SR-410-021 (4)
loA
JUL 2 2 2003
PCD:SF:JT:AS:PF:BL:f:\plan\share\council\strpt\ 03\Lantana DA Discussion
Council Mtg: July 22,2003 Santa Monica, California
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: City Staff
SUBJECT: Discussion of the Development Agreement Concept Plan for the
Entertainment Production Projects Located at 3030 Olympic Boulevard
(Lantana East) and 3131 Exposition Boulevard (Lantana South).
Applicant: Lantana Hines Development
INTRODUCTION
This report recommends that the City Council discuss the appropriateness and potential
public benefits of a Development Agreement for the Lantana Studio projects located at
3030 Olympic Boulevard and 3131 Exposition Boulevard and provide staff with direction
regarding the general negotiating points that should be addressed.
BACKGROUND
Lantana Hines Development has submitted a Development Agreement application for
the redevelopment of 3030 Olympic Boulevard and 3131 Exposition Boulevard for use
as production and post-production facilities. Attachments A and B provide a sketch and
summary of the concept plan.
As will be discussed later in this report, development agreements are not quasi-judicial
matters like Development Review Permits or Conditional Use Permits. They are
negotiated contracts between the City and an applicant and are implemented by
ordinance. To avoid negotiating a project the City Council cannot ultimately accept,
staff has scheduled this preliminary discussion at the outset of this process. The
f,A
1
JUL 2 2 2003
Council's discussion will provide initial direction to staff and inform the property owner.
The applicant concurs with this approach.
The City Council certified a Final Environmental Impact Report and denied 2 similar
projects on November 12, 2002 (Development Review Permits DR99-010 and DR99-
011 and Reduced Parking Permits RPP99-003 and RPP99-004) on appeal from the
Planning Commission. In denying the projects, both the Commission and City Council
focused on the neighborhood traffic impacts, particularly those related to the Lantana
South project, as a primary reason for the denial
ANAL YSIS
The proposed Development Agreement for the Lantana East and Lantana South
projects would total 194,000 square feet, which is a 10% reduction in size from the
previous projects. The square footage has been eliminated from the Lantana South
project, which is 15% smaller in size. The reduced project size will reduce traffic impacts
though not eliminate the significant impacts to the intersections and roadway segments
as identified in the EIR
Development Aqreements
Since development agreements are among the least common land use applications
reviewed by the City Council, it would be helpful to address three essential questions:
1 What are development agreements?
2 What do development agreements typically cover?
3. What are some advantages and disadvantages of development agreements?
2
An excellent new publication by the Institute for Local Self Government in Sacramento-
Development Agreement Manual: Collaboration in Pursuit of Community Interests
(2002), addresses these issues. The entire manual is available on-line at
http://www.ilsq.orq/userfiles/qodoc/5116.FinaIDevAqreement4-5-02.PDF.
Staff
encourages anyone interested to review the entire manual. The following excerpts are
germane:
What Are Development Agreements? (p. 9)
Development agreements are contracts negotiated between project proponents
and public agencies that govern the land uses that may be allowed in a particular
project. 1 Although subject to negotiation, allowable land uses must be consistent
with the local planning policies formulated by the legislative body through its
general plan, and consistent with any applicable specific plan.2
Neither the applicant nor the public agency is required to enter into a
development agreement. When they do, the allowable land uses and other terms
and conditions of approval are negotiated between the parties, subject to the
public agencies' ultimate approval. While a development agreement must
advance the agencies' local planning policies, it may also contain provisions that
vary from otherwise applicable zoning standards and land use requirements.
The development agreement is essentially a planning tool that allows public
agencies greater latitude to advance local planning policies, sometimes in new
and creative ways. While a development agreement may be viewed as an
alternative to the traditional development approval process, in practice it is
commonly used in conjunction with it. It is not uncommon, for example, to see a
project proponent apply for approval of a conditional use permit, zone change
and development agreement for the same project.
1 See Cal. Goy't Code 965864 and following
2 See Cal. COy't Code 965867.5
What Does a Development Agreement Cover? (p. 26)
Permitted uses of the property;
Density or intensity of use;
Maximum height and size of proposed buildings;
Provisions for reservation or dedication of land for public purposes;
Terms and conditions relating to financing of necessary public
improvements, as well as provisions for subsequent reimbursement for
that financing, as appropriate;
3
Timeframes for commencement and completion of construction, or any
phases of construction;
Subsequent discretionary approval provisions, as long as those approvals
do not prevent development of the project as described in the agreement;
and
The duration of the agreement
The Advantages And Disadvantages Of Development
Agreements (p. 11)
Development agreements have three defining characteristics:
· They allow greater latitude than other methods of approval to advance
local land use policies in sometimes new and creative ways;
· They allow public agencies greater flexibility in imposing conditions and
requirements on proposed projects; and
· They afford project proponents greater assurance that once approved,
their projects can be built
Although these characteristics can be advantageous, they can also present
challenges. The purpose of this chapter is to discuss potential advantages and
disadvantages of development agreements, from the perspective of both the
public agency and project proponent.
Advancing Land Use Policies (p. 11)
Because development agreements are themselves ordinances, they may
supersede existing land use regulations as long as they are consistent with the
general plan and any applicable specific plan. 5 As a result, they can afford the
public agency and project proponent greater latitude concerning allowable land
uses in a particular instance. However, there are potential advantages and
disadvantages associated with having this flexibility.
5
See Cal. Gov't Code ~ 65867.5.
Potential Advantages: The Ability To Better Implement Planning
Policies (p. 12)
From a planning perspective, development agreements have been instrumental
in allowing creative and award-winning land use projects because the
agreements can facilitate projects that would not have been allowed under
otherwise applicable zoning regulations. The approval of creative land use
concepts - and the construction of resulting projects - have advanced the state
of urban planning, and allowed public agencies to better combat the visual and
aesthetic impacts of "cookie-cutter" development.
In a similar vein, there are instances in which literal compliance with zoning
ordinance provisions can thwart promotion of general plan policies. For example,
the general plan may encourage the existence of open space, whereas the
applicable zoning district does not allow sufficient density to accommodate the
clustering of residential units necessary to accommodate an open space
component.
There may also be instances in which the legislative body wishes to promote
unwritten policies, such as those involving growth management. As long as the
project is consistent with the local planning policies formulated by the legislative
4
body through its general plan, the development agreement can provide greater
latitude to incorporate land use concepts and components that are tailored
specifically to address particular community concerns.
In each of these cases, the ability to vary from strict adherence to otherwise
applicable zoning provisions can help ensure that the public agency's land use
policies are being advanced, in sometimes new and innovative ways. These
advantages are shared by the public agency and project proponent alike.
Potential Disadvantages: May Promote Bad Planning (p. 14)
The latitude afforded the parties through use of a development agreement may
also have potential disadvantages. For example, the agency's staff and
legislative body may become convinced that, in exchange for the significant sales
tax revenue the agency is likely to receive from a particular project, or in
consideration of the fact that the project proponent is willing to construct a new
city park or other significant public amenity, the agency should agree to
compromise its planning standards in a manner that could reduce the quality of
life in the community. The pressure to compromise may be especially great in the
case of a "friendly developer" who has a popular presence in the community.
From the project proponent's perspective, it is possible that the legislative body
may decide to disallow uses that would otherwise be allowed, and which are
appropriate from a conventional planning perspective.
The suggestions that appear in this manual are intended to help avoid misusing
development agreements. They are based on the premise that from the outset,
the planning policies and objectives that have been embraced by the community
through adoption of the general plan, and those included in any applicable
specific plan, should be an integral part of the discussions and negotiations
between the parties to a development agreement.
By identifying applicable planning policies early on, and continuing to use them
as yardsticks in determining what land uses are appropriate, the parties should
be able to avoid unacceptable compromises when negotiating development
agreements.
Imposing Conditions (p. 14)
Development agreements provide public agencies greater flexibility in imposing
requirements on proposed development, such as development conditions,
exactions and fees, because constraints and uncertainties that affect a local
agency's ability to unilaterally impose such requirements do not apply to mutually
agreed upon development agreement provisions.6
6
See CaJ. Gov't Code ~ 66000(b) (excluding "fees collected under development agreements" from the
type offee covered under the Mitigation Fee Act).
5
Planninq Commission Action
The Planning Commission considered this proposal on June 4, 2003. The Commission
voted 5 to 1 that further consideration of a development agreement for the
redevelopment of the sites is appropriate. In addition, the Commission suggested the
following negotiating points
· Fund & support neighborhood protection measures;
· Fund improvements to public spaces in the areas that abut the project sites
[sidewalks/landscaping on Centinela, Stewart & Olympic];
· Provide publicly accessible green space within the project;
· Recruit employees from the area to improve jobs-housing balance and reduce
commuting time;
· Develop a cutting edge approach to reduce vehicles trips through an integrated
traffic management plan including support of light rail [possibly a pedestrian way
to Bergemot Station];
Limit the term of the agreement;
Fund DA monitoring program; and
Analyze project traffic using current traffic data.
Conclusion
Based on feedback from the Planning Commission and the City Council, the applicant
will determine how to pursue a Development Agreement. As noted earlier, the City
enjoys broad discretion in reviewing Development Agreement applications. This project
is presented in conceptual form to allow the City Council to comment on its merits,
identify concerns with the project itself or the Development Agreement, and discuss
potential public benefits. This feedback will inform the applicant and provide direction to
City staff in determining whether a Development Agreement is the best approach for
redevelopment of this site.
6
In summary, there are two essential questions staff suggests the Council focus on in
considering this matter:
Does the City Council believe a development agreement is appropriate for this
site?
2, If so, what are the general negotiating points that should be addressed?
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT
The recommendation presented in this report does not have any budget or fiscal impact.
However, later actions could generate financial impacts if not mitigated in the
development agreement.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Council discuss this proposal and the appropriateness of a
Development Agreement for the redevelopment of these sites -and provide direction
regarding the project's potential public benefits and negotiating points that should be
addressed.
Prepared by:
Suzanne Frick, Director
Jay M. Trevino, AICP, Planning Manager
Amanda Schachter, Principal Planner
Paul Foley, Senior Planner
Bruce Leach, Associate Planner
Planner, City Planning Division
Planning and Community Development Department
Attachments:
A. Site plan sketches
B. Project description of revised plan for reduce density
7
~
-
en
z
We
C~
o
C~
W~
00
:J
C
w
a:
a: 0(1
o
LL
Z
<Cx
..JI-
a.5
en
CGl!!
Wti
en~
-<C
[ij~
a:~
IJ'r
'~
tQ
t~
1
w
~
0(
....I
W
Z
;::
Z
w
o
o
I-
j:'
en
~
c(
z
~
Z
<C
..J
.....
~
~h
'I...:s
1
It
A1TAUtk€NT \'6 "
REVISED PLAN FOR REDUCED DENSITY
Lantana South and East
Original FAR of2l6,000 sf for Lantana South and East is reduced in size to
194,000 sf (10% reduction)
Lantana South reduced in size to 130,000 sf(15% reduction)
Lantana East remains same size
Density reduction directed towards residential neighborhood
Project retains all desirable features originally designed
Building design is compatible with neighborhood
Heavily landscaped on Exposition Blvd. with mature pepper trees to
screen neighborhood
Approximately 8,000 sf accessible "Expo Garden" adjacent to Exposition
Boulevard
Operable windows; massing to maximize day lighting; and other
Sustainable Design features
5,000 sf Connection Garden for neighbors and Lantana employees
Bike and ride area allocated for future mass transit
Please see original book for more detail
Building slid along North to South axis with the original wing parallel to
Exposition Boulevard dropped
Surface parking is needed for feasibility with reduced density
Surface parking is adjacent to MTA line on North side of site
Not obtrusive or visible to neighborhood
Balance of parking below-grade