation rates for less precise ranges of proj ect
size. Therefore, the trip generation rate for an office
building which is 150,000 sf can be developed rather
than using the rate for office building ranging in size
from 100,000 sf to 200,000 sf.
The trip generation rates used in the EIR to determine the
amount of traffie anticipated to be generated by the office
component of the development should be based on the formula
identified for office buildings under 800,000 square feet
rather than on the formual identified for larger office
complexes.
The method and factors used to develop trip generation
estimates for the Airport Residual Land Development
proj ect, and each of its phases, was developed in a
manner which is totally consistent with the guidelines
- 6 -
provided in the Institute of Traffic Engineers CITE)
Trip Generation Handbook. The handbook suggests that
the total area of the project should be used when the
buildings are "interrelated or house one tenant". All
of the buildings within the proposed project are totally
interrelated and have been designed to use a variety of
common facilities including parking, internal roadways,
recreation and open space, employee-serving retail and
service uses, and social gathering areas. Therefore, it
is reasonable and accurate to use the total area of the
project and the trip generation rate for buildings or
projects over 800,000 square feet.
The trip generation rate for large buildings or projects
is lower than the rate for smaller buildings or projects
because they reflect some reduction in external trip
generation due to single versus multiple trips made by
deliveries, services, repair, etc.; use of on-site
facilities for various business-related and non-business
functions such as shopping, services and eating; and the
tendency for higher auto occupancy rates among employees
within larger complexes. All of these factors apply to
this project.
It should be noted that this discussion of trip
generation rates refers only to trips external to the
site. The use of the trip generation rate for larger
buildings does not imply that these additional trips for
deliveries, services, repairs, etc. will not occur. The
majority of these trips will occur as pedestrian trips
on site or as vehicle trips internal to the site.
The specific office uses should be identified to determine
the amount of traffic generated by the office component of
the project.
The description for "general office building" in the ITE
Handbook, the category used in the EIR to estimate the
amount of traffic generated by the office component of
the project, includes a wide variety of potential
tenants. The types of office uses included in the
"general office" category include professional services,
insurance companies, investment brokers, company
headquarters, and services for tenants such as a bank or
savings and loan, a restaurant or cafeteria, and service
retail services. The trip generation rate is,
therefore, an average of all of these activities in the
proportion which is normally found in a typical general
office building or project.
The "general office" category does not provide the
lowest possible trip generation rate available to use.
The lowest rate is for more traditional office uses that
do not include the wider range of office uses contained
in the ngeneral officen category.
- 7 -
The ancillary uses permitted in the project will further
increase project generated traffic.
The Development Agreement does permit "ancillary
commercial" uses in the project but recognizes the
potential for higher traffic volumes that these uses may
generate by:
o limiting these uses to those that serve primarily
employees and guests of, and visitors to, the
project as stated on page 21 of the Development
Agreement.
o limiting the floor area of these uses to only
30,000 square feet (which is only 2.2%-2.4% of the
total floor area).
o permitting these uses if the trip generation rate
for the specific type of ancillary commercial use
is equal to or less than the rate for general
office use.
o permitting these uses if office floor area is
reduced to totally offset any increase in peak hour
trips if the trip generation rate for a specific
ancillary commercial use exceeds the trip
generation rate for general office.
The EIR underestimates the traffic projected to be generated
by the restaurant component of the project because the ErR
assumes that the restaurants will be high-quality, low
turnover establishments and because the ErR does not consider
the permitted inclusion of fast food and take out restaurants
which have high traffic generation rates.
The project includes two types of eating establishments
-- sit-down restaurants and take out restaurants. The
sit-down restaurants are expected to be high-quality,
low turnover establishments. One restaurant is planned
for Phase 1 of the project near Bundy Drive and the
other restaurant is proposed to be included in Phase 3
of the project adjacent to the Orange Grove Garden. The
take out restaurants are to be located in the retail
building located adjacent to the Hedgerow Garden. These
take out restaurants will be included in both phase 1
and Phase 2 of the project and are clearly intended to
serve primarily, if not exclusively, proj ect employees
and their guests.
The assumption that 50% of the patrons of the
restaurants will be on-site employees and their guests
is a realistic estimate by the EIR traffic engineer, the
city of Santa Monica Parking and Traffic Engineer, and
the staff of the Los Angeles Department of
Transportation (LADOT). The proposed sit-down
restaurants are expected to generate 770 daily auto
- 8 -
trips which is equivalent to 385 auto trips in and 385
out. It is expected that each auto has an average
occupancy of 2.5 persons, indicating that a total of 960
people are expected to patronize the restaurant on a
daily basis. It is reasonable to expect that 480
patrons per day could be generated from an office
project with 5,000 or 6,000 employees. These 480
on-site patrons could be either actual employees or
business visitors to one of the offices on site. The
visitors could also be discounted since their trip was
already considered in the office traffic generation
estimate.
For the take out restaurants (or for a higher-turnover
restaurant) , it is reasonable to expect that a much
higher percentage of the patrons eating at these
establishments would be on-site employees or their
guests. Few, if any, of the patrons of the take out
restaurants would be persons who do not have a reason
for being on the site. It is very unlikely that a
motorist traveling down Bundy Drive will drive into the
project, locate a parking space in the closest parking
structure, walk to the take out restaurant, and eat
lunch. These facilities will not even be readily
visible from Bundy Drive to attract the casual motorist.
TRAFFIC IMPACTS
Definition of ..significant impact"
The FEIR uses the following definition for "significant traffic
impact" currently approved by both the Cities of Santa Monica and
Los Angeles:
A project is considered to have a significant
traffic impact if the addition of project
traffic to an intersection results in an
increase of 0.02 or greater in the volume to
capacity (VIe) ratio, and the intersection is
projected to operate at a level of service of
"E" or "F".
This definition isolates the amount of traffic generated by the
project from that traffic estimated to use the intersection in
the future that is generated by other projects and from other
sources. It ensures that mitigations required for a project are
geared toward reducing or eliminating traffic impacts generated
by that project.
Specific xntersection Impacts
The FEIR found that the developer-proposed project would result
in significant traffic impacts at 6 intersection during the
morning peak hour and no intersections during the evening peak
hour after mitigation measures are implemented.
- 9 -
The FEIR found that the "Three Phase" project re.commended by city
staff would resul t in significant traffic impacts at 3
intersections during the morning peak hour and no intersections
during the evening peak hour after mitigation measures are
implemented. The traffic consultants found that the traffic
impacts at these intersections were put over the threshold to the
"significant impact" category by only 75 vehicles per hour
traveling through the intersection during the morning peak
period.
The FEIR found that no intersections would be impacted if the
project contained 873,000 square feet of project floor area and
up to 124,000 square feet of arts, education, and recreation
space (the "Three Phase -- Reduced Density" project alternative).
The FEIR found that the street and intersection improvements
recommended by the traffic consultants in the FEIR (and which are
required by the Development Agreement) will increase the capacity
of some intersections to carry traffic beyond that needed only to
accommodate project generated traffic. Some intersections will
operate better than they would in the future if no project and no
project related improvements are made. (This assumes that
traffic will increase due to cumulative development projects in
the surrounding sub-region and other general increases in traffic
and no project related intersection improvements are made.)
The data contained in the FEIR indicates that with the original
project, 9 intersections would operate better in the future
during the morning peak hour (5 better by 1 Level of Service, I
by 2 Levels of Service) and 14 intersections would operate better
during the evening peak hour (8 better by 1 Level of Service, 6
by 2 Level of Service) after mitigation measures are implemented.
(see Attachment 3.)
The data contained in the FEIR indicates with the recommended
revised project, 9 intersections would operate better in the
future during the morning peak hour (3 better by 1 Level of
Service, 3 by 2 Levels of Service) and 17 intersections would
operate better during the evening peak hour (5 better by 1 Level
of Service) after mitigation measure.s are implemented. (See
Attachment 4.)
Why does the EIR find that the Intersection of centinela/
Palms will not be significantly impacted in the Two Phase
Alternative?
The criteria for determining a significant traffic
impact were developed in conj unction with the city of
Los Angeles Department of Transportation. The FEIR
indicates that project traffic will significantly impact
the intersection of Centinela and Palms before
mitigation, but that mitigation measures will reduce the
impact to a less than significant level. The fact that
an intersection is currently operating at an nEtt or nFtt
Level of Service is only one of two criteria used to
determine if it is significantly impacted by a project.
- 10 -
The other relates to the degree to which the project
traffic increases the vie ratio.
Are the street and intersection improvements consistent with
the roadway's classification?
Many of the traffic mitigation measures are physical
improvements to the street system such as intersection
widenings, restriping, etc. However, the capacity that
would be added by such improvements would not increase
the roadway's capacity beyond that consistent with the
roadway's classification - residential, arterial, etc.
Does the EIR propose street and intersection improvements
that are required to mitigate existing traffic problems?
The traffic analysis in the FEIR has been conducted to
satisfy the requirements of state and local
environmental laws. These laws do not require that the
existing traffic problems be mitigated, nor do they
require the mitigation of future problems without the
addition of project traffic. They do require that the
analysis identify measures which mitigate the impacts
generated by the project traffic under future conditions
with the addition of traffic from cumulative projects in
the area. The FEIR has done this.
Freeway Impacts
The FEIR found that proj ect-generated traffic would contribute
from 0.2% to 1.3% of the traffic estimated to use freeway
segments in the area in 1997. The highest volume of project -
generated traffic (3,260 vehicles per day) is expected to use the
Santa Monica Freeway segment between Bundy Drive and the San
Diego Freeway. The FEIR found that the project is expected to
add a minor amount of traffic to the freeway system so the
project will not cause significant freeway traffic impacts.
The EIR does not address the impacts the project will have on
the freeway system and address potential mitigation of these
impacts, and does not consider the effect of freeway
congestion on surface street traffic.
It is significant to note that if the rate at which
traffic is allowed onto the freeways via the ramp meters
is not changed, the freeways should not be impacted by
any additional traffic in the area including that
generated by the project during peak ramp-use hours.
However, the existing freeway ramp situation may
encourage a spreading of traffic to less congested
ramps. The FEIR did not propose changing the ramp
metering as a proposed mitigation measure of this
project.
The traffic expected to be generated by the Airport
proj ect represents less than 2 % of the total future
- 11 -
traffic on the freeways is in the immediate area. The
freeway system in the Los Angeles area, of which I-IO
and I-40S are a part, is designed to provide for the
regional access and circulation needs of the
metropolitan area. Therefore, any analysis of existing
and future needs for any part of this regional system
must be conducted within a regional context. Proposed
improvements to any of the elements of this system must
be made within this regional context since it could
affect the overall system operation.
Traffic in Residential Neighborhoods
The FEIR anticipates that the great majority of the project
generated traffic will use the major arterial streets and
secondary highways that provide direct access to freeway on and
off ramps and that provide direct routes to and from the area.
However, some motorists driving to and from the project may use
residential streets in the area.
To ensure that the impacts on the major arterials and secondary
highways are not understated and that the specific street and
intersection improvements are not undersized, the FEIR traffic
analysis did not assume that any traffic would use residential
streets. If the FEIR assumed that vehicles would turn off of the
arterial or secondary highway to use residential streets, the
projected amount of traffic using arterials and secondary
highways "downstream" would be reduced. This would increase the
possibility of underestimating the level of traffic impact on the
maj or streets and potentially underestimating the improvements
necessary to mitigate the impacts.
The amount of traffic diverted into adjacent residential
neighborhoods due to the closure of Airport Avenue to through
traffic and to the construction of the project is not expected to
be great. In 1985, it was estimated that 1,750 vehicles per day
used Airport Avenue as a through street to drive between Walgrove
Avenue/23rd street and Bundy Drive. Closure of Airport Avenue
will divert these trips to other east-west streets in the
vicini ty - most I ikely Ocean Park Boulevard, Palms, and Venice
Boulevard. These streets provide the most direct access between
the intersections of walgrove/23rd and centinela/Bundy.
Some traffic generated by the project may use streets in adjacent
residential neighborhoods but the amount of traffic lS not
expected to be substantial. Few local residential streets in the
area provide an attractive alternative route to the main
arterials in the area that will serve the project. Through
traffic is unlikely to use Dewey Street or Rose Avenue since they
require multiple turning movements in order to drive between
Walgreove/23rd and Bundy/Centinela.
Future traffic congestion in the area may result in some
motorists using alternative routes parallel to Centinela Avenue,
such as Grandview Boulevard. The proposed project would
contribute some traffic to local residential north-south streets,
- 12 -
but most of the traffic using alternate routes through the
neighborhood would be from cumulative growth in the surrounding
area. Intersection improvements on Cent inel a/Bundy to be
implemented as part of the proposed project will help to improve
the traffic flow on centinela and Bundy. This improved traffic
flow will help to decrease the potential for the intrusion of
traffic into residential neighborhoods attempting to avoid
traffic congestion.
The FEIR did attempt to quantify the number of project-generated
trips that may use local residential streets to drive to or from
the project. The FEIR estimates that up to 1 vehicle per minute
during the morning and evening peak hours may travel on those
residential streets (Pearl Street and Palms Boulevard) providing
the most direct access between major arterials or secondary
highways. Other, less direct residential streets such as Rose
Avenue, 28th street, Stewart street, Barrington Avenue, Inglewood
Avenue, and Charnock Avenue would carry between 20 and 30
vehicles per peak hour.
How was the impact on neighborhood streets determined? What
is the potential impact on small neighborhood streets in L.A.
north of Ocean Park Boulevard?
The analysis was based on a review of all possible
routes through the area, observations of current traffic
flow patterns and discussions with traffic engineers
from LADOT and Santa Monica. In formulating the project
study area, the engineers assessed the potential impact
on residential streets in L.A. north of Ocean Park
Boulevard as minimal, and this is why streets in this
area were not included in the analysis.
What impact on adjacent streets will there be from closing of
Airport Avenue to through traffic?
There is currently very little traffic using Airport
Avenue (1750 vehicles per day). Although the exact
amount is not known, it is estimated that the majority
of this traffic is generated by the activities at the
Airport and that very little is through traffic. The
SEIR analysis concluded that the portion which is
through traffic would be diverted to Ocean Park, Venice
and Palms if the proj ect is implemented and Airport
Avenue is closed. The volume of traffic expected to be
diverted to these streets is expected to be very small.
Neighborhood traffic intrusions will be a significant
problem.
The traffic volumes projected in the FEIR represented
the maximum volumes which are expected to divert from
the major arterials onto the residential streets. It
should be noted that a portion of the project-generated
- 13 -
traffic using these streets will be residents who are
expected to be employees of the proposed project.
RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES
Transporation Demand Management Program (TOM)
The FEIR found that the proposed project presents an excellent
opportunity for implementing a key component to a successful TDM
program -- a computerized carpool matching program. The FEIR
found that the ability to establish carpools of project employees
will be facilitated because the project will likely contain a
large number of employees who will work in offices that have
similar work schedules. In addition, the developer can retain
control over the matching process thus ensuring that all tenant
in the project participate in the carpool matching program.
The FEIR recommends that a
implemented that would provide
car and van pool vehicles and
drivers be eliminated.
parking management technique be
preferential parking spaces for
that parking subsidies for solo
The FEIR recommends measures to increase transit service to the
site equal to that available at other typical work sites in Santa
Monica. The FEIR suggests such programs as the project developer
contributing to the increase in bus service to the site,
sponsoring a shuttle bus or van connecting the site to other bus
lines in the vicinity, and SUbsidizing the cost of bus tokens.
The FEIR estimates that peak hour traffic generated by the
development would be reduced by 15% with the implementation of a
TDM program.
What is the success rate for other TDM programs. A 15%
reduction in ~rips appears too high an estimate of possible
trip reductions?
The TDM programs included in the FEIR have a very broad
history of experience in a variety of communities
throughout Southern California. Experience in El Segundo
with the El Segundo Employers Association, which
includes several major employers such as Hughes Aircraft
and the Aerospace company, in Irvine with Flour
Corporation, in downtown Los Angeles with the Area, and
in Pasadena with the Parson Company are all examples of
previous programs which have achieved, and in most cases
exceeded, the 15% goal identified in the FEIR. The key
element of the TDM is a maj or rideshare program which
includes both carpooling and vanpooling. These are both
tried and proven programs whose feasibility are fairly
well documented.
Successful TDM programs have reduced traffic generation
rates by 10% to 20%. The 15% reduction assumed in the
FEIR was determined by the LADDT to be a realistic
- 14 -
estimate of the potential effectiveness of the TDM
program for this project.
Aren't TDM plans of~en ineffective in themselves?
The City of Los Angeles does recognize the effect of TDM
programs and has allowed for reduotions in project
traffic of up to 15%. This has been a common practice
in most ErR's for major projects where the developer
agrees to implement such a program. In addition, the
Development Agreement for the project requires the
developer to pay a penalty fee if the 15% traffic
reduction goal is not met. This fee would be used to
supplement the developer's efforts to achieve the
reduction goal.
Automated Traffic Surveillance and Control system (ATSAC)
The FEIR also recommends that the impacted intersections in the
City of Los Angeles be connected to the Automated Traffic
Surveillance and Control (ATSAC) system currently be installed in
several areas of the City of Los Angeles. The system connects
traffic signals in an area to a central computer that can adjust
and coordinate the timing of the traffic signals in the area to
account for various traffic conditions. This ensures that an
optimum flow of traffic occurs between signals. According to the
LADOT, the ATSAC system increases the capacity of an intersection
by 7%.
ATSAC should
Los Angeles
developer of
installation.
be installed at all intersections in the City of
that are impacted by the project and the
the project should pay the entire cost of
The EIR specifies the use of ATSAC at significantly
impacted intersections as one of a number of feasible
mitigations. The implementation of mitigation measures
that would involve interjurisdictional coordination
would be subj eat to future negotiations between the
jurisdictions and the developer. The FEIR analysis
applies ATSAc mitigation measures to the significantly
impacted intersections. Additionally, it does not
appear appropriate that the proposed project should pay
the full cost of installing ATSAC signalization. The
ATSAC program would improve all traffic flow through the
intersection, not simply that of the proposed project.
stree~ and In~ersec~ion Improvements
Finally, the FEIR recommends specific street and intersection
improvement that will mitigate traffic impacts. The roadway
improvements are intended to increase the capacity of the street
system to carry traffic. The specific improvements were
developed using the following priority system:
- 15 -
Priority 1
Priority 2
priority 3
priority 4
Priority 5
Improvements that can be implemented using the
existing pavement width.
Improvements that require additional pavement
width but that can be accomplished within the
existing public right-of-way.
Improvements that require that additional
right-of-way be utilized using Airport
property (widening Bundy Drive between Airport
Avenue and National Boulevard).
Improvements that require that additional
riqht-of-way on public property be used but
for which no buildings are required to be
demolished.
Improvements that require that additional
right-of-way on private property be obtained
but for which no buildings would be required
to be demolished.
using this priority system, the FEIR consultants identified the
most feasible of the street and intersection improvements needed
to mitigate project impacts and those improvement what would in
themselves have a minimum impact on the area.
The FEIR found that these improvements would actually increase
the capacity of the intersections at many locations beyond that
which is needed to accommodate only project-generated traffic.
At many locations, the project-implemented improvements are
anticipated to improve the future operating conditions of the
intersection to a level that is better than what is proj ected
without the project and project-implemented improvements.
The Development Agreement for the project requires the developer
to pay for approximately the first $2 million in street and
intersection improvement costs with both the developer and the
city of Santa Monica sharing in all costs over that amount.
Will the proposed improvements at several intersections
result in substandard lane widths?
It is recognized that some of the proposed improvements
may require the use of substandard lanes. However, in
those areas where substandard lanes are proposed, they
are designed to match existing lane widths at that
location. Installation of any such lanes within Los
Angeles will need to be approved by that jurisdiction
which has used them in the past.
Costs related to the proposed street and intersection
improvements should be paid by the developer of the project.
- 16 -
The costs of physical street improvements would be the
responsibility of the project sponsor and the City of
Santa Monica.
The developer of the proj ect should pay the LOs Angeles
Transportation rmpact Assessment since it is adjacent to the
coastal Transportation Corridor Specific Plan area and should
thus contribute to the i~provement of the reqional and
subregional transportation system.
The proposed project is located within the City of Santa
Monica and outside of the coastal Corridor Specific Plan
area which is located in Los Angeles. The
Transportation Impact Assessment fee is not applicable
to this project. The traffic mitigation measures
constructed or paid for by the proposed project
developer would contribute to the subregional
transportation system's improvement.
Why won't the proposed mitigations improve the existing
problems of traffic congestion?
As stated previously, the traffic analysis in the FEIR
has been conducted to satisfy the requirements of State
and local environmental laws. These laws do not require
that the existing traffic problems be mitigated, nor do
they require the mitigation of future problems without
the addition of project traffic. They do require that
the analysis identify measures Which mitigate the
impacts generated by the proj ect traffic under future
conditions with the addition of traffic from cumulative
projects in the area. The FEIR has done this.
Also, as mentioned previously, the future operation of
some intersections will improve with the street and
intersection improvements required of the project.
Will the traffic on Palms be too heavy for a residential
street?
The maximum potential project-generated traffic on Palms
Boulevard is expected to be 60 vehicles per hour during
the peak hour only. During the remainder of the day,
the project traffic will be significantly less. It is
expected that this volume of traffic would not have a
significant impact on this street.
Will the street and intersection improvements work?
The majority of the mitigation measures proposed for the
proj ect are intended to increase the capacity of the
roadway system. These include additional turn lanes at
intersections, re-striping of lanes to improve traffic
operations and computerized traffic signal control to
increase traffic flow and capacity. These measures have
- 17 -
all been successfully implemented throughout Los Angeles
and Santa Monica.
will street and intersection improvements shift traffic to
other streets?
A minimal alDount of traffic may shift because of the
intersection improvements, but it is estimated that the
potential effect would be insignificant.
What impacts will the mitigations themselves have such as the
potential impact that changing the D"1m'her of lanes has on the
"platooning" of cars approaching downstream?
Analysis of the effect mitigation measures which involve
physical improvements have is a relatively
straightforward process. The key issue is the effect on
the capacity of the intersection which can be determined
by assessing the lane configuration for each approach
after implementation of the measure. Although the
effect on platooning of vehicles and flow patterns is
not directly evaluated in this process, these factors
have little impact on the overall capacity of specific
intersections. The process used to evaluate the impact
of various mitigation measures has been well documented
and the worksheets for all intersections in the study
area have been provided to both the City of Santa Monica
Parking and Traffic Engineer and the City of Los Angeles
Department of Transportation.
Were improvements from other projects included in the
existing conditions description of the area?
A detailed review of all previously conducted EIR's for
major projects was conducted to identify any roadway
improvements which should be added to the Cumulative
Base highway network. None of the approved improvements
affected intersections within the project study area.
What other mitigation measures are suggested if some of the
street. and intersection improvement.s cannot. be made or are
thwarted by other governmental agencies?
All intersection improvements are feasible and are able
to be constructed. Efforts are currently being made to
reach agreement with the other agencies in the area that
are responsible for the actual implementation of those
measures outside the control of the City of santa
Monica.
ALTERNATIVE ACCESS ROUTES TO PROJECT
Northern Access to santa Monica
The FEIR analyzed changes to the traffic impacts in the subregion
if a second access route was constructed to the north of the
- 18 -
project in addition to the project access to Bundy Drive. Three
options were studied -- a perimeter road around the eastern end
of the Airport runway, a tunnel below the Airport, and an
off-site satellite project parking lot connected to the project
by a shuttle bus. Each option would connect the project to
centinela Avenue allowing motorists travelling to the project to
use either Centinela Avenue north of the project or Bundy Drive
to access the project.
Perimeter road
There are only two perimeter road options available due to the
proximity of the Airport runway and Bundy Drive -- 1) use the
existing Airport perimeter road or 2) construct a second,
parallel perimeter road. The project cannot implement the first
option due to restrictions on the use of the existing Airport
perimeter road imposed by the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA). The city's agreement with the FAA required that the city
construct the Airport perimeter road to allow Airport-related
vehicular traffic to move between Airport facilities north and
south of the runway without having to interfere with aircraft
taking off and landing and to allow emergency vehicles to travel
around the Airport grounds quickly. FAA funds were used to
construct the Airport perimeter road. To use this road for
project and public traffic, the City would be required to refund
the federal money used to construct the road, to regrade and
widen the roadway to accommodate general public traffic, to find
al ternate means to allow for Airport related traffic to access
facili ties on the north and south side of the runway, and to
ensure that emergency vehicles could quickly access all areas of
the Airport property easily without becoming "stuck in traffic".
It is possible to construct a second perimeter road parallel to
the Airport perimeter road for public use but this would preclude
necessary roadway improvements on Bundy Drive. Bundy Drive is
approximately 20' to 30' below and 40' east of the end of the
Airport runway. A public, perimeter road parallel to and
separated by a 4' median from the existing Airport perimeter road
would need to be a minimum 30' wide to provide for two lanes in
each direction. However it could not be located sufficiently
below the runway level to avoid interferring with landing
aircraft and above Bundy Drive to allow sufficient clearance by
vehicles traveling along that street. This option would also
have required that all the property between Bundy Drive and the
Airport runway be utilized for Airport and project perimeter
roads and would not allow the future widening of Bundy Drive to
accommodate future increases in traffic projected to use Bundy in
the future that is generated by growth and development in the
SUbregion.
other design options were explored such as a 24' widening of the
existing Airport perimeter road and the construction of a 12'
wide, separate perimeter road with a 12' widening of Bundy Drive.
The first option did not satisfy the FAA's requirement that
Airport and public traffic be separated. The second option did
not provide an adequate lane width to carry one-way traffic into
- 19 -
or out from the project and a sufficient widening of Bundy Drive
to accommodate future traffic growth.
Tunnel
A tunnel could be constructed below the Airport runway to connect
the project to the centinela Avenue to the north. This
al ternati ve access route would require the use of Airport land
for tunnel portals and access roads. This use of Airport
property for residual land serving use would require the city to
request a change to its agreement with the FAA. The tunnel,
portals, and access road would cost approximately $8 to 9 million
to construct. There would be little change in the traffic
impacts resulting from this alternative access route.
satellite parking
A satellite parking lot for project employees containing about
850 spaces and connected to the project with a shuttle bus could
be constructed on a currently vacant 7.7 acre parcel at the
northeastern corner of the Airport property. However, this
parking lot would be adjacent to single family homes in the city
of Los Angeles and would require that the City request revisions
to its agreements with the FAA which requires that this parcel be
utilized for land uses directly related to Airport operations or
that serve Airport uses.
The FEIR found that 23% of the trips to or from the project would
be diverted from using Bundy Drive to use any of these
alternative access routes to the project. The FEIR found that
for the developer-proposed project, 5 intersections would operate
better and 3 intersections would operate worse if this access
route was opened in addition to the main access point on Bundy
Drive than they would if only the Bundy access point is used.
Where is it stated that the FAA will prohil::1i t a perimeter
road around the Airport. A perimeter road should be
constructed around the west end of the runway and connect to
23rd street.
The FAA has stated to the City that Airport roads built
with federal funds may not be used by the general
pUblic.
The FAA also has safety concerns over the loss of
dedicated Airport access between the north and south
sides of the runway. The Airport perimeter roads (both
at the east and west end of the runway) were constructed
for Airport access roads to allow safe passage between
the north and south s ides of the Airport. Prior to
their construction, Airport users and service vehicles
had to cross the active runway, a condition which the
FAA found to he unsafe. The roadway was constructed
wi th Federal Airport Improvement Program funds I which
require that the roadway be for Airport use only. The
Santa Monica Municipal Airport is in the process of
- 20 -
designing and installing access controls on the road to
prevent public use in response to identified FAA safety
concerns. The above facts apply equally to the section
of the road around the runway r S east end and to the
section around the west end.
Comments have been received that suggest that the runway
be shortened, to allow for enough space to install
another roadway for public use. The shortening of the
runway is not possible. In settlement of the varied
controversies surrounding the use of the Santa Monica
Airport, the City of Santa Monica and the Federal
Aviation Administration entered into the Santa Monica
Airport Agreement on January 31, 1984. Section 9 of
that agreement states: "At the present time the Santa
Monica Airport has one runway designed which is 5,000
feet long and 150 wide. This runway will be
continuously maintained in good operating condition by
the City. II Section 12 of the agreement states: "The
full runway length of 5,000 feet will be available at
all times for takeoff.fI The FAA has indicated that they
will not approve any shortening of the runway.
A new intersection on 23rd street could not be easily
provided. This issue was addressed under the Walgove
Access Alternative in the FEIR. It would involve the
complete realignment of the intersection. AdditionallY,
it would divert traffic onto a two-lane residential
street.
Why have viable alternative access routes to and from the
project into the city of Santa Monica not been suqqested?
The FEIR has thoroughly analyzed a number of
alternatives access routes to the project. The traffic
analysis concludes that more intersections would be
significantly impacted under any of the alternative
access routes than there would be wi th the proposed
Bundy access. A significant volume would be attracted
to residential streets and more extensive roadway
construction would be required (e.g., reconstruction of
the WalgovejAirport Avenue intersection, construction of
a tunnel under the airport to avoid the disruptions to
airport operations of a perimeter road.)
What assumptions were used to determine that no changes occur
in the impacts if a northern access route is opened?
The FEIR indicates that the addition of an alternative
means of access to and from the site does not
significantly change the impact of the project on the
local street and highway system. The analyses also
pointed out that this was not to imply that these
alternate routes would not be used by project generated
traffic. The analyses indicated that up to 23% of the
project traffic would use the access to the north which
- 21 -
would connect with Centinela Avenue. This re-routing of
project traffic off of Bundy onto this alternate route
reduces the vie ratios at five of the intersections in
the study area, especially those on Bundy north of the
site. However, the number of intersections impacted by
the project actually increases slightly.
Western Access to Los Angeles and santa Monica
The FEIR also analyzed the changes to the traffic impacts on the
sUbregion if Airport Avenue was permitted to remain open to
through traffic once the proj ect was constructed thus allowing
project access to both Bundy Drive on the east and 23rd
street;Walgrove Avenue to the west.
The FEIR found that there would be a significant amount of
additional traffic using the intersection where 23rd street,
Walgrove Avenue, Airport Avenue, and Dewey street intersect. The
FEIR found that major improvements would be required to be made
to this intersection to eliminate or improve the current street
curve and hill approaches to this intersection to enable the
intersection to accommodate large increases in traffic.
The FEIR found that 15% of the trips to or from the project would
use this alternative access route to the project. The FEIR found
that for the developer-proposed project, ~o intersections would
operate better and 6 intersections would operate worse if this
access route was opened in addition to the main access point on
Bundy Drive than they would if only the Bundy access point is
used.
airtrafl
- 22 -
/.......
ATTACHMENT 1
PROJECT SITE LoeA TrON
FIGURE 4.3-1
I
I
I
I
r
!
i
j
I
I
1
!
~
~
a
:it
~
.
!
I
ii
c
c
.
I
28
OI..,.WIC al..YO.
10
0
>
..
.
~ ..
!!! - =
... €
.. !
.. =
> ..
0
..
u
1 9 1 t
~~........,.. T I
..
..
..
~
..
26
30
31
.'IIl'OIllT .VI
.-
/---
....TIO.....1.. 'I..YO
29
2
I
J
J
~".
,,"
00;
.
o
4
....LMS'LVO
23
<:> AMALYZ.OINT.~SlC~
,. - -, 1IT1I..OCAT,OfII
___I
NOT TO SCALI
a
>
..
.
..
..
...
~
~
o
~
.
c
o
..
>
i
:I
UQ...O
..
>
c
..
>
o
..
u
..
C
&
..
>
c
c
..
..
z
;:
:If
..
~
5
24
vlNICI aL vo
SOuRCE KAKU ASSOCIATES
eip
87258
4-25
ATTACHMENT 2
.
PROJECT DISTRIBUTION PATTERN
~
.....
ci
>
..
. ..
0
.. >
.. ~ t <(
.. .
..
c t; ! ..
... 7: ...
~ " 2
~
.. Ii:
.., ..
U
O<:l.o.~ P.o..." .I.VO
.L
5"
~
t
~
..
75~
)
,'- - - --!7~
~.-.I," . 25~
0"
"
A'''POIIIT AVI
I
PA Io"S .1. VO
...
;)>
...
...
;)>
o
or;
1:1
..
...
~
...
:>
...
oil
..
..
z
;;:
z
..
u
FIGURE 4.3-4
I
i
ii:
c
<C
.
I
..
OL YWIC at. vo
PlCOII.YO
liIIATIOtwAI. II.VO
2".
o
teOT TO SC"LI
UGI~O
e e
..
. ..
... .
.. ...
...
... 0
! ..
>
..
C
..
..
18"
f
,. - -I ~T( I.OC"'T10~
I
1
~
~f%
.Jl...
4%..,... VI~lCI II.VO
20%
"
SOvRCE I(A<<U ASSOCIATES
4-48
eip
172~
ATTACHMENT 3
".-..,.
un
~d.1;1lotJ
~n4IUon.
All '!:AX - Al.L OFrICI: lCUU10 - ItO>I1t JlIIMII
IO\I~.' '.11. "lrport ...1411.01
1,.0114 De".lopent
(51%. -- llov.abor I"')
1. 2'rd '10. I ~..n '.rk .1"4
2. Un! ,I: I 1I.o19rov. ""..
3.. 1fa19r'D'I. Ave. . Jto.. A'V..
4. 1fa1'l'rDY. A". I '.laa l!Yd.
, If.l'........ A". 'V.nleo 1I1vd
.. ChnrUo1d Blv4. , X-IO Ifl aff-r..,
7. CIOY.rfl.ld BIYd. I 1-10 IB an-r..p
. C:t""orU.ld IIYd I '1"0 Ihot
, Clov.rfl.ld IIYd I ~..n '.rk Ilvd.
10 l.t:h SI:. I '100 11"4.
n. 1Itl\ SI;. I OC..n 'ull IIYd.
n. 1-10 ~I off-r.... I '1"0 BIYd.
11. C.ntinol. ".... I 1-10 III OlI/oft r..,.
14. Continol. "".. I 1-10 EI on-r..p
11. C.nl:1n.l. An. I OC..n '.rk 11v4
U. ~'l<Iy l)rJv. I OlyapJc 11....
17 IwIdt Odv. I 1-10 III off-r..p.
11 I1.Indy ~h. I 1-10 II "n-r..p
11 lwIdy or!v. I OC..n 'ark .hd.
20 lwIdy Drh. I lI.1:10Ml Blvd
21 lundy orh. I A1rpart. Av.
22. C~C1n.l. Ave. . Ro.. Av.
2'. C...U...l. Av.. I Pd.. Blvd
l4. C.nt:1n.h Av.. I vanl". Blvd.
as. Sorrln;l;on Av.. I c.t.".y 11vd.
n. Sorrll>91:on Av. I N.tional Blvd.
17. cu....t 11Yd. I '1"0 Blvd.
21. SoVl;dl. 11vd. . 01)"11plc 11w.
2J. SoVl;.ll. 11"d I 1f.1:10Ml 11vd
111 I-~IlS II o,,-rup I II.U.....l Blvd
'1. I-~OS liB off-r..p . lI.tl.....1 11vd.
'2 S.p"lv.... Uv4 . H.ti.....l 11vd.
3) l1.I""y Dr I '1"0 11,,4.
]~. %f191;;"'~ 11vd. . lIuhlngton IIlvd.
1'. C.ntin.l. AV.. , lIuhl",ton 1I1vd
]I If.l,rov. AV. I Ifuhlngton 11vd.
'7 C.ntin.l. Av.. . 1I..h1n'l't''" '1. C 77
o I int.r..~l"n. "p.rat. bett.r th.n th.y wo\l14 In tho
I.,........nt. .n III111t IS int.r..ct:ian. i.prov. IIY
1Iy 2 LeYd. of s.rtl".)
o 1~ Inl:.r8~lon. .r. i.p."t.d
.i""IUc.nl:.)
~
II
II
II
o
A
r:
o
B
A
A
A
Il
A
A
A
.n
..
.11
.Il
.n
.4l
."71
.'1
.61
So
S4
.55
II
16
.50
51
C n
II .12
C .n
B "
C .11
II .11
II .15
B .61
I .U'
I .64
, 1.11'
~ .Il
B."
I II
. 9l
B
I
.15
.61
, 1 01 Z .11
, 1.06 , 1.01
, 1 4' , 1.04
o 16 e.75
E.13 E .11
, 1 11 , 1."
, 1 11 , 1.14
0.11 0 11
C ." e .10
c ." e 10
, 1 ZJ , 1 25
T 1 14 , 1 07
11.14 II U
0.13 II 10
, 1.11 , 1 20
r 1.~0 , 1 37
C 17 C 77
, l.DS , 1.07
A .S6 A.5I
, 1 11 r 1 13 +.02 lignific...t
t~l:ur. if no project and no proj.at.r.l.l:ed
LoY.l of ..rvl"., 1 in~.r.""tlon i.prov.
In,
CImI.lht:1...
.... v/o
Proj .at.
1197
euauhth.
..... vI
Projoct
1I11;'i9aU=
P 1.21
,
, 1.14
, 1.02
, 1.07
D .17
E ."
, 1.06
o .11
C .74
B .n
e 14
~ .13
A .S'
A .60
e .'8
1117
Cha",. in
o.aw.tlv.
..... "IUl
Projert
1I1U,.l:1on
+ 01
+ 01
+01
+.01
-.U{...t:t:.r) ]I
-.0' (..tt.r) ]I
-.JI.4fIoUerl X
-.10C..ttu) X
+.0) Ugnificanl:
-.]Ulatt.rl
-.llC"~hrl X
+.0' I1gn1flc."t
+.04 I1gnlUc.nt
+.01 U""lflcont
+.01
+.01
-.07 ClNt~or]
- 17 ClNtt.r] 112
+.01
+ 01
- D) (aal:t:or)
+.02 Significant
rl intaroaet:ion. nol: .19nifle.nt, 6 Int.r'~10n. .r.
, 1.20
,
, 1.14
, 1.01
, 1.06
II .11
I: .11
, 1.0'
e .10
e .14
B .65
e .n
, 1.06
A .51
I .63
D .8Z
vfa1r-eh:Ja
PI1 PEAK -- ALL OTrICE SCEIIAllIO -- FaUll PlUS.
UII 11" 1991
ElIhUn9 CU.lllat:i va t'lallhUv.
$OIJI"C.I S II "Ifl'On ll.dd"a1 COndiUo". .... "/D .... v/
Lan'" lIa...lop..nl: DE%1l Pro]."t Praj."t
ISEIIl -- "ov.lObar 19U1 lIil:19.Uon
1 ']rd St. I OCa.n .ark 11'1"'. E " r 1 ]] T 1 U
2 2Jrd .t. . 1f.19r..... AV.. E H r r
J Va1qr..... Ava i .a.. AV.. r 1 U r 1 " r 1 U
. Vd9rov. AV. I ral11 IlYd. D 11 r 1 01 r 1 01
S Val;rov. II:v. 6 V.nlc. Ilvot r 1 20 , 1 " r 1 57
1 Cl.....rU.14 U..4. . 1-111 lIS ott-rup A 16 C l] C l]
7 Cl""arU.ld Ilv4. . 1-111 EI on-re.p C 11 r 1 H r 1 l'
I CloY.rfi.ld Blvd. . Plco Ihll C .16 r 1 15 r 1 15
, Cl.....rUdd BIYd I OC.an Park 11'14 A 10 0 I] D I.
10 21th St. , '1"0 111'14 I 70 r 1 05 F 1 OS
11 .,th St. 6 OC..n P.rk 11'14 I 66 c " D n
12 1-10 n off-r.. I Pl"o 1I1vd " Sl c: 74 C ,.
11 C."l:1n.h AV'. . 1-10 Nil on/off rnp. t 1.00 F 1 22 F 1.0S
14. C.n~in.l. A".. . %-10 Ell on-r..p A .60 C ..0 C .0
15. C.nUnala b.. . OC..n .ark IIlYII c 72 . 91 e 10
U. _y Oriv. I Dlppl" 1I1vd. II n F 1.11 r 1 21
17 Jundy DriY. , 1-10 1111 off-r..p.
11. l1.Indy Driv. , 1-10 II on-r..p II II F 1 25 I 95
11 lIw>dy Driv. , OC..n ..rk 11vd , 1 01 , 1 ]S F 1 29
20 "'nIly Driv. , ".Uon&1 II1Yd. II 70 , 1 It F 1.01
21 1wIdJ' Drln . AiQ>Ort "".' II II E .12 0 .14
22. e.nUnoh AVa 6 ac.. AV'. II 61 E .91 E .n
u. C.nUnda AV.. I Pal.. 111 Yd. , 01 ,. 1.11 F 1.2S
2~. C.nl:lnola Ava. , Va"ie. IIIYt1. E 91 ,. 1.1S F 1.1'
U. Sordnqt.on AYO. , G.~....J' 111"4 C H D '0 D '0
2'. Barrl",l:"n Av.. I ".~ional 111"11 C 16 D 90 0 .U
27. Go"....y 1I1Yd. I PleD IllY4. II II D 11 II 11
U. S.wt:.U. live!. I 01yapl" 11v1! r 1 OJ , 1.ll F 1.11
n. S.wt:.n. 11Vt1. . ".uonal 111\<4. E 16 ,. 1 11 r 1 15
'0. I-ODS S. _.1Ip . lIaUonal 1I1vd. e 71 ~ '6 II .11
31. 1-405 III off-rallP . ""Uo...l IIlYII e 72 p II D 90
32 ..PIllv.... IIlvd. , ...Uo...l 11'111. ~ 14 , 2. , 1 24
]l Bwldy Dr. , Pica 1I1Yd , " 'In
H 1"910_ I1Yli. . 1I..hington PI II U E ,. ~ ,.
H. C.ntlnola Av. 6 1I..hlnqton Blvd r: 1S r loll , 1.21
H. lIal9nwe Av.. 6 lIuhlnqton 11v4. 0 IJ 0 11
" C.ntln.l. Av.. . lIaahlnq1;on Pl. 0 83 r lo2. F 25
un
Cl.n9. in
eu..lativ.
.... ..lth
Pro,."1:
1I1U,.tlon
- o!ClI.n.r)
+ 01
. OJ
- 17 (..turl
- 11 (..turl x2
- O"lIotterl
- 'O(lIotUrl X
- 05(lIo~torl
- 11 (lIottorl
- ol(lNl:ur) X
- 02 CII.~hrl
- Ol(lI.turl
- 00 (lIo~ur)
- O~ Claturl
- I] (1I."url X
+ 02
- 10 ("I:ur)
+ 01
X-Int.r..ct:Lon upgr.d.d ane or .O~. LOS ~~DU9h t.p~...n~
X.3-Ineer..ct1on uPllrad..s on. C1r aor. lDS tJ1.r-OI.3Q'h i-.::trov...nt.
a 14 i..t:aro~i_ oper.u bott:.r t:I!.... !:hoy ......14 in tho future if t>O proj.,,1: .nIl nO ,rajOCt:-~l."ad
i"l>rov_nt:a an 1I1111t: (3 Ift".r.."t:1o". l"l>rav. lIy 1 lA".l of ..rvl..., 1 Inura.~10" aprov..
by 2 1,.0...1. of S.~lc.)
" 4 Int.reactl"na .r. i.,.ctad. (~ inl:.r.~ion. nal: .1'l'ft1ti".nl:, 0 Int.ro."l:lo". or. ai",lfl.,.nl: ]
1f/.ircll2b
..
ATTACHMENT 4
All nAlt - .u.L O"ICZ 'CZlfIl.lUO - 11lIlEB IHA$I:
nil Itn un un
bb~in9 ClmUlath. amv.la~iva Q>a"9' 111
'our~.t '.J!. Alrpcrt 11..1",...1 c_iU_ ..... "/0 .... "I CImltlaUva
Lom! Dovoloptl...~ onR Proj.~t Pro:la~t ..... ,,1 U
(IEIR - .OY~I' Itll) Jl'IUgetion Proj.~t
1I1t19aUon
1. Urd ,t. I OC.... ..rlt 11""'. I .IS , 1.20 ? 1.21 +.01
2. Un It. I lIal9~. Av.. I 14 , ,
3. 1I.19~. An. , Jto.. AV.. I: .11 , LU , 1.14
4. IId9rov. Av.. , Pda. 11""'. D .n , 1.02 , 1.02
5. lIal'lll'ov. AV.. , v.nl~1 11V<<. D .13 r 1 Of , 1 01 ..01
.. clovlrU.l' 1I1vd. , 1-10 III ott-r.., A .. D .n D n
1. CIOYlrU.14 1I1vd. , 1-10 1:1 Oft-...... ~ 11 I: II I II
I. Clov11"U.14 1I1vd. , .i~o 1lV<<. 0 Ii , 1 CI. , 1.0'
t I:lov11"U.14 1I1vel. , oe.... ,arle Ilvel I .n c ,0 D .15 + OS
10. 21U S~. . ,ico 81Vll. A 54 C .74 I: 74
U. 21th It. . ocel.. 'ult 11vd. A 51 II ..5 I .5
12. 1-10 1:11 off-r..p . '100 1I1vd. A 55 C 72 C 71 . 01
n. C.n~ln.le A"a. , 1-10 WI o~off r..p. D II , 1 O. I: 92 - UCIoUu) X
U. e...t:lnole A".. I 1-10 II o..-ra., A U ... 57 A 57
15. C.ft~lft.l& Ave. & OC... 'aTk 11Yd A 50 I n ... ..0 -.o)(lot:url X
11. IIUncI)' Driv. . Ol,..plo 1I1vd. A 51 D n C .71 -.OS(lIatUr) X
17. Bundy Dri". , 1-10 .. oft-r.-,. -.1) lll.t~or) X2
11. IIUncl)' Dri.... , 1-10 II o..-nap C .'77 , 1.01 0 .n
11. suncI~ ori.... . OC.I" ,"rlt IIYd. D .2 , 1.0' , 1.10 ..01 Ugftlf1cant
20. INnlI)' DriY. . "aUonol Ilvd. e .n , 1.42 , 1.01 -. 3' (..t~.r)
n. 1I\uIlI)' Driv. . Alrpcrt AY.. II .&5 0 .n II 16 -.201..t~or) X2
22. e...~ln.la AY.. , RO.. AY'. C .'71 I: n I .16 ..OJ Sigftlflc...t
23. C.ntin.le Av.. '" '11.. Ilvd. It .9J 'l.U , 1.21 . OJ Slgftlfl~.nt
24. C...Un.le AY.. '" Y.nlu IlYd. D .15 , 1.11 , 1 12 +.01-
25 II&l'rln'llton AVI. I Clt.".y Ilvd. . .11 D .11 D II . OS
21. IIrrlngton Av.. I "IUonol IIlvd. II ... C " I: .0 . 01
H. Catew.y Ill""'. , Plco Slvd. II .U I: " e 79
21. S.vUlh 1IlV<<. , 01p,1c tlYd. r 1.03 r 1 25 , 1 25
2t. 1&~.1l' 1I1vd. I JlaUonol Ilvd. E n r 1 11 F 1 06 -.aIChUarl
30 1-405 III Oft-I'I.p . ".Uon.l UVll II n I) II II '7 -.17(lIattu) X2
n. 1-405 "II off-rl.p I K.~lon.l I1Yd. 11 .11 I) .2 0 II . 01
32 1.pl.llv04a 1I1Y4. , "aUon.l Ilvd. E .11 , 1 11 , 1.20 . 01
33 IWId)' Or. I '1co lIlv15. r 1.40 , 1 36 - OII..t~.1'1
11 I..qlewoo4 1I1vd. I 1I1.1l1ngton rl. II .5 c; 77 C 17
35 C...Unola Ava. I lIaohl"91:on 1I1vd. II .67 " 1 05 " 1 06 . 01
H. IId9l'oY. Av.. I 1I""1"9~on IlYd A 56 A .56
3'7 Cant:ln.l. A.... I lIaoll1ng~on Pl. e .17 r 1 11 r 1.11
o 9 Int.rs.ctions opol'&to ban.r th&II th.y would if 1.. the f..tltt. no pl'Ojl~~ INI. no pl'O:loc:t-l'Ole~a4
bprOY...nu an built. IJ 1nto.r.oc:Uo... IllJlrov. by 1 Levd of ......ic., 3 Int....oc:ti_ UproYe
by 2 LoY.l1 of '.I'YI~.)
o 13 lnt:&r.lctlon. ar. iop.ct:ed.(lO 1nt.rooct:lon. not .lgnlfl~.n!;. 2 int:ar..ctlon. ar. .ltnlficant.1
"/o1rch.ll:l
PIt PE.\K -- ALL. O,PlCI: SCDlU%O -- ~E PllASE
So..rc.' S II Airpo~ ~..ldu'l
Land Dov.lopo.nt !lEIR
(SlIlI - lIovaal:lor Itll)
1911
b1atlnlJ
I:ondition.
Ilt7
CIlaulativ.
11&.. wlO
l'rojact
un
eu.ul.tiv.
.... vi
Proj.,,!;
111t:lq&U...
1. 22rd St. . OC.an rarl!; 111 vii. E .n , 1.33 F 1 31
2. 22rd st. . lIalqrOYa Av.. .E 44 , ,
3. IId'll1'ov. Av.. I 1Io.. A".. F 1.15 F 1.46 , 1.41
4. 11&191'0'11'1 Av.. , ral_ 'lYll. 0 U , 1.01 F 1.01
5. lIalql'OV. "VI. i V.nie. Ill""'. , 1 20 , 157 r 1 57
6. I:loval'fiald 1I1Y4. I 1-10 113 off-r~ A .46 C .13 C n
1. Clov.rfla14 11Y4. , 1-10 III on-I'e.p I: 71 , 1 16 r 1 11
I. Clovorfla14 1I1vd. I rico Slvil. I: 16 , 1 15 F 1 15
9. 1:10y.rfla1d 1I1vd. I OC..n rarl!; III vd ... 60 0 n I) II
10. 2.th lit. I 'lco 1I1vd. I 10 F 1 05 , 1 as
11. 21th 'I:. , 0C&an 'arl!; II1Y1l. I II e 7t D 12
12. t-10 1:1 on...a. . PI... 1I1vd. A 51 I: .71 C .71
U. C.nt:11I.1. An. , %-10 11II on/oU ....p. E 1 00 'l.n , 1 05
11. C.nt1J>ola Aya. '" 1-10 Ell on-n.p A 60 C '0 c; 10
15. l:.nt:1>>al. Ava. '" ocean Parle !llY1l. I: .n t: 91 D 11
16. _, Dl'b. , 01,..pla Un D I' , 1 11 , 1.21
11. lIvnlIy DI'IY. , 1-10 11II Off-reap.
11. _y I)rlv. I 1-10 EB on-r..p D I. F 125 E 13
it. Bundy llr1v1 '" OC..n Parlt lI1..d. , 01 , 1 25 '1 n
20. luNl.y I)l'1ya . ltaUonol Slv4 II 70 , 1 1t , 1 07
21. IWldy orin '" A1~ AV. I II I .12 D .12
22. e.ntln.l. A"'a. '" 110.. "v.. I .1 E U D . lID
2J. e.n~i...ll1l AV.. '" 1'01.. Ilvd. , 1 01 , 1 )l , 1.24
24. e.nt1tl&l& "VI. I V.n1~. IlYd. E .n Y 1 25 , 1.31
25. "rrl~n "v. , oat...a)' Ilvd c 75 D 90 I) .'0
2.. lIarl'll'11itOJ1 AV. , .aUonol IIlvd-. e 71 D .90 I) .11
27. GoU..., Ilvd. . Pico Blvd. I U D IJ D .13
21. '.""aUI 11vd. I Olpple IIlvd , OJ , 1 11 , 1.31
21. lIa"".l1. 11vd. I lI.tbnol .lvd I t6 , 1 19 , 1.15
JO. 1-405 III on-I'a.p I lIaUonll Ilw. c; 19 E " D .12
H. 1-405 "II off-I'''p I lIaUonol III vd I: n D 81 I) .to
32 J.pulvede l1vd. , II.Uo...1 IIlY4 E t4 Y 1 J4 , 1.24
33 INnlIy Dr. , 'ico 11 vd. r 1 " . , 1 at
JI. Ift91_o;~ BlY4. I lI..~n Pl. 0 .12 E 91 I 9a
n. C.nt.1Aall Ava. , 1I....111g1:.0Il I1v4. e .75 r 1 U , 1 25
)I. Wolgrov. Av.. , lIa&l>~n Ill..... 0 'J D .13
n. ClnUftoll AV.. I lIallll11>ql:on Pl. D .13 , 1 J4 , 1.13
In7
c:b&nvl In
euau1nl".
.... with
Proj.~~
IIldq.Uon
-.OJ(lottu)
+~Ol
. 03
-.17 C latt:u)
-.01 (Iot:U1') X
- 02 C Iotte1'1
-.32Clon.l') x
- 04(80tl:l1')
- U (latU1')
- 10 C ..tUI') x
-.03 C ..tt.l') X
-.07 (Iotl:ll')
- Ol(...tt.1'1
- 04(lanu)
-.04 (..tt.r)
- .14 (...n.r) x
..02
-.lOllal:url
-.01 (..tterl
-.01 (Iot:t.r)
X.:Znt:.Ir..et.i.on \lP9ra.4M. one _ _are LOS thrOQgtl lap~ov...nt
X2-Int.r..UC10J1 UP9r.~ t;wo or ~r. IDS u..:rov;h iapl"OY...nt.
o 11 inuuoctlona operatl batt.r tIuln thy _141 if 1ft tha f~!;~I'. no prajoet .neS. no ,rojoc:t-l'llotoll
lap~_u ar. wilt (5 llItanoct:lonl ~e by 1 LoYal of 5.rvle.)
o 2 IfttonactlOft& 1Il1'O bpoct:olI (3 llIt.rloc:tlo... not al9f\1flcant:. 0 lnt:lnoetlo... an dgftlf1e.nt )
"/01=&
,;
.
A T T A C H MEN T F
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS OF
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED AIRPORT PROJECT
The following summary describes the major differences in impacts
resulting from each Alternative compared to the originally
proposed project.
Alternative 1:
Reduced studio alternative deletes 200,000 square feet of office
space from the studio Scenario A of the original project. This
alternative results in fewer traffic, air quaiIty, and noise
impacts. Implementation of Alternative A would decrease the
original project's beneficial fiscal and employment impacts by
reducing projected annual revenues by 14% and employment
opportunities by 17%.
Alternative 2:
Reduced office alternative delete 200,000 square feet of office
space from the office scenario B of the original project. This
alternative results in fewer traffic, air quality, aesthetics,
and noise impacts. Implementation of Alternative 2 would
decrease the original project's beneficial fiscal and employment
impacts by reducing projected annual revenues by 15% and
employment opportunities by 9%.
Alternative 3A - Recommended and Revised Project:
Three Phase project contains 1,015,000 square feet (1,078,068
gross square feet) of development. This alternative would be
constructed on 28.53 acres, an arts and education center of
124,800 gross square feet is proposed for the remaining acreage.
The alternative results in fewer traffic, air quality and
aesthetics impacts. Implementation of Alternative 3A would
decrease the original project's beneficial fiscal and employment
impacts by reducing projected annual revenues by 22% and
employment opportunities by 11-18%
Alternative 3B:
Three phase/reduced height project is similar to Alternative 3A
with the exception that the project would utilize all 37.5 acres,
building height would be reduced from six to three stories, and
the arts and education center would not be included adjacent to
this project. The alternative results in fewer traffic, air
- 1 -
,;
qUality, shade, and shadow impacts but greater land Use,
aesthetics, recreation and hydrology impacts. Implementation of
alternative 3B would decrease the original project's beneficial
fiscal and employment impacts by reducing projected annual
revenues by 22% and employment opportunities by 16-23%.
Al'ternative 3C:
Three phase/reduced density project contains 872,868 gross square
feet of office, retail, restaurant and day care, and 124,800
gross square feet of recreation, arts, and education uses. This
alternative would eliminate all significant traffic and air
quality impacts and result in fewer public services and
utilities, and energy impacts. Implementation of Alternative 3C
would decrease the original project's beneficial fiscal and
employment opportunities by 18-25%.
Alternative 4:
Two phase proj ect would eliminate two phases of the original
project and consist of 916,175 gross square feet including an
arts and education center and a 5.4 acre park. This alternative
would eliminate all significant traffic impacts and result in
fewer air quality, land use, aesthetics, housing, pUblic services
and utilities and energy impacts. Implementation of Alternative
4 would decrease the original proj ect I s beneficial fiscal and
employment impacts by reducing projected annual revenues by 42%
and employment opportunities by 35-40%.
Alternative 5:
Business park alternative increases the scope of the project to
include additional uses - a health club and a hotel - but retains
the same total floor area of the project by reducing the amount
of office redevelopment. This alternative results in fewer
traffic, recreational and energy impacts and greater public
services and utili ties and housing impacts. Implementation of
Alternative 5 would increase the positive cost/revenue balance
expected with the original project by increasing projected annual
revenues by approximately 4%. Additionally, this alternative
would increase employment opportunities generated by the original
project by up to 7%.
Alternative 6:
Research and development/light industrial project consists of
1,673,000 square feet of two story structures, 20% more total
square footage than the original project. This alternative
resul ts in fewer traffic, air quality, and housing impacts and
greater noise, land use, and aesthetic impacts. Implementation
of Alternative 6 would decrease the original project.s beneficial
fiscal and employment impacts by reducing annual revenues by 85%
and employment opportunities by 9-15%.
Alternative 7:
- 2 -
"
Airport expansion project would include office, arts center,
aeronautical school, hotel and additional aircraft hanger/tie
downs. Except for the hotel, these uses would occupy existing
buildings. This alternative would eliminate all significant
traffic impacts and result in fewer air quality, construction
noise, land use, public services and utilities and energy impacts
and greater air trafffic noise impacts. Implementation of
Alternative 7 would decrease the original project's beneficial
fiscal and employment impacts by reducing projects annual
revenues to $268,450 and employment opportunities by 85%.
Alternative 8:
No proj ect would retain the existing airport facil i ties on the
proposed project site.
Alternative 9:
Regional shopping mall would contain 773,500 square feet of
retail uses of two and three stories. This alternative results
in fewer aesthetics and view impacts and greater traffic and air
quality impacts. Implementation of Alternative 9 would decrease
the original project's beneficial fiscal and employment impacts
by reducing projected annual revenues to $3.19 million and
employment opportunities by 72-74%.
Alternative 10:
Neighborhood commercial center and park would consist of a 55,000
gross square feet neighborhood co:mmercial center on 5 acres,
124,8000 gross square foot arts and education center on 7.2 acres
and a 24.3 acre park and one acre of aircraft tiedowns. This
alternative results in fewer traffic, air quality, geology,
hydrology, noise, housing, public services and utilities, and
energy impacts and would eliminate view blockage, and shade and
shadow impacts. This alternative would generate no net increase
in employment opportunities, since the projected creation of 370
jobs would not be sufficient to offset the estimated 370 jobs
currently existing on-site which would be eliminated with this
alternative. Alternative 10 would not meet the project objective
of providing a significant revenue stream to the City, as this
alternative would reduce projected annual revenues to $173,200.
Alternative 11:
Residential land use alternative would consist of 1,100
multifamily residential units. This alternative results in fewer
traffic, air quality, aesthetics, shade and shadow, and energy
impacts and greater noise, land use impacts. Implementation of
Alternative 11 would eliminate project benefits of creation of
new employment opportunities.
Alt.ernat.ive 12:
Hotel alternative consists of a 200 room hotel on 5 acres, a
124,800 gross square foot arts and education center on 7.2 acres,
- 3 -
.-
one acre of aircraft tiedowns, and a park on the remaining 24.3
acres. This alternative results in fewer traffic, air quality,
geology, hydrology, shade and shadow, noise, housing, pub 1 ic
services and utilities and energy impacts. Alternative 12 would,
however, provide significantly fewer employment opportunities (1%
of the project employment opportunities) and would result in a
significant decrease of project generated revenues from $5.5
million to less than $0.5 million.
Alternative 13:
Regional park would consist of the full project site as a
regional park. This alternative would eliminate all significant
traffic impacts. This alternative results in fewer grading,
traffic-generated noise, aesthetics, shade and shadow, pUblic
services and utilities and energy and housing demand impacts.
Development of the project site as a regional park would
eliminate existing and project identified employment
opportunities. This alternative would also eliminate the $5.5
million in annual revenues estimated for the project and cost
approximately $10,670,000 in capital costs and $810,500 annually
to maintain the park thus creating a negative one time and annual
cost for the city.
Alternative 14:
Business center at present City Yards is an ttoff site"
alternative that would involve moving the operations and
facilities at the Santa Monica city Yards to the Airport residual
land and constructing a Business Center on the present City Yard
parcel, consisting of about 592,000 square feet of two story
office buildings. This alternative results in fewer traffic, air
quality, view, shade and shadow, housing demand, public services
and utilities and energy impacts. Implementation of Alternative
14 would decrease the original project 1 s beneficial fiscal and
employment impacts by reducing employment opportunities by
50-54%.
Alternative 15:
Business center at present City Bus Yards is an "off site"
alternative that would involve moving the operations and
facilities at the Santa Monica City Bus Yards to the Airport
residual land and and constructing a Business Center on the
present Bus Yard Parcel consisting of about 585,900 square feet
of three story office buildings. The alternative results in
fewer traffic, air quality, housing demand, shade and shadow,
public services, and utilities and energy impacts and greater
land use, noise, lighting and glare impacts. Implementation of
Alternative 15 would decrease the original project's beneficial
fiscal and employment impacts by reducing projected annual
revenues by 50% and employment opportunities by 51-54%.
- 4 -
w/air2ccf
September 26, 1989
"
- 5 -
A T T A C H MEN T G2
SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR
AIRPORT RESIDUAL LAND DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
The following is a description of the key provisions of the
Agreement and their responsiveness to environmental and community
concerns.
site Plan/seale of Buildings
section 3 (a) of the Development Agreement contains the
development parameters for each structure to be built in the
project. The section contains the permitted floor area and
height for each structure and refers to the project site plan
(Exhibit B of the Development Agreement) which delineates the
location for each building. The floor area permitted for each
structure is measured in net square feet. The defini tion of
floor area in the Development Agreement is the same as the
definition in the city's Zoning Code. The maximum permitted size
of each structure in the Development Agreement is approximately
10% greater than was originally proposed for each building to
allow the developer the flexibility to increase the size of an
individual building to accommodate prospective tenants. However,
the total project size must not exceed the total floor project
area which is stated in Section 3 (b) of the Development
Agreement. Additional floor area built in one structure must be
offset by a reduction in the floor area built in a future
building yet to be constructed.
Section 8 (b) of the Development Agreement allows the Zoning
Administrator (or Planning Commission on appeal) to permit a 5%
increase in the amount of floor area permitted in an individual
building. Again, if the additional floor area is approved, an
equal amount of floor area must be subtracted from other
buildings to be constructed in the project so the overall size of
the project does not exceed the maximum floor area permitted for
the project.
Each structure must be constructed within the boundaries of its
"designated areall. These areas maintain the setbacks and
building separations needed to retain important view corridors
and open spaces but allow for slight adjustment in the specific
location of a building to accommodate construction, survey, soil
conditions, views, and other contingencies not evident at this
time.
- 1 -
Some residents living in the neighborhood to the south have
expressed concern about the height of buildings in the original
proj ect, in particular, Building # 10 in Phase 3 and the studio
soundstages in Phase 4 of the original project. These buildings
were located closest to the residential neighborhood to the
south.
To respond to concerns raised, the Building designated as #10, in
the original project has been eliminated from the revised
proj ect. It has been replaced by open space and/or recreation
facilities. The former studio office building #12 at the far
western end of the project has been retained and renumbered in
the revised project as Building #10. This will be the closest
building to adjacent homes and will not be permitted to be
located closer than 100' from the rear property lines of the
homes adjacent to the site (approximately 150'-170' from the rear
of the homes themselves). Since the revised project does not
include Phase 4 of the original project, the studio soundstages
will not be built near the residential homes along the southern
boundary of the parcel.
Floor Area
The maximum amount of floor area permitted in the project is
contained in section 3 (b). The maximum floor area for the
original project called for a studio Scenario A equivalent to
1,426,716 gross square feet, an Office Scenario of 1,369,058
gross square feet, and up to 1,302,049 square feet of floor area
devoted to parking in the proposed project.
The Development Agreement for the revised project permits no more
than 1,015,000 square feet (1,078,000 gross square feet) which is
263,880 square feet (282,500 gross square feet) or 20.8% less
than was proposed in Scenario B (Office) of the original project.
Building Height
The maximum height permitted for each building and parking
structure is contained in section 3 (a). No building may exceed
6 stories (84') as measured from the average finished grade for
each phase. The average finished grade elevation is noted on the
project site plans (Exhibit B of the Agreement which are also
included as Attachment H of the staff report).
Since the taller structures are oriented toward the Santa Monica
Airport and Bundy Drive and do not abut adjacent residential or
commercial buildings, the Development Agreement permits some
design features and mechanical equipment to exceed the permitted
height that are not permitted to exceed the height limit in other
areas of the City under the city's Zoning Code.
setbacks and views
Residents in the adj acent neighborhood have expressed concern
about the proximity of the project to their homes south of the
project. In addition to requiring the placement of the tallest
- 2 -
structures away from the homes, the Development Agreement also
requires that structures be set back from the property line which
is shared by residences to the south. In addition, comments were
Section 3(d) requires that all buildings be set back from Bundy
Drive by 100 I to 140'. This minimum setback for the revised
project was increased by 60' to ensure that the project will be
compatable with the neighborhood. The setback required along the
southern City limit ranges from 35' adjacent to the Lear Sieglar
parcel and 80' to 100' adjacent to the single family residential
neighborhood to the south.
section 3 (e) requires minimum distances between buildings to
ensure that sufficient view corridors and ample open space is
maintained between structures. The Development Agreement
requires at least 105' of distance between the two main buildings
near Bundy Drive to maintain views into and through the project
from the street and from homes located on the bluff above Bundy
east of the project. The Agreement requires at least 40' to 60'
separation of the buildings along the northern edge of the
project to maintain views of the Airport Administration
buildings, the Airport adjacent to the project, and the Santa
Monica Mountains in the distance. The Agreement requires 105' to
160' distances between buildings bordering the gardens and plazas
located in the project.
site Coverage and Landscaping
Section 3(f) of the Development Agreement requires that not more
than 50% of the site be covered by buildings to ensure that the
project design and site plan evoke the campus-like environment
desired by the city. section 3(h) requires that the project be
fully landscaped in a park-like manner in accord with the
landscape scheme envisioned on the project site plans. Section
3(h) also requires that mature trees be used and defines the term
"mature" which is consistent with the definition used by the
Architectural Review Board.
Parking
Section 3{i) of the Development Agreement requires the developer
to provide a minimum of 3.3 parking spaces for each 1,000 square
feet of floor area in Phase 1 of the project.
The Development Agreement permits the Developer to request
approval of 2.9 parking spaces per 1,000 square fee of floor area
once Phase 1 of the project is built. The Zoning Administrator
must approve the developer's request if an analysis of the
parking demand for the proj ect shows that 2.9/1000 spaces is
sufficient, that there is no significant problem with parking
intrusions in the adjacent residential neighborhood, and less
parking is required due to the success of the Transportation
Demand Management Program required by the Development Agreement
(Section 6h) in reducing the number of vehicles parking in the
project.
- 3 -
Parking will be provided in four parking structures. Neighbors
have expressed their concern about the potential for employees,
visitors, and quests parking in the residential neighborhood to
the south of the project. The amount of parking required for the
proj ect is greater than what is required by the city I s zoning
Code so no parking intrusion problems are anticipated. Further,
there is no easy pedestrian access to and from the neighborhood.
The developer will be permitted to reduce the number of parking
spaces provided in the project only if an analysis of
neighborhood parking intrusions indicates that there is no
significant problem with project users parking in the
neighborhood or a neighborhood parking intrusion plan is approved
by the City that solves any significant parking intrusion problem
should it occur.
Permitted Uses
Section 4 of the Development Agreement limits the type and floor
area devoted to uses permitted to locate in the project. Uses
permitted in the Project include commercial office; retail
(limited to 22,000 square feet), restaurant and take out food
areas (limited to 8,200 square feet of indoor and outdoor area),
and other ancillary commercial uses (30,000 square feet) that
will serve primarily the employee and visitor population of the
proj ect. The Development Agreement permits the developer to
replace restaurant uses with retail uses since the traffic
devoted to retail uses is less than that for restaurant uses.
The Development Agreement also contains a mechanism to permit the
developer to increase the amount of ancillary commercial uses if
there is no net increase in the amount of peak hour traffic
generated by the project.
Section 4 of the Development Agreement also permits child care
facilities.
In response to neighborhood concern about the introduction of
destination-type uses that would increased traffic in the area or
would generate significant use of the project late in the
evening, other uses such as movie theaters, drive-through
restaurants, and medical offices are not permitted.
The Agreement states that the City agrees that on-site
consumption of alcoholic beverages is to be permitted in
restaurants in the Project but permits the City to regulate the
location of and attach conditions to future permits specifically
regulating the sale of alcoholic beverages. The Development
Agreement also permits the developer to apply for a conditional
use permit from the City for permission to sell alcoholic
beverages in retail stores as long as the sale of alcoholic
beverages is incidental to the sale of other retail products.
The Development Agreement does not assume it is a permitted use
and the City may approve, conditionally approve, or deny the
application on the basis of the appropriateness of the use. The
Development Agreement does not permit bars and liquor stores in
the project.
- 4 -
Housing and Parks Impact Mitigation Fee
section 6ea) of the Development Agreement requires that the
Developer of the project pay the City a fee for mitigating
housing and parks impacts on the community in accordance with
santa Monica Municipal Code section 9046. The EIR estimated that
the total fee for the original project would have totaled
approximately $7.5 million (1988 dollars). The revised project
will generate approximately $5.9 million (1988 dollars).
on-Site Child Care Facility and Program
section 6(b) requires that the developer provide an on-site child
care center in Phase 1 of the project that will accommodate 100
children, including infants, and that will contain all indoor and
outdoor improvements. This will ensure that the facility is
ready for operation at the same time that the user demand is
created. The Agreement requires the developer to pay $20,000
(adjusted for inflation) for scholarship for law and moderate
income families
Subsurface contamination
Preliminary soil tests found that some aviation fuel has leaked
into the soil from old fuel tanks that were removed years ago.
section 6 (c) of the Development Agreement requires that
subsurface contamination be treated, contained, or removed in
compliance with local, state, and federal regulations. It is
anticipated that the contamination is localized, and it is also
not expected that additional contaminated sites will be found
since most of the residual land parcel has been used for aircraft
tie down and parking.
security
Concerns were expressed about the security of the project.
Neighbors were concerned about public use of the project's open
spaces after business hours and on weekends.
section 6 (e) requires that the Developer provide for private
security services for the built portions of the project to
supplement City police protection. These private patrols as well
as public police response to security problems will ensure that
the project is safe. In addition, while the project will be open
and available for public use during the day and weekends, the
open spaces in the project will not be designed as public parks.
The recreational activities for these areas is intended to be
passive and relaxational in nature and will not include active
playing fields and equipment. (It is anticipated that active
recreational uses may be incorporated into the portion of the
land made available by the smaller project).
Water Conservation
Section 6(f) of the Development Agreement requires that the
Developer prepare a water conservation program that includes
- 5 -
using such water saving features such as automatic sprinklers
that will irrigate the landscaping during early morning or
evening hours, using sources other than non-potable water to
provide at least 50% of the water in the project's water feature,
and using drought-resistant plants and landscaping if consistent
with water reclamation needs.
Transportation Demand Management
section 6(h) requires the Developer to prepare for City approval
of a Transportation Demand Management program (TDM) that will
reduce the amount of traffic generated by the project by 15% over
what would occur if no TOM program were implemented. The TOM
plan must include:
1. Hiring a TDM Manager whose primary responsibility will
be to promote and manage the TOM program.
2. Promoting carpooling and vanpooling by compiling and
distributing schedules of carpools and vanpools for all
employees, reducing charges for parking, and providing
preferred parking locations.
3. staggering working hours of employees and operation
hours of businesses located in the project.
4. Encouraging the use of public transit by subsidizing the
cost of bus tokens by at least 50% for up to 350
employees working in the project, working with the area
bus lines to improve service to the project, and
coordinating with LAX van and bus service companies to
include the project on their routes into Santa Monica.
The Developer may substitute these and any other measure included
in its TDM plan if the substitute measure is equally or more
effective and the substitution is approved by the City Manager.
The Development Agreement requires that the Developer pay the
City up to $l76,400 annually if the TDM goal for reducing project
generated traffic was not met. The fee would be determined based
on the actual amount of traffic generated by the project compared
with the projected amount of traffic that would be generated
wi thout a TOM program. The fee would be used by the City to
supplement the developer's efforts to reduce traffic from the
project.
Traffic Improvements
section 6(i) of the Development Agreement requires that the
developer provide the street and intersection improvements for
the project listed in Appendix J of the Development Agreement and
which are listed in Attachment F of this staff report and pay for
the first $2 million in costs to construct the improvements. The
City, as a partner in the project, will share in all costs over
$2 million to implement the improvements. The Agreement contains
in Exhibit E the procedure by which streets and intersection
- 6 -
improvements will be implemented in the City of Santa Monica and
in the ci ty of Los Angeles. The intent of the Development
Agreement is to proceed in a cooperative manner with the City of
Los Angeles to obtain the required permits to perform street and
intersection improvements in the City of Los Angeles.
The Development Agreement also requires that the developer
construct and install all equipment necessary to link each of the
intersections located in the City of Los Angeles that were
analyzed in the EIR to the City of Los Angeles I Department of
Transportation Automated Traffic Surveillance and Control (ATSAC)
system ~ maintain a two lane, improved, paved, and constructed
roadway from Bundy/centinela to the Airport Administration
Building without interruption throughout construction of the
Project and thereafter~ and maintain a two lane access roadway to
the Lear Astronics parking lot without interruption throughout
construction of the Project and thereafter.
The Development Agreement anticipates that the developer will
construct all off-site street and intersection improvements
required for the project but also allows each city to construct
the improvements itself with the costs to be shared by both the
developer and the City of Santa Monica.
Energy Conservation
section 6(k) of the Development Agreement requires that the
project design comply with the building energy regulations set
forth in the California Administrative Code, Title 24, Part 2,
(Energy Conservation standards for New Residential Buildings),
such conformance to be verified by the Building and Safety
Division prior to issuance of a Building Permit.
Access to the Disabled
Section 6(1) of the Development Agreement requires the developer
to comply with all legal requirements regarding provisions for
the disabled, including those set forth in the California
Administrative COde, Title 24, Part 2.
Sewer Allocations and On-Site Wastewater Recycling System
The Development Agreement requires that a waste water treatment
system be installed in the project if the installation is
permitted by County, state, or other agency from which approvals
are required. The system is intended to provide tertiary
treatment for all wastewater generated by the project and to
reuse the treated effluent. The Developer Agreements requires
that the project use the treated effluent first for irrigation of
the project and to maintain the level of the central water
feature. If excess treated effluent remains, the treated water
may be used to irrigate Clover Park on the north side of the
Airport or be recirculated to toilets and urinals in the project.
The Development Agreement permits the project to use the cityls
public sewer system when the on-site treatment plant is being
- 7 -
.
repaired or is undergoing maintenance. It also permits the
project to release excess treated effluent into the public storm
drain if this use of the storm drain is allowed by the
appropriate regulatory agencies.
The on-site treatment of the waste water will minimize the need
for the project to use the public sewage treatment facility and
will help the ci ty in it on-going efforts to conserve fresh
potable water.
Section 6(n) of the Development Agreement assumes that the
developer will construct, own, and operate the on-site system but
allows for the City to assume the ownership and operation
responsibilities should that be required by appropriate
regulatory agencies. The developer is required to reimburse the
City its costs of operating the system.
Section 7 (c) of the Development Agreement exempts the project
from any moratorium established by the city due to limited or
reduced public sewer capacity if the on-site system is installed,
except if the exemption would violate applicable federal, state
or Los Angeles city law regarding the use of public sewer
facilities. Section 7 (d) states that the project will receive
second priority for any sewer allocation behind those projects
listed as first priority projects in the City sewer permit
allocation ordinance (Ordinance No. 1451) if the developer is
prevented from installing the on-site system.
Design Standards
Section 6(r) of the Development Agreement requires that the
project comply with the design standards contained in Exhibit C
of the document. These design standards are consistent with
those contained in City's Zoning Code.
Access to Neighborhood
Of major concern to neighborhood residents is the potential for
traffic and parking intrusions into the residential neighborhood
south of the project. To discourage intrusions, Exhibit C of the
Development Agreement requires the developer to provide a wall,
fence, or other barrier to the satisfaction of the City along the
southern property line to prevent motorists and pedestrians from
traveling between the project and the neighborhood to the south.
stormwater Runoff
Section 6(8) of the Development Agreement requires that the
Developer prepare a drainage study for City approval prior to
issuance of a building permit. The drainage study must identify
the amount of storm water runoff generated by the proj ect and
propose a plan for one or more storm water detention basins that
will help to prevent downstream flooding. The detention basin(s)
will have the ability to retain storm water from up to a 25 year
storm event.
- 8 -
,
Emergency Features
section 6 (t) of the Development Agreement requires that the
Developer install fire and life safety features in the project.
These features are to be reviewed and approved by the city's Fire
Chief. The developer is also required to prepare an emergency
response plan to provide for the safe evacuation of proj ect
occupants in time of emergency. The plan is to be approved by
the City prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the
first building in the project. The intent of these provisions is
to ensure that the project is safe for employees, visitors, and
quests and that these people are safely evacuated in case of an
emergency.
General service Department Requirements
Exhibit D of the Development Agreement contains a list of the
General Service Department improvements, plans, programs, and
studies to be provided by the developer. Exhibit D requires
among other items that the developer design and construct the
street and intersection improvements listed in the Exhibit which
were identified in the EIR as those improvements necessary to
mitigate traffic impacts of the project; construct on-site street
improvements and maintain access to adjacent Airport uses;
prepare and submit for City approval foundation Shoring and soil
erosion control plans; install water, sewer, fire hydrants, and
street lighting to City standards; and prepare refuse collection
and on-site recycling plans for City approval.
Support for Art
Section 6(p) of the Development Agreement requires the developer
to pay $1 per square foot of development plus $300,000 for
various art projects or facilities. For the revised project, the
amount of funds available for art will total approximately
$1,378,000. The developer will pay the following amounts to the
City for the following purposes:
o $100,000 for restoration of the stanton MacDonald Wright
murals;
o up to $352,800 for art projects in the City of Santa
Monica outside the boundaries of the project;
o $300,000 for the construction of artist studios either
adj acent to the proj ect or in another location in the
City;
o $150,000 for art to be placed in the project;
o up to $529,200 for art projects in the project or for
art projects or facilities adjacent to the project.
The selection of the off-site art projects and facilities shall
be determined by the City council following recommendations from
the City'S Arts Commission.
- 9 -
~
Changes to Development Agreement
The Development Agreement provides for minor and moderate changes
to the project. Section 8a allows the developer to make minor
changes to the project upon written notification of the changes
being sent to the zoning Administrator and the Director of
Community and Economic Development Department. Minor changes to
the proj ect will not require the amendment of the Development
Agreement include: 1) increasing the number of parking spaces in
a parking structure, 2) increasing the area of the underground
parking garage, and 3) moving the boundary line between phases by
not more than five feet to accommodate construction of parking
structures near phase boundary lines.
Section 8b allows the developer to request approval of moderate
changes to the project by the Zoning Administrator whose decision
may be appealed to the City Planning Commission. Moderate
changes will not require the amendment of the Development
Agreement and will allow the Developer to increase by 5% the
floor area of any structure provided there is an equal decrease
in the floor area of another structure yet to be constructed.
The procedure to approve a moderate change is similar to a
variance request.
Any other change to the project would require the adoption by the
City Council of an amendment to the Development Agreement.
Exemption from Other City Requirements
One purpose of a development agreement is to "freeze" the rules
and regulations governing the development of a multi-phase
project at a certain point in time to ensure that the project may
proceed with a unified and consistent set of development
regulations over the course of its development. Section 10 of
the Development Agreement contains provisions on the
applicability of current and future city codes, ordinances,
rules, regulations, and policies on the Airport project.
The Development Agreement requires that the project be developed
in accordance with all City regulations that are current as of
the execution date of the Development Agreement. The proj ect
will be required to comply with changes to those current and
future new development regulations if: 1) the developer and City
agree to the imposition of the regulation: 2) compliance is
required by State or federal law: 3) the regulation is essential
for pUblic health or safety: or 4) the project is not singled out
for compliance and the regulation does not impair development of
the project as contemplated.
Architectural Review Board
Section 10(d) of the Development Agreement requires that building
colors and materials, design elements, signage, trash enclosures,
screening, and the landscaping plan for the project be approved
by the City'S Architectural Review Board. However, the ARB must
approve all features of the project that are consistent with the
- 10 -
.
provisions of the Development Agreement or that are depicted on
the project site plan which has been approved by the city
council. This section also requests that the ARB carefully
review the amount of hardscape used in the landscape plan for the
area fronting on Bundy Drive.
air2ccg
September 26, 1989
- 11 -
~
"
A T T A C H MEN T H
(REVISED)
MODIFICATIONS TO THE
DRAFT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
FOR THE "NO IMPACT" PROJECT
The following modifications to the draft
contained in Attachment G are required
approves the no impact alternative of the
Development Project.
Development Agreement
if the City council
Airport Residual Land
PAGE SECTION
MODIFICATION
v
28
Change heading to read:
"Restriction of New Commercial Office
Development on Airport Surplus Parcel".
vi
45
Add the
headings:
"Sunset Park Neighborhood Traffic Protection
Plan Adoption.
following
section
numbers
and
46
Funding for Neighborhood Traffic Protection
Plan and for Recreation Improvements to
Airport Specific Plan.
Redesign of Internal Access to Airport.
47
48
Requirement to Execute Documents."
1
C
Change "28.53 acres" to "26.33 acres".
1
E
Insert "September 13" for the Planning
commission pUblic hearing.
Add "on September 21, 1989" at the end of the
first sentence to describe the date the
Planning Commission recommended approval of
the ACD Amendments.
2
HI
Change "September 12, 1989" to "September 13,
198911
3
1.0
Change the total area for the Airport Surplus
Parcel from "8.2 acres or 357,200 square feet"
to 1110.4 acres or 453,024 square feet".
- 1 -
8
1.0
Add the following definition:
"Neighborhood Traffic Protection Plan: As
defined in Section 45 herein."
9
1.0
For "Proj ect Site Plan" definition, change
drawing series from "Drawings 2c through 10c"
to ItDrawings 2d through lad".
For "Santa Monica Portion" definition, change
"28.53 acres or approximately 1,242,767 square
feet" to "26.33 acres or approximately
1,146,935 square feet".
10
1.0
Add the following definition:
"Sunset Park:
herein. It
As defined in Section 45
11 2 change "29.36 acres or approximately 1,278,922
square feet" to "27.16 acres or approximately
1,183,090 square feetU.
11 3(a) (i) (A) Change "Drawing 10cU to "Drawing lad".
11 3(a) (1) (B) Change "Drawing 10cU to uDrawing 10d" ,
12 3(a) (1) (C) Change "Drawing lOc" to "Drawing 10d" ,
12 3(a) (i) (D) Change "Drawing lac" to "Drawing 10d".
12 3(a) (i) (E) Change "Drawing lac" to "Drawing lad".
12 3(a) (i) (F) Change "Drawing lac" to "Drawing lad".
12 3(a) (ii) (A) Change "Drawing lac" to "Drawing 10d" ,
13 3(a) (ii) (B) Change "Drawing lac" to "Drawing 10d".
13 3(a) (ii) (e) Change "Drawing lOc" to "Drawing 10d" ,
13 3(a) (iii) (A) "Building 9" of former plan deleted, so delete
this section and renumber 3(a) (iii)
accordingly.
13 3(a) (iii) (B) Change "Building 10" to "Building 9" and
change "Drawing lOc" to "Drawing 10d".
13 3(a) (iii) (C) Change IlBuilding 11" to "Building 10".
13
3 (a) (iii) (D)
Change "Drawing lOcU to "Drawing lad".
change the maximum size of parking Structure 5
from "351,285 square feet" and ul,064 parking
spaces" to u196,875 square feet" and "597
parking spaces".
- 2 -
Change "Drawing lOc" to "Drawing 10d".
14
3 (b) (i)
Change the floor area ratio from "0.82" to
"0.75".
Change the maximum floor area from "1,015,000
square feet" to "822,000 square feet".
14 3(d) Eliminate building "9" and its setbacks.
Renumber building "10" to building "9".
Renumber building "11" to building "10".
15 3 (e) Eliminate the distance between buildings 9 and
11 and between buildings 10 and 11.
Increase distance between Buildings 9 and 10
to "105' only where buildings form the
northern and southern edge of the orange Grove
Garden".
24
6(a)(i)
Change the last sentence of this subsection
to read as follows:
IIFor any building constructed in Phase 1 of
the Project, Developer shall pay the Impact
Fee attributable to that building upon
issuance of the building permit for the
building. For any building constructed in
Phase 2 or Phase 3, Developer may elect, in
its sole discretion, to either pay the
Impact Fee attributable to each building
permit in full prior to, or concurrent with,
the issuance of the building permit by the
City or to pay the Impact Fee in the manner
specified in Section 9046.2(d) of the Santa
Monica Municipal Code in effect on the
Effective Date."
25
6 (b) (iii)
Change this subsection to read in full as
follows:
"The City shall use good faith reasonable
efforts to select the initial qualified
operator for the Child Care Facility and to
replace any operator of the Child Care
Facility during the term of the Child Care
Facility Sublease upon expiration or
termination of the operating agreement
between the City and the operator. The
operation of the Child Care Facility shall
be in a manner comparable to other high
quality child care centers in the City. In
no event shall the Child Care Facility be
operated without a qualified operator or in
- 3 -
the absence of all valid operational
licenses and approvals required by the state
of California and other applicable
governmental agencies. Developer shall have
no obligation to operate, manage or
supervise the Child Care Facility or to
locate, select, supervise or replace the
operator. The Child Care Facility shall be
operated on business days during the term of
this Agreement except (A) if a qualified
operator is not available, (B) for
circumstances or events outside of the
reasonable control of the City (including
without limitation the City I S inability to
find a qualified operator to operate the
Child Care Facility or economic and other
terms acceptable to the City) or (C) as may
otherwise be provided in this Agreement."
30 6(h) (i) (G) (vi) Change the denominator in the formula from
"1,015,000" to "822,000".
Change the last sentence to
of example only, assume
permitted project size is
and tha t ... ".
read "For purposes
that the maximum
822,000 square feet
Change the math in the example to reflect
822,000 as the denominator.
42
6 (p) (A)
Change "1,078,000 gross square feet" to
"873,000 gross square feet".
54
13(b)
Insert the following sentence after the second
sentence of the paragraph:
During each periodic review by the City, in
connection with mitigation measures for which
the City is responsible, City shall prepare a
written report regarding implementation of all
such mitigation measures.
64
28
Change this section to read as follows:
"28. Restriction of Commercial Office
Development on Airport Surplus Parcel. ci ty
agrees that during the term of this Agreement,
City will not authorize or approve the
development of new structures on the Airport
surplus Parcel for non-aviation commercial
office uses."
45
Add a new Section 45 to read in full as
follows:
"45. Sunset Park Neiqhborhood
Protection Plan Adoption.
Traffic
- 4 -
Not later than two (2) years following the
Effective Date, the city council shall adopt
and the city implement a plan ("Neighborhood
Traffic Protection Plan") of measures designed
to minimize vehicle trips cutting though the
neighborhood of the City bounded by Lincoln
Boulevard on the west, Pico Boulevard on the
north, and the city limits on the east and
south ("Sunset Park"). Prior to the adoption
of the Neighborhood Traffic Protection Plan
for Sunset Park, the City shall conduct
community meetings and workshops in the Sunset
park area for the purpose of consulting with
and obtaining guidance from the residents of
the area in the formation of the Neighborhood
Traffic Protection Plan and the City shall
conduct at least one duly-noticed public
hearing."
46
Add a new Section 46 to read in full as
follows:
U46. tlFundin9 for Nei9hborhood Traffic
Protection Plan and for Recreational
Improvements to Airport Surplus Parcel.
The City agrees to fund the following
improvements either from revenues available to
the City from sources other than the Project
or from the revenues from the first three (3)
years of the project as follows:
(a) the improvements and measures delineated
in the Neighborhood Traffic Protection Plan;
and
47
(b) improvements to the Airport Surplus
Parcel, consistent with an improvement program
approved by the City Council pursuant to a
public process to be determined, including
appropriate environmental review, to establish
various recreational uses such as soccer
field(s) and baseball diamond(s)."
Add a new Section 47 to read in full as
follows:
"47. Redesi9n of Internal Access to Airport.
Developer agrees to cooperate with the City in
a good faith effort to redesign and modify the
internal access road to the Santa Monica
Municipal Airport form the Project in order to
facilitate equal or improved internal access
to and from the Airport from the Project if
such redesign is deemed desirable and feasible
- 5 -
by the City and if the redesign satisfies all
of the following conditions:
(a) The city provides evidence reasonably
satisfactory to the Developer that the
redesign does not constitute a Moderate Change
or Maj or Change pursuant to this Agreement
obtains or commits to obtain approval of the
redesign as a Moderate Change or Major change
pursuant to this Agreement.
(b) The redesign does not result in any
material adverse impact to (i) the ingress to
or egress from the Project and Bundy Drive,
(ii) the internal traffic circulation system
of the Project, or (iii) the orientation,
layout design of the Buildings, the Parking
Structures and the common areas of the
Project.
(c) The redesign does not have any material
adverse effect of the environmental impacts of
the Project studied in the EIR nor the
measures studied and recommended therein to
mitigate said environmental impacts.
(d) The redesign does not result in any
material delay or increase in the cost to the
Developer of: (i) design, construction or
development of any improvements for the
Project, including, without limitation, any
on-site traffic improvements or the internal
circulation system, (li) operation and
maintenance of the Project, or (iil) the
performance or construction of the mitigation
measures by the Developer under this
Agreement.
48.
Add a new Section 48 to read in full as
follows:
Exhibit UB"
"48. Requirement to Execute Documents",
City and the Developer shall execute this
Agreement within seven days after the later to
occur of ( 1) the effective date of the City
Ordinance approving this Agreement, or (ii)
thirty days after the filing of the Notice of
Determination for the Environmental Impact
Report, provided that no lawsuit challenging
the approval of the Environmental Impact
Report has been filed wi thin such thirty-day
period.
Substitute the phase line between Phase 1 and
Phase 2 depicted on the drawing attached to
- 6 -
..
air2cch
October 10, 1989
this Attachment H for the phase line between
those phases presently depicted on the Project
Site Plan.
- 7 -
ATTACHMENT P
FINDINGS OF APPROVAL
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR
THE AIRPORT RESIDUAL LAND DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
staff recommends that the City Council approve the Development
Agreement for the Airport Residual Land Development Project with
the following findings:
A. The project permitted by the Development Agreement is
consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses
and programs specified in the General Plan as amended and the
Airport Master Agreement (no specific plans are applicable to
the project area) in that:
Land Use Element
The Santa Monica Airport Residual Land Development
proj ect compl ies with the standards of the Land Use
Element as proposed to be amended. Permitted uses in
the Airport Commercial District include general office,
child care facilities, support retail services and other
uses compatible with these uses.
Specifically, the Development Agreement is consistent
with Land Use Element Objective 1.14 and its related
policies to "...facilitate transformation of a city-held
land asset into an innovative aesthetically superior,
high quality office and working environment that
produces employment, business opportunities and related
benefi ts. . . If. The proj ect conforms to the development
standards set forth in POlicy 1.14.1 by limiting height
to a maximum of 84 feet, exclusive of special features;
by limiting floor area to the amount specified in the
policy; by providing for appropriate setbacks,
pedestrian features, open space, parking; by ensuring
that utility systems and roadways are adequate to serve
the project; and by providing in-lieu fee payments for
parks and housing mitigation, as further described in
the findings below.
The project conforms to Land Use Element Objective 3.6
and its related policies by accommodating
airport-compatible businesses in a well-landscaped,
campus-like environment which will be compatible with
neighboring residential areas; by providing buildings
which are architecturally superior in design and
detailing with articulation which produces visual
interest; by incorporating pUblic art into the project;
and by creating park-like open space available to all
employees and the general pUblic through the design of
- 1 -
accessible theme gardens, plazas, a courtyard and water
gardens.
Circulation Element
The project conforms to the objectives and pOlicies of
the circulation Element. In particular, the development
is consistent with Obj ecti ve 4. 2 and Pol icy 4. 2 . 3 in
that the project circulation is designed with access on
Bundy Drive and no direct access to local residential
streets in order to minimize incursion of vehicular
traffic and parking into residential neighborhoods.
The development is consistent with Objective 4.3 to
provide road facilities to meet anticipated needs for
movement of people and goods in that it provides for
street and intersection improvements called for in the
project's Final EIR.
The Development Agreement contains requirements for a
Traffic Demand Management (TDM) Program which is
consistent with Objectives 4.5, 4.6 and 4.7. The TDM
Program will include implementation of ride-sharing,
staggered work hours to reduce peak hour vehicle trips,
bicycle parking, public transit incentives such as bus
tokens and employee van pools or shuttles, and a TDM
Program goal of reducing vehicle trips to the proj ect
which would be no more than 85% of the trips which would
be predicted to be generated without a TOM Program.
Housing Element
Although the development is not a residential project,
it is consistent with the goals and pOlicies of the
City's Housing Element to "...maintain and increase the
supply of housing affordable to low- and moderate-income
persons. II This will be accomplished through a Housing
Mitigation Program contained in Santa Monica Municipal
Code Section 9046 which requires an in-lieu fee payment
of approximately $2.369 to $2.448 million.
Open Space Element
The Development Agreement is consistent with the City's
Open Space Element. The project includes an in-lieu
parks mitigation fee as required by Santa Monica
Municipal Code Section 9046. The in-lieu fee payment
will be approximately $2.369 to $2.448 million. As
well, the project will provide large areas of landscaped
open space in the form of theme gardens, water features,
plazas and courtyards.
Conservation Element
The project is in conformity with the pOlicies of the
Conservation Element, including the use of energy
- 2 -
efficient insulation and lighting, solar heating, water
conservation techniques and planting of street trees.
Noise Element
The project is consistent with the goals and objectives
of the Noise Element to identify and control noise
levels in the city. The Development Agreement specifies
that the developer will properly muffle all construction
equipment, limit construction hours, provide large
building setbacks to reduce noise at the project's
perimeter, and erect fences and install landscaping
around the perimeter of the site to provide a further
noise buffer.
scenic Corridors Element
The project is consistent with the Scenic Corridors
Element goal to protect and enhance the scenic resources
of the City. Although the proposed development is not
located on one of the seven identified scenic corridors
in the ci ty , the Development Agreement does require
that street trees be planted along the street abutting
the project site. As well, project landscaping will
include extensive planting of mature trees.
Seismic Safety Element
The project is consistent with the principles of the
City's Seismic Safety Element. Although the project is
sited in the general vicinity of the South Branch Santa
Monica fault, the fault is considered inactive with a
low probability of hazard.
Public Safety Element
The project is consistent with the policies and programs
of the City's Public Safety Element to lower the risk
factors of fire and geologic hazard to a safe level.
The development will comply with the City's fire and
building codes in order to provide for the community's
physical safety.
B. The Development Agreement is in conformity with the public
necessity, public convenience, general welfare and good land
use practices. The project will create approximately 4,151 -
4,298 jobs in the office, retail, restaurant and child care
fields. The project will produce significant net revenues to
the City, thereby benefiting the general welfare.
The Development Agreement is in conformance with good land
use practices. The project is designed with ample setbacks
and adequate parking and circulation and conforms with the
Airport Master Agreement and F.A.R. and height restrictions
- 3 -
contained in the General Plan and General Plan Amendment
Number 11.
c. The Development Agreement permits a project that will not be
significantly detrimental to the health, safety and general
welfare of the public in that the project will be adequately
served by public and/or private health and safety facilities
that can accommodate anticipated demand. city Police and
Fire Departments will serve the project. As is the case with
any development project, this project will produce both
adverse and positive effects on health, safety and the
general welfare, as discussed in the Final ErR. The project
will result in an increase in traffic volumes and will have
an adverse impact on local air quality; but mitigation
measures will address most of these impacts. The adj acent
residents will benefit as they no longer will experience
adverse noise, aesthetics, or fumes from aircraft, aircraft
tiedowns, and aircraft-serving buildings. On balance, the
beneficial aspects of the project, including employment
opportunities, open space areas and visual improvements to
the site, outweigh the incrementally adverse effects.
D. Approval of the Development Agreement will not adversely
affect the orderly development of the property in that
development of the site will be a logical and orderly use of
the site and an improvement over the current use, which
consists pri~arily of underutilized Office/industrial space,
aircraft maintenance and operations uses, retail and
restaurant uses. The project is consistent with the Airport
Master Agreement and the overall direction of the City I S
existing and proposed land use policies. The project is
consistent with the City'S stated goal to transform an
underutilized public land asset into an innovative, high
quality development producing revenue, employment, business
opportunity, and related benefits.
E. The Development Agreement and proj ect will have a posi ti ve
fiscal impact on the city with annual guaranteed revenues of
approximately $2,792,000 to $3,272,000 (1996 dollars) at
buildout; one-time revenues for the Santa Monica/Malibu
Unified School District of approximately $197,000 to
$243,500; and one-time revenues to the City of approximately
$4.7 to $5.85 million (1988 dollars).
air2ccp
- 4 -
A T T A C H MEN T G3
CjED:EDD:PC:JPM:CSR:
Council Meeting: October 3, 1989 Santa Monica, California
ORDINANCE NUMBER
(City council Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
APPROVING THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN
RELIANCE DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC.
AND
THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES ORDAIN AS
FOLLOivS :
SECTION 1.
The Development Agreement attached hereto as
Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference between Reliance
Development Group Inc., a Delaware corporation, and the city of
Santa Monica, a municipal corporation, is hereby approved.
SECTION 2.
Each and every term and condition of the
Development Agreement approved in Section 1 of this Ordinance
shall be and is made a part of the Santa Monica Municipal Code
and any appendices thereto.
The City Council of the city of
Santa Monica finds that public necessity, public convenience, and
general welfare require that any provision of the Santa Monica
Municipal Code or appendices thereto inconsistent with the
provisions of this Development Agreement, to the extent of such
- 1 -
-Y'--.... ---.
inconsistencies and no further, is hereby repealed or modified to
that extent necessary to make fully effective the provisions of
this Development Agreement.
SECTION 3. Any provision of the Santa Monica Municipal Code
or appendices thereto inconsistent with the provision of this
Ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and no further,
is hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to give
full force and effect to the provision of this Ordinance.
SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or
phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or
unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent
jurisdiction,
such decision shall not render invalid the
remaining portions of this ordinance.
The City council hereby
declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each and
every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not
declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether
any portion of this Ordinance would be subsequently declared
invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 5. The Mayor shall sign and the city Clerk shall
attest to the passage of this Ordinance.
The city Clerk shall
cause the same to be published once in the official newspaper
within 15 days after its adoption. This Ordinance shall become
effective 30 days from its adoption.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
~ 1....-. ~
ROBERT M. MYERS U
city Attorney
- 2 -