SR-08-14-2007-8A~~ Supplemental City Council and
~ ~~tY ~f Redevelopment Agency Report
Santa Monica
City Council and Redevelopment Agency Meeting: August 14, 2007
Agenda Item: U "r'r7
To: Mayor and City Council
Chairperson and Redevelopment Agency
From: Andy Agle, Director of Housing and Economic Development
Subject: Alternative Concept Plan for the Civic Center Village
Executive Summary
On June 19, 2007, the City Council and Redevelopment Agency (Agency) directed staff
and the developmenUdesign team to provide an alternative heights and massing
concept for the proposed Civic Center Viliage. Attachment A provides an alternative
design concept for your consideration.
Discussion
The City Council and Agency considered the proposed design concept for the Civic
Center Village on June 19, 2007. Council/Agency comments included:
1. Consider modest additional height on Site C(adjacent to the Viceroy Hotel) to
vary the facade on Site A(adjacent to Olympic Drive) and pursue more creative
massing on Site C. Use upper-level stepbacks to reduce the perceived massing
of the buildings from the adjacent streets and sidewalks.
2. Locate retail on the ground-floor of Site A in order to better engage the "Living
Street."
3. Ensure significant landscaping throughout the Village.
4. Continue discussions with RAND regarding locating its required public access at
the eastern end of the "Living Street."
1
Items 2, 3 and 4 above will be addressed as the project continues through design
development and Development Agreement negotiations. However, the first item is
critical to the overail design approach, and the City Council/Agency asked to review the
potential benefits and effects of such a shift in massing.
In response, the development/design team has prepared an alternative massing
approach as identified in Attachment A("Concept 2"). For Site A, several of the top-
level residences have been removed, and a greater variety of materials employed, to
create greater articulation in the fagade and roofline of the buildings. For Site C, a
variety of stepbacks and terraced courtyards have been employed to create strong
integration with the heights of 1733 Ocean Avenue, RAND and the Viceroy Hotel. Two
stories have been added to the southern portion of the Site C building and the height of
the ground-floor retail space has also been increased to create a better orientation
toward the sidewalk. The average height of Site C is approximately 65 feet, and the
southern portion of the building is 96 feet, similar to the adjacent Viceroy Hotel. These
conceptual alternatives are rendered in Attachment A as Concept 2.
Once the Council have given direction on the proposed height and massing concept,
the design wiil be further refined. Planning and Community Development has identified
the following key areas in which staff will work with the applicant:
~ The balance and proportion of height, mass and volume between Sites A and C.
• The elevated courtyard design on Site C and its relationship to the street level
and the visual connection between interior open space and the public reaim.
2
~ The retail frontage on Site C regarding improved pedestrian orientation.
• Fagade materials throughout the project, particularly sun shading techniques and
design details which ensure sustainability.
Staff is seeking direction on the following questions to move forward in the Development
Agreement Negotiations:
• Is the revised massing approach more appropriate?
• Should parking access to the Civic Center Vil~age be allowed from the future
Palisades Garden Walk?
BudgeUFinancial Impact
There is no direct budgetary impact to conceptualiy approving the Civic Center Viilage
alternative design concept plan (Concept 2).
Prepared by:
Jim Kemper, Acting Housing Administrator, Housing Division
Approved:
Andy Agle, Director
Housing and Econo
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A:
lopment
to Council:
Manager
Concept 2 Design Concept Plan
3
DATE: July 25, 2007
TO: Andy Agle, Director of Housing & Economic Development
Bill Witte, President, Related Companies
FROM: Eileen Fogarty, Director of Planning and Community Development
SUBJECT: The Village: Design Review Comments for Revised Concept Design
Site A:
Massing
The revised scheme partialiy responds to the concern of reducing the mass
on Site A. As design discussions continue, City Planning will continue to
evaluate the balance and proportion between number of units and height on
both Site A and Site G. The Planning Commission and ARB direction
suggested the removal or relocation from Site A of a volume equivalent to
approximately one or two units. It appears that 10 units have been removed
from Site A to decrease the appearance of mass from the park, and 11 were
added to Site C. Planning maintains that there are other solutions that would
achieve the intended goals for both sites. For example, the sky bridge is a
significant volume; removal or reduction of this element would greatly improve
the sense of light and air on Site A, lessening the need to remove as much
volume from the top floor of the residential area. The concept of considering
additional height on Site C was intended as an opportunity to redistribute
mass between Sites A and C, with the secondary benefit of utilizing the view
opportunities on Site C. Once the Council has provided direction in relation to
height, it may be appropriate to re-consider the balance of height and volume
between Site A and Site C.
Retail frontage on Ocean
If the opportunity for increased height on Site C allows for re-configuration of
height on Site A, consider addressing a greater floor to ceiling height for Site
A retail (particularly Ocean Avenue) as previously discussed.
1
Attachment B
Fa~ade Treatment/ Color
The overall response to the site and context appears appropriate for the
building/project location, proximity to the beach, and relationship to the new
parking structure. As the design progresses, the PCD design team will
continue to evaluate the contextual compatibility of the more fanciful fagade
design, (chiefly expressed through color) in relation to the more formal civic
center structures.
Sustainability
The revised scheme partialiy addresses the environmental conditions. The
un-shaded w2st facing glazing, at least on Site A, appears to have less
glazing and more solid wall than the previous version. Although sun control
and shading device detail can be worked out as the design evolves, provide
written indication of the intent of how to address LEED level sustainability for
this design.
The Living Street
While the living street appears to work well conceptually, Olympic Drive offers
an equally attractive and convenient pedestrian experience. There needs to
be a clear design principle that identifies the different intended characters of
the living street and Olympic Drive. Retail spaces along Olympic drive would
benefit from having a significantly different character from those on the Living
Street.
Site B:
No additionai comments at this time.
2
Attachment B
Site C: (Scheme 3)
Massing
Drawings were provided for initial analysis. The intended concept is not yet
resolved. Aithough the revised scheme for Site C better addresses the need
for varied massing on the site, the location of the elevated courtyard in
relation to the street, the distribution of massing on the site, and the
pedestrian activation of Ocean Ave are not yet working. Once the Council
has given direction on height, a design can be developed which uses height
to distribute mass, and creates an activated street-front with a visual
connection between interior open space and the public realm. The site shouid
be both pedestrian oriented and appropriate in scale to the adjacent tall
buildings.
Height Given the direction to explore additional height, to help mitigate additional
construction costs it may be worthwhile to determine if the IBC building code
that is about to be adopted by the state and then the city, permits additional
height with the currently proposed construction type. Are there other
alternatives to achieving a more varied massing under the new code?
Articulation
Roof The revised proposal features many roof levels which help mitigate the
horizontal datum of the previous schemes as well as provide opportunities for
green roofs and other sustainable elements (i.e. solar panels).
Fa~ade The southwest corner needs to be more articulated to reduce the appearance
of a non-residential scale glass curtain wall. Sun control and shading devices
can be worked out as the design evolves. Provide clarification of proposed
west facing glazing.
Pedestrian Orientation, Activation of Ocean Avenue.
The interplay of solid and void should be improved thereby reducing the scale
of the storefront glazing system and increasing the visual interest of the
ground floor retail. The ground level should have the spirit of a gathering
place and be designed to allow activity to spill to the outside and vice versa.
The pedestrian experience is visually interrupted by the south wali of the
residentiai lobby when walking north.
Storefronts
Reducing or eliminating the building overhang would allow the retail below to
present a more urban gesture to the street while simultaneously providing
wider sidewalks that may include benches, landscaping and outdoor dining to
3
Attachment B
create a vibrant pedestrian experience. Not recessing the storefront glazing
will also provide the opportunity to differentiate the individual retail spaces
(i.e. awnings) that will serve to break down the scale of the storefront glazing
system. Ground levei retail should have a minimum 12'-0" clear floor to
ceiling height. Provide dimensioned plans to determine if this has been
addressed.
Courtyard
The courtyard is an important design concept. The courtyard open space
should be both a private and a community-wide asset. The courtyard should
ideally be located at the ground level to strengthen its relationship to the
street; however, other models could create a terraced approach, or other
schemes, to create a courtyard that contributes both to the residents and the
community. The new concept raises the open space to the third floor, creating
a pedestrian experience unconnected to the private open space. This
concept does not bring the variation in mass to the street level, and therefore
an important public benefit is not provided. Options for allowing the courtyard
to be both private and to contribute to the public experience would be to
locate the courtyard at street level, (or at a lower level that the current
scheme proposes), using design gestures such as a recessed niche or niches
and/or other street level details that reference the landscape and water
elements above.
Signage
Building signage will most likely have a significant and strong presence along
Ocean Avenue, and could be used to activate the pedestrian experience. As
such, City Planning is interested in the applicanYs current thinking regarding
signage for the project and Site C in particular.
4
,
; ~ ~; t
,~ ,,, j --------.
~ ~ ~
~ ~
i i
..
; ~ ~~,
~ 't! `
~ ~
.
~ ~ .'y
Y , ~,~ ~,~;~ .~,
' .~a ~ ~.~.~~;~ ~.w~,~.
j wN~~ ;
Y 1
~ ~ . .
~8 w~
b
~ „,,
, ,, ~.,, ,
~ ~ ~ ~
o ~.;~ •~ ~
C ~'"
~ ~
6 ~SI 1
Y
~ ~. . ~ _ _ ~ Y '
Y ~ • ~
• W 1
1 .,. ..7 . . ~ ~ .
. ... S ... . ~ , .
~ r ~ ~ - C". -_...... ..""'-' -"'-'_ ___: .
Attachment A
Retad
... . '.. Amenily
~ Live/WO~k
~~~~
~---~,.,_ ~ .-~ Market flate Housinq
"^._
``^`.._ ~^.;~ Aliordable Housing
1 ~t~G
~,~` ,,, •,~~ ~
~ ~~~
FiftST~kGAl140iNY1 .
~+.vwwcr ~ ~~
~ ... ~~'~. ~_.v.._.. ~ ~ ,. ~ ~~~ <....
~~`~li_ ~ ~ . . . '~ ~:._
~
n. , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~
Attachment A
D
m
0
s
~
m
~
D
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
,.
~:'-
~ ..
Attachment A
Attachment A
Q
~
~
E
s
U
R
Q
t i i r --`C
~
....; • ;
,
_ _________ ________ ______......_.
~- m
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
, ~ Cancept2 Site ii,~„
Cnla. 6.~..e1~
~~ Reside~ial Lnbbq BU1~{~Ifl~ ~11'kICU~~IGl7 dCl{~ 'b'Cd~f'
Attachment A
Attachment A
".~, Heigiryk and stept~ack bariati~ns
Site " C„ Heights s~~ ~~~~~
M1R~ ...... ~.~
Attachment A
"`-~ Building Heigh#
Contextual Section - Concept 2 Site `C'
Attachment A
HT= 96'
- 8th FL-6 UNITS
- 7lh FL-6 UNITS
HT= 65`
-6~h FL-75 UNITS ~
- 5th FL-15 UNITS
- 4~h FL-14 UNITS
- 3rd FL.-17 UNITS
- 2nd FL-22 UNITS
- 1stFL-5UNITS
NORTHf50UTH SECTION
EIGHT-FLOOR OPTION
100 UNITS (89 + 11 ~
Site Section - Concept 2 Site `C
Attachment A
~ ~
~
:~
Attachment A
~ s~~~
a
~. ~
~~ ~
D
m
0
s
3
~
~
D
Attachment A
Attachment A
; v,}t
;w.=
~
¢', '
_, ._ __. ..... ...
, ..~i i C4 .:i" ~':. :_s r'-(:+-iw'~
~~ ~, q - p '"• "'---~
['" _ L I ~~ ~,
I~__~~ f.,I _
o ~_
~,l I~ ~a ~ ,-~
, ~.
o ~ -~ -
o ~~__ ~~_
a ~ i,~'- - ~L~-~:
u , ii;
'\.,..~..Ir
t
r n
, a
,~M ~ „ ~ ,. ~
~
. . ,~--~
. '4w- '~...- ~.;., ~ 'T~" -~=~` ~ .,:~~ ~.rr ti~f u~+~ „.:~
._-~"~' "4 "4 "_5 l .. ; . ... .... ~ y .. .. ;rv n'. ~ ... _ y . . _ _~
r F.
n 1 f~ i 1 t $ ~.x u.e ~.x~ ~ ~~~ ~ m~~
~~ i,.~ ,f;.~~,-r~£ ,~,~ si I. . .~. ~
~ t
~; ~ ~, o ~ ~
~ ~ M ~
~ r~ ~ a
~~~~~~~ fg ~g ~~~~~~ ' ~ ~ ~ BF.LC}N/GRAUEPARKING '°"~°°° FAP,KWGEN(RANCE/EXIT
f "@ ~°4
PolentialPAftKING ~~ FIRGACCESS
.aa...d
~• ENTRANCEIEXIT. "°""°m""'I'FOPUSEDFIkEACCESs
~~ City Council and
~ ~~~Y ~f Redevelopment Agency Report
Santa Monica
City Council and Redevelopment Agency Meeting: ~~~~o~
Agenda Item:
To: Mayor and City Council
Chairperson and Redevelopment Agency
From: Andy Agle, Director of Housing and Economic Development
Eileen Fogarty, Director of Planning and Community Development
Subject: Concept Plan for the Village Residential, Open Space and Retail
Components of the Civic Center Specific Plan
Recommended Action
This report recommends that the Redevelopment Agency:
1. Conceptually approve the design concept plan for the Civic Center Village
residential, open space and neighborhood-serving retail programs for entitlement
applications;
2. Authorize the Related Companies of California to apply for a Development
Agreement, other required entitlement applications and discrete amendments to
the Civic Center Specific Plan in conjunction with the proposed Civic Center
Village.
This report also recommends that the City Council:
1. Authorize staff to begin Development Agreement negotiations with the Related
Companies of California regarding the Civic Center Village.
1
Executive Summary
The proposed design concept plan for the Civic Center Viliage (Village) component of
the Civic Center Specific Plan (CCSP) reflects community and commission input and
City Council direction. The Village will enhance the Civic Center area with
approximately 325 residences (affordable family housing, mixed-use and live-work),
public open space and neighborhood-serving retail services. Public benefits of the
proposed project include:
. 160 affordable residences, nearly 50 percent of the total residences;
• public open space, including a public plaza connecting with the future Palisades
Garden Walk park and a pedestrian-only walk-street through the site;
• extension of Olympic Drive from Main Street to Ocean Avenue;
• integrated public art; and
• showcase sustainable design elements
Several community workshops and commission meetings were heid during 2006 to
consider and refine the design concept for the Village. The community, Housing and
Recreation and Parks Commissions, City Council and the Redevelopment Agency
(Agency) encouraged creativity in preparing a design concept for the Village, particularly
when such design creativity enhances public benefits. Specifically, the developer-
design team was authorized by the City Council to explore alternative height, setbacks,
and stepbacks in the buildings and the location of public open space, rather than strictiy
adhering to the design parameters established in the CCSP.
Information and illustrations of the community input process and proposed design
concept plan are provided as Attachment A. The proposed site plan is shown below.
2
~}w~ Viilage Site Plan
- _
._,~ _;; Site ~ ~
~
~
~ R l ~ -_ ~.. ~,~
I ' I .. •\ L~~ ~~•~ i e• ~:MaMXPtlaMo
` /JatlWaMnv!
I ~ \
`,
,
~ . ...
, ~ : ._ . ..
~ ~
I I ~ ~
EASRYGfilYt11
S
Y
~ ~Site ~
~ -'s <~ ~
j,
'~
~ ~
, ~;~ .
,_m _
~
~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~I
~ I ~~
~. ~~
' ~
~
~ ~ -- ~ ---~-- - , f~
~ f- , .-
'~ T , _
~ I n LJ ~ j ~' ~.
r ~ ~it
C ,~ `
~ I
~ ~~' ' e ~
I 1
, ~
~ mx~
'
,.s...~ ~ ~ # i
.
i r
-
, ~,
~..
:
=
, ~
~ ~.
_
_.. ,
~
,
~- „
y
-
~ _~_ i :
-
~ ~, ~ ~
~
- .
~
:
~
-
.
~
_,~_, _ _- - _ -__ .
The proposed design concept has evolved considerably since initiation of the design-
oriented community input process. The concept plan responds to input received from
community workshops, the Housing and Recreation and Parks Commissions as well as
many of the City staff comments raised during the extensive pre-submittal review. The
current design proposal establishes the site plan, building massing and housing and
open space programs. Detailed evaluation of all building elevations for these sites will
occur with subsequent submittals. Sites A and B have been refined, while Site C is less
resolved and requires additional development and review as the project progresses.
3
Subject to the Redevelopment Agency's (Agency) general concurrence with the design
concept plan, the developer-design team is ready to submit a Development Agreement
application and begin negotiations with staff. Issues to consider in the Agency and City
Council discussion of the proposed design concept plan include:
. housing program: massing distribution, height, setbacks and stepbacks
. open space program: location and integration
• pedestrian access through site
• vehicle access points
There is no direct budget impact from the recommended actions in this report.
Discussion
Back4round
The CCSP sets forth a vision for the Village Special Use District as a mixed-use, urban
neighborhood. The introduction of housing into the Village District is an important
objective of the Plan in addressing citywide housing needs and in transforming the Civic
Cente~ from a single-purpose district into a vibrant district with daytime and evening
activity. The CCSP programs the Village District as an urban neighborhood to achieve
the desired housing program in the Civic Center, while maximizing the total area
available for open space. The CCSP identifies the area as appropriate for an urban
neighborhood due to the existing urban density within the immediate area (RAND
Headquarters, 1733 Ocean Avenue office building and Viceroy Hotel).
The Village Special Use District is bounded by Main Street, Ocean Avenue, Pico
Boulevard, and the future extension of Olympic Drive from Main Street to Ocean
4
Avenue. The proposed concept plan for the Village discussed in this report refers to the
undeveloped portion of the Village Special Use District.
The following summarizes the history of the CCSP:
• 1993: CCSP originally adopted;
• 2000: City's Redevelopment Agency purchased 11.3 acres of property within
the Civic Center from the RAND Corporation;
• 2001: City embarked on a comprehensive update to the original CCSP;
• 2002: Conceptuaf update to CCSP approved; Village District reflected
general height limit of 56 feet, but included one vertical element on
southern portion next to Viceroy Hotel, with height limit of 120 feet;
. 2005: Update to the CCSP adopted; Village district vertical element on
southern portion of the site was reduced to a height limit of 56 feet,
while maintaining the original housing program of 325 residences.
The following summarizes the history of the Village Concept Plan:
• Dec. 2004: Council provided guiding principles for Village (see Attachment B);
• Sep.2005: Received design proposals for developer selection process,
including alternate proposals that diverged from CCSP parameters; conforming
proposals could not achieve the CCSP goal of 325 residences, but alternative
proposals achieved 325 residences with height and massing adjustments;
. Jan. 2006: Council approved selection of The Related Companies of California
as the developer of the Village;
• May 2006: Open house held for community members to meet the Village
development-design team and City staff; written comments from community
members were encouraged;
• Jun.2006: Community workshop held; participants supported flexibility in
building massing and location/design of the public open space;
• JuL 2006: Housing Commission (HC) and Recreation and Parks Commission
(RPC) reviewed preliminary Village design concepts and supported greater
flexibility in CCSP design parameters,
5
• Sep. 2006: City Council authorized staff and the design-development team to
explore with the community, building heights to 65 feet, flexible stepbacks and
setbacks and location/design of open space;
• Sep. 2006: Community workshop held; introduced three variations on location
and character of the public open space; participants supported the relocation of
the public open space;
• Nov.2006: Community workshop held; expanded on the two previous
workshops and focused on the preferred concept plan; participants generally
supported the development plan and open space program;
• Mav 2007: Joint meeting of Housing and Recreation and Parks Commissions
held; both Commissions supported design concept plan and requested that
various comments provided at meeting be considered as the design progresses
(see "Commissions Actions" section later in this report for details);
• Mav 2007: Joint meeting of Planning Commission (PC) and Architectural
Review Board (ARB) held; based upon the proposed design concept, the PC and
ARB recommended to the City Council that the Village project begin the
Development Agreement entitlement process (see "Commissions Actions"
section later in this report for details).
Proposed Proiect Conceqt
The following site plan illustrates the proposed concept:
6
The proposed design concept fulfills the vision of the CCSP in the following ways:
. Housin4: The proposed program achieves the CCSP goal of 325 residences by
locating family housing within the interior of the site immediately adjacent to open
space, mixed-use housing along the site perimeter, and live-work housing along
the southern edge of the pedestrian-only street and a portion of the Ocean
Avenue frontage.
• Public oqen space: The integration of the open space with the residential and
retail uses has been achieved by the `living streeY design, which includes a
central plaza with a strong connection to Olympic Drive and Palisades Garden
Walk and a pedestrian-only `walk streeY through the site from Main Street to
Ocean Avenue.
• Neiqhborhood-Servinq Retail: Neighborhood-serving retail space (not to exceed
20,000 square feet) is proposed for corners of Olympic Drive/Ocean Avenue,
Olympic Drive/Main Street and Ocean Avenue/Vicente Terrace, and at the
entrance to the public plaza, enhancing the perceived safety and vitality of
Olympic Drive and Ocean Avenue.
• Extension of Olvmpic Drive'. The proposal includes the continuation of Olympic
Drive from Main Street to Ocean Avenue to match the alignment of the existing
eastern section of Olympic Drive. The northern boundary of the Village is
proposed as the southern boundary of Olympic Drive, including the sidewalk.
• Public Art: The design team includes finro public artists. The artists participated in
the community design meetings, and wilt develop their concepts as the design
proceeds to a more detailed phase.
• Sustainabfe Desipn: The proposed
elements involving building design
generation, energy and water use
construction and consumer waste.
development will include sustainable
and materials, possible onsite energy
reduction strategies, and recycling of
. Diversitv: The proposed development promotes a diverse resident population by
including rental and ownership housing, family housing and live-work housing
suitable for artists. The diversity of housing is anticipated to minimize or
eliminate additional Housing T~ust Funds investment into the Village, because
the revenue from the market-rate housing will cross-subsidize the affordable
housing, and finance critical infrastructure that serves the entire site.
7
Conceptual Building Desiqn
The adopted CCSP prescribes for the Village a site plan of three buildings with 56-foot
height limits containing 325 residences, setbacks between these sites, a triangular
public open space adjacent to the RAND headquarters, and vehicular access from
Olympic Drive and Ocean Avenue. The proposed conceptual design includes six
buildings containing 325 residences, with about 46 percent of the buildings adhering to
the CCSP height limits, 10 percent of the buildings within 3 feet of the CCSP height
limits and approximately 44 percent of the buildings at 65-feet. The concept plan also
includes reconfigured setbacks to alter the relationships to the street frontages, modified
upper-floor stepbacks to reflect the reconfiguration of buildings, and consolidated
vehicular access from Ocean Avenue. Implementing these changes requires discrete
amendments to the CCSP. Consideration of these amendments would occur as part of
the Development Agreement approval process.
One of the primary design challenges has been maintaining high-quality building
massing and open space while meeting the CCSP goal of 325 residences. The
following illustration is a massing diagram indicating the approximate building volume
from the 2002 draft CCSP vertical element on Site C, which the proposed concept
design effectively relocates to sixth floors on all sites to maintain the CCSP goal of 325
residences.
8
Approximate SF af 6M Floor Propasetl - 69,500 SF
Approxima~ SF of ~raft CCSP Tower Element above 65'-0"- W,4W SF
Builtling B
SSM
/pNS one s(ory bebwFCpNim/
BuiitlinqA --.
6Srones
~~--- RantlCOrporation
~ Heatlquarte5 .
draft CCSP
euiltling E
65Yares
~~
~
Sky Britlge-
Builtling Q - ' ~'~~
asYw+es i /
% ~
20'Sat68ckLinB-~ ~
M...menwre~aa~co.~wamcre~uuo~re~~.eee.mepcMmsmmnamno~sam a,~.~..
=wa~ uumu ~a ~re ~ m~.ree mm w, ere.a,mao~ a~e ~w eme are~m ru~ ~rva.
The ~Ilage
1~O Reiocation of Square Footage to Sixth Ploor from
s~zvo~ Draft CCSP Tower
Buildinq Massina Envelope 'and Propram:
. 1]33 Owan Ave
I~Y
~ cvimxcmn~ux~
D ~ a
~~Yyi:a Paoros[ am
~~q
vsnvau~v ~ $ ~~tY at
8anta Moniua
The project proposes a`village' of six
residential buildings with approximately 325 residences, and approximately 12,000
square feet of neighborhood serving retail located on Site A and Site C. The following
describes units, height and square footage per site:
Site A: Two condominium buildings, with ground floor retail on 3 of 4 corners;
Approximately 76 one-bedroom and two-bedroom residences;
Up to 65 feet high; 144,400 square feet;
Site B Three affordable apartment buildings, with ground-floor live/work space;
Approximately 32 one-bedroom, 70 two-bedroom, and 48 three-bedroom
residences, plus 10 units of live/work space intended for artists;
Up to 59 feet high; 193,570 square feet;
Site C One condominium building, with ground floor retail;
Approximately 89 one-bedroom and two-bedroom residences;
Up to 65 feet high; 169,130 square feet;
9
The following illustration shows the range of building heights.
~e~~o~av~~~.,, m °' ~
< ~ ~
0a•' °•.a o ~ °~a
,
m~s :v ; •.,
.00@ o ~
•m .
~~ ~QO ~oo
\~~ +~, ,m
' ~ H~~ ~~ Y~LAr•... . ... ~~~
vt_s..t a...x..~ _ u.
~ 4PFMYAL q
OIYMPFIX2IVE
~ ~. ~ W¢wVNa
. ~....~6~ ......
~ ~ :-2PAfltlNG
<Buildings Fleigh4s at 12'6"- 7.4%
•Buildings Heights a4 40'- 7%
•Bufldings Heights at 50'- 22.8%
•Buildings Heights at 54'6"- 9.3%
•Buildings Heights at 58'-10%
•~uildings Heights at 65'- 43.7%
BPEMAL 6flENTAL y
3PFNiAI SAENTAL~~
. 9 PENTPL 6 W'.NiAL m
.'SPFNTAI ~ 3PfNY'AL.~~
E PFNT9L i.
~ . ~1 XENTµ. ~~
~
~~ IPENTN.
~. ~1AWTAl6~.
To accommodate the desired housing program within the height limit, while maintaining
a sense of pedestrian scale and open space, the development-design team and City
staff haVe focused attention on articulation and design detail to vary the overall massing
along Olympic Drive. The designers provided the Site A buildings with stepbacks,
balconies and off-set top floors to create volumetric variation and maintain a pedestrian
scale at street level. Further design development of all sites will be evaluated during
Development Agreement negotiations.
Due to the critical interplay of open space and building orientation, the conceptual
design for the buildings on the northern portion of the site (Sites A& B) has progressed
beyond the design of the building at the southem end of the site (Site C), at Ocean
Avenue and Vicente Terrace. For that building, the conceptual design and massing is
10
still unresolved. However, some general approaches to building design are introduced
at this stage of design conceptualization, including a strong retail presence along Ocean
Avenue and an elevated courtyard oriented toward Ocean Avenue to enhance building
articulation and access to light for all residences. The building is proposed to reach a
maximum height of 65 feet. During Development Agreement negotiations, further
development of the design for Site C will be a critical goal.
Vehicle Access and Parkinq: The Village is proposed to include code-required parking
at approximately 655 parking spaces. In addition, the development team has
commissioned a parking study to assess the parking demand for the Village. Vehicle
access for Sites A& B is proposed from First Court alley. The design-development
team believes that additional vehicle access is needed to serve these sites, and have
asked to explore vehicle access from the northern side of Olympic Drive, in a portion of
the future Palisades Garden Walk. As the future park has yet to be designed, staff is
concerned that such access could limit future flexibility in the park design. Staff is
seeking the CounciPs input on whether such access should be explored during
Development Agreement negotiations. Site C has a separate point of access on the
current 1733 Ocean Avenue building alley.
Open Space and Pedestrian Access
The public open space program in the proposed concept plan responds directly to
commission and community input about the desire to create space that is inviting,
active, open and safe. The concept plan locates the public open space and associated
11
pedestrian access through the Village in the northern portion of the site, closer to
Olympic Drive and Palisades Garden Walk, rather than in an interior, insulated space
adjacent to the RAND and 1733 Ocean Avenue o~ce buildings, as designated in the
CCSP. The concept plan programs a public plaza connecting the future Palisades
Garden Walk and an east-west walk-street (`living streeY) as the public open space and
primary pedestrian access through the site.
The community and commission input also indicated a preference that interior portions
of the site be designed as protected open space, for use by the families occupying the
adjacent housing. The concept plan locates protected open space in the interior of the
Village site plan, and conceives this space as a series of outdoor areas that take
advantage of the sloping grade, oriented toward the family housing as terraced gardens
and protected play areas for families and children.
The community and commission input noted that the concept of relocating the open
space should ensure that the total amount of open space remains the same as
identified in the CCSP. Attachment C is a comparison of total amount of open space in
the original CCSP concept and the current proposal. The comparison indicates that the
total amount of open space in both concepts is similar.
The CCSP and the RAND Development Agreement anticipate public pedestrian access
along the north side of the RAND building (from Main Street to First Court alley) via a
pathway. The current Village concept plan considers exchanging this public pedestrian
12
access for the public pedestrian access reflected in the `living streeY design that
provides access through the Village from Main Street, Olympic Avenue and Ocean
Avenue. With this proposed concept plan, several issues need to be studied further,
including'
• proximity of the RAND pathway to the residential play area;
• technical aspects of extending the pathway to First Court alley, where there is a
significant drop in grade;
• safety concems associated with pathway leading to First Court alley, which
pedestrians must cross to get to Ocean Avenue.
The open space and pedestrian access programmatic changes in the proposed
concept plan require City staff, the design-development team and RAND to study
pedestrian access through the area and develop options that are consistent with the
requirements of the RAND Development Agreement and the proposed concept plan for
the Village.
Pre-Submittal Review Process
Designing within the parameters set by City Council direction, the Related Company
development team has participated in a pre-submittal conceptual review with City staff
involving the site plan, pedestrian and vehicle access, building massing, and design
equity between building types for rental and ownership housing. As explained
previously in this report, Site C will require further resolution of massing and design
elements. Additional elements requiring City Council direction and City staff evaluation
as the design progresses are vehicle and pedestrian access, and the skybridge.
13
The following illustration and narrative describes how the design-development team has
Site Plan: In response to eariy staff comments regarding maintaining the broad axes
which reflect the intent of the CCSP, a previous Village concept plan was revised to
provide a clearer north-south axis while accommodating the more predominant design
element of the east-west `living street' axis. Buildings on Sites A and B are placed
along an east-west axis to take advantage of natural light and cooling conditions from
the ocean breeze. The public plaza was also enlarged to reflect the community
comments and enhance the relationship with the future Palisades Garden Walk across
14
addressed staff's design comments.
the street. The `living streeY concept is intended to create an activated pedestrian
street, with pedestrian access from Main Street to Ocean Avenue passing through the
public plaza
Desiqn equitv amonp buildincrs: The design team responded to staff comments about
maintaining visual equity among rental and ownership buildings by varying materials
and redesigning facades. A significant method for achieving visual equity is the use of
materials and finish quality to be specified at the Architectural Review Board review.
Previous Council Actions
Previous City Council actions are summarized in the Background section of this report
Commission and Board Actions
The Background section of this report discusses Commission actions during the 2006
community design phase. In addition, four Commissions reviewed the conceptual
design in advance of this City Council/Agency consideration of authorization to
commence Development Agreement negotiations.
The Housing Commission and the Recreation and Parks Commission held a joint
meeting on May 17, 2007 to consider the design concepf for the Village. Those
Commissions made the following comments:
• Carefully consider ratio of paved areas to planted areas for walk-street and plaza;
• Incorporate sustainability through features such as green roofs and solar cells;
• Ensure that there is enough useable open space for the children's play area;
15
• Consider integrating affordable and market-rate residences in the same buildings;
• Ensure that dwellers of market-rate residences have access to private open spaces
adjacent to the affordable residences;
. Ensure the walk-street and plaza do not have the ambiance of a"shopping mall";
. Include landscaping along the Ocean Avenue fronfage;
. Preserve access for emergency vehicles;
. Ensure retail space is occupied by neighborhood-serving businesses.
The Housing Commission approved staff's recommendations regarding the concept
plan, while encouraging the project team to consider the Commission's comments as
the Village design progresses.
The Recreation & Parks Commission approved the Village concept design, and while
commending the design team's response to the Commission's previous concerns
regarding open space, requested that the following additional concerns be addressed:
• the integration of affordable and market-rate residences in the same buildings;
• animation of central streets by creation of comfortable environments;
• use of rooftops as green space;
• incorporation of a sustainable plant palette;
• use of reclaimed storm water;
. maximization of usable open space for families.
The Planning Commission and the Architectural Review Board held a joint meeting on
May 30, 2007 to also review the design concept for the Village and consider whether to
recommend to the City Council that the Village project begin the Development
Agreement entitlement process.
16
The Planning Commission and the Architectural Review Board recommended that the
Village concept plan be forwarded to Council. They discussed the challenge of
achieving the CCSP's 325-unit desired housing density without having the 120-foot
height option on the southern corner of Site C that was envisioned in the 2002 draft
CCSP. Their discussion noted that redistributing this massing within the 56 to 65-foot
height range throughout the site has resulted in greater massing and a loss of visual
access through the site. Motions from both the Planning Commission and the
Architectural Review Board recommended that the Council should re-evaluate the
relationship of height and massing to provide greater variation in building articulation
and improved access to light and air. Options discussed inciuded increased height
adjacent to the Viceroy Hotel on the southern portion of Site C, and redistribution of
massing with a possible reduction of several units.
The Planning Commission and the Architectural Review Board recommended that the
City Council authorize staff to commence negotiations of a Development Agreement
with the Related Companies of California based on the proposed design concept plan
for the Village, and to consider the following points during the design and negotiation
process:
• Provide bicycle lanes or paths on Olympic Drive or the adjacent park and
throughout the project;
. Emphasize environmentally sustainable elements and the requisite affordable
housing;
• If the skybridge is retained on Site A, design it as visually open as possible; use
light glassy materials and provide a narrower silhouette;
. Incorporate sustainable transportation elements;
17
. Provide safe and friendly bicycle access through the site and to the beach and
pier, bicycle and electronic cycle parking in the retail space area, and bicycle and
smart/mini-compact car parking and charging stations for electric cars in
subterranean garages;
• Articulate Site A and avoid a"wall effecY' on Palisades Garden Walk by
eliminating two or more top-floor market-rate units; allow for greater height in an
economically feasible manner on southeast corner of Site C(Viceroy adjacent),
with the option of allowing transfer of some housing units from Site A to C;
• Consider varying massing on Site C by increasing height beyond the concept
plan proposal of 65 feet;
• Realize the `living streeY character and experience through more landscape, tree
canopy, base plantings, sidewalk tables, and a detail level that avoids
monotonous hardscape and glass by using interesting materials;
. Provide more sustainable energy items induding photovoltaic celis on roofs;
• Provide neighborhood grocery store(s) convenient to residents;
• Direct negotiators to protect public access, identify open space area in
agreements, clarify obligations to provide required infrastructure for Olympic
Drive, sidewalks on Ocean Avenue and related amenities (e.g. street lights) and
negotiate shared and equitable parking construction costs between the market-
rate and affordable housing components;
. In negotiating financial terms, clarify timing of financing flow from market-rate
housing to affordable units to ensure funding and concurrent construction of
affordable units; ensure development of threshold of 160 affo~dable units before
project may proceed.
Although not expressly incorporated into the above-described motion, in discussion of
the motion the Architectural Review Board emphasized the following points:
• Vary heights on the northern elevation (Olympic Drive) of Site A; mitigate wall
effect and address repetition across the front of Site A by inserting individuality
and scaling te~ure;
• Shift massing on Site C to provide better articulation and visual flow-through;
• Ensure variation of materials on Site B and the `living streeY;
. Make linkage to park clearer;
18
• Find economic feasibility and site planning balance between making Site A more
articulated and Site C denser; strong emphasis on adding density to Site C;
. Ensure sustainability;
. Design roofs, which are visible from upper-level units, to be beautiful and avoid
flat plain roofs - incorporate photovoltaic cells;
• Mitigate scale of exterior buildings; while interior buildings look weli resolved,
outside edges of the site plan need further consideration regarding adjacent
context.
Public Outreach
The public outreach for the design of the Village has involved extensive community
input opportunities. These opportunities involved several community workshops and
public hearings over the last year. Notification of these events involved direct mailings,
and public notices in local newspapers, City lib~aries, and the City's website. This
community input process is summarized in the Background section of this report.
Budpet/Financial impact
There is no direct budgetary impact to conceptually approving the Village design
concept plan, authorizing the Related Companies of California to apply for various
entitlemenf applications, or authorizing stafF to begin Development Agreement
negotiations with Related. The financing model for the Village development anticipates
the revenue from the sale of the market-rate housing will cross-subsidize the affordable
housing, and finance critical infrastructure that serves the entire site.
19
Prepared by:
Bob Moncrief, Housing Manager
Approved:
Andy Agle, Director
Housing and Econo
ent
~f
ileen Foga , ire r
Planning and om nity e elopment
ATTACHMENTS
Forwarded to Council:
~fnont Ewell
Manager
Attachment A - Design Concept Plans
Attachment B - Council Guiding Principles
Attachment C - Open Space Comparison
20
~
~
~~ ~ui ninm . ~ f ;, ~y ~
~ f
i
~ I. _~ 1 !~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 7 _
innni u ~ - ''~ _ ~l~ ` ~. ~L` . ij N~ ~ _
li ~ ~~ ~ ~
STH~ SI ~ ~ y I._ ~ r r JI~ ' 4 , , ,
-_ ,~ ~
G
r a E e r _~ ~-~ =-` ~~ J~ ~,' ~AP1TA MONIC~~ ~~ '; i~ I~
~ II ~
- t ~ 1~3 ~ I_ _. T ~ A HIGH SCHOOL ~ I ~I i 4 7
~ r i ~ l
~ ~~` ~~ ~j ~ ~
~ ~ r~ F I~ ~ ~ I ~I~
',,I ~~~LLil~u~ ~ ~ ~~~ i~: L .. '~' ~~s, ~ ~~ j~
~, ~ ~~ J`' ~,r / + ~ ~ LI_ _.
~ ~ i I i , P TEN'F~AL SEARS $IT , , ~ .~-, ~,~ i ~a s~~~ I i , ~
-~-- ~''~ i ~ REpEVELOP EN'C ' `a ~ j ' !~~ ~ ~ II ~I i / ~ i i ~ - ~
: ~ ~ ~~ '~ ~ ~ 1 ~DOUBLETREE H TEL ~ ~ ~~~'~ ~ ~ ~~
, ~ i.~ll .N ~i 4+ j t ~ . ~~ ~ ~ { .\ 'I / II' . ~
1 ~y' Y"
~J ; . , , ~y ~ 1~i3 T\ 1, " ~ I/ ~ _ ~ i _ - % I ~ ~ I ~l_
~ I` I~ .. r~ . / ~/ E~ -~"UV~/' ~a4~f _ _ i i ! ~~ a
'r~s'-63 :J fv~ ~ G~ Cs Uo fe..-°-~ ~e1E~QC*7C~C14+.1RCw'C-aC-t+3QeCw r/-` ~~' -ailu,YS'~ ~, ::r~- orrl-?~ ,:.~:. v,--u~~-F--k. ~--~; -'---.> ~.=x ~~=~ ~ .
4TH STREET ~.~ ~ - ~ ~ - il ~ -c- ~--tr-e .. _. ~~~~~ ~1~
-ty7F3-~~3'~i;'ff~7~~L'~ ~c~JM~t~tE3f ,v a - ~ ~ i ~ .~..
~ ~E' yT' ` ' '` . . i ~`~~.~,. o°o°a~ ~~ ~~~ F :,o-~{}`~+l~k~ ~~Z' ~~3~~.~.~~ ... ~~ ~ i rr~ ~ i ~.
~ ~ t .
---~ti~ ~~~ POTENTIAL AR IT 1 , ~ 2~C(V6~~,CEt~TERa t ~+o ~, ~~
6
,~ !I I ~~REDEVE ~ M N~ ~° UBI; CSJ FET1'~1' I '~~~ARAG~~3~ a, ~ ~ ~ , ( ~k s' ~ i ~L
p QI m , i~ i ~ g~~~~11 9i~~ '.°"'+ ~ ~ r ~s'' .~, i~ ~ ~ ~~
~ .~ ~, ~`~-t ~ }~~ ~' Q ~ i
4 . t ~~// 'b 3~, ~ F' ~ ~ ~ `~ I ~~ 9 I
m % w -~ l : 1 I ~~I
~ O r~ ~ ~ PF' I Fr'3 ~r~ ~ . ~~~~ 1 ~ ~l i ~ ~ ..
~ ¢ ~. ` ~r~''g ~~ ~ .'~ I ~~ ~ ~_
e -~, ~v~ ` 4 ~ - ~ (~~ , ~-,+"' z' ~ ' m ;~ ~ .
OI r. u~f P / '' O ~ `t'.,7 #.. dr~~va~ W ~+ . . ~ ~ ,- .
U \1 ; (, ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ *~s ~~ u r .*~ ~+{b "- LJ
~~ ~~~ 56AR~ ~~ ~ ` C~ ~ ~r) i a ,~ 'r~.' -~ .`.~ `~'~Q~`r~g.~' ~"na<.,~+~'-...,t ~~~- i .
~ W',. ,--~~i,~~'~.~~ ~~'i~ ~r cr r-A~~~ `^'~ ' ~~ouRTHOUS ~~=~. ,'~j" 1 ~ ~ ~ ~~~'€..:~~~.~~-~~ ~1 ~I =-~
SANTH MONICA I ~ i . -rm~ C. J ~ ~-. s =,. ~ ) ~ ti ' ~ ~' ~ s~ r I -
L i ',~. ~?~~ ~ .~ x "~'~`:'- ~ i i ~ ,`~~ ~ ~'ia~1~~~ i ~~+~ ~i .
PLACE 7"` ~~ 2~i~ ~ ~k~ a x . zt tr ..~ ,~uiQ~ ~ as~c~i , ~~i ~~ .
~~ ~~ ? ~ ~ ~ o ~,. ~ya ) Y ._-.~ ~. - . ~:~ re ~~ ..r~. , ~ a ~ ~~ a ~r .
N ~ r
' J eA ~i i ~ ~~i I C~,1`'E ~ l; J-v e~!`'~i C~~`~, i C~ IYy ~
~ ~ E . ~~~ ~~~ ~ ~Q i ~
;~ ~~ I~ t~ t ~p~ I ~ ~ '~~~ .~c'~P~r~~ \ ' `G:~ ~ 5 r ~: i . II IF W ~. _- 1
*
i ~ ~
~ ' C~ ~.; ` ~1~ ~~. ~n~~`~`~ ~~ ~ ~M a~.~\}=~~a e e r ~~ 1 , ~ ~ AUDITORIUM ~ ~; ~ a ~;~ i
~~II ~ ` .~~'~ ~~~~~+i~i j ~~~ ~~7v' ~~~€Gy~~'w~i~~t kk, ~ 1Y~~y„~+. ~ $ ~~ i`'~~. ~^o'rta ?~. :3' -t._.~ I~ q,~L_ ' ' .
/ i I ! t A.~ ~ ~ ~• ~~ ~ ~ 2 _s ~~ p d,f4~e".
~~
~ 1 tk~,l_\ % _~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ "~Y'~'~ .:~~ ~ ~"","~., `~s. ~' `4'%^~ V "'c~ _
, .__ ~~ I 4'~ (Y . ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ q y ~{
fli' `4~iU~ [,cJ ' ~ ' a: /i ~ 9~ S11 ~r` - ~~ ~stt " ~"~ ~ ~~ J~u ~'hL
3ND STREE7 • - ~i~~ _~ I ~ ~i i a~ ~% `~~ ~ t~~u Vi~#t a;. ~°~i.~~~'~~ . ,~,~~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ;i P~ i ~ -_' .-.__.r-~
r .1- .,~'1 s~ ~r'~ a`.' ~~ 3 i t ~~Ig~ i i -'
~`~ _. i I 1 ~ ~~ . ',1 n' 1~ i .3~t.` , ~'^ ~".. RA : ~i ~ a` ~. 2'~.,s ~} ~ ~ ~
~- ~ I ~~ ~ i 4 E ~~1~ ~ L ~~~i'~ ~~`~~' ~ f ~~ ~~"~~R- ^~ ~~ ~ ~ ~'~+~ '.^, ~~ i '~ ~
-~ 4
'~H LID ~;~ i ~~/ ~ ~~ ~ ~, `-, ~ ~' ~ ~ ~' ^~; ~
-"~ ~ ~"` ~ ~~ Y~r~_
~~" ~INN N i ~ ~~~. . . ~ 'il O ~~ ~ ~ f"~ o ~~ ~^-~..,P ~srt~ ~ ~i~ ~a-
~ ~` ~ ~
-~ .__I o ~~ ~ ~'~ j~, ~%f ~, ~ k~~~S~C`~',.~ ~~`~ +w~tr •'jzS.~"~l.'~"''"~~~--. ~i 'a ~ ~ `'~~ I =- ._-
,~ `
~ p ~~ il i ,~ .. . ~~ _
~
, ~ ~i 1 ~ i y~'~~ ~~i J `~ '~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~»as~ , , 't ~~s ~~~ C~ ~~ ~~'~
J- P~ o o ~ ,,~III ~ '~~,% ~ ,:,,~.._ , .__ ` ~~~'.~' ~~ ~~~' ~' t ak;~~CEANAVE~ ~-~_~~'~.`~` [ iJi 5 ~H O ~ i!~~~~
~ ~ ~
~~ ~~ 1 ~ ,, , ~ ~T~~ ~--,, .~ --- ~~~ ~ ~r ~-~~~_ _~~,~~ ~~§ f-.~ x3-C'-cy t°;~ ~^' ~ ~ ~ - ~~
_. ~ ,,I __ '~OCEANIAVENUE _ ~ C.7f"cG~. . t„~t,Jr.~.tt r~;.x'r s ~r~t^ aj ~ ~~I~ I~` _.. ~.
= r _c e
~ :if~ +i, l 'j~ ~, ~ ~ ~4 O. f~ ~-„ .~ I ~ ~ - ~lJi)~ ~~ C~{] -' ~'i T.,~T"~-~Li *.'~_~~- -~ ~:r ~F..~ a~ :~--a \
~ -"-Y "-r
PALISADES PARK=~ a ~ ~61 ~ i ~ ~ y i.t ..~ ~ ~ ~ .3, ~~ ~ ~-z~~ L.~ ~ ~ ~ `ul ' ~~ ~ ~ { '~ '+~ ~`•~
~ /~ ~ io ~~ ~ (,.
~~ r %.-~y~ t ~. ~ I
"J ' ~ ~ ,O ° I ' I `~ H ' ~ . ~ ~ L i ~ ~' ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ II ~I II t I ~ .~I j i r. ~ '` `; .
~~- - ~ o t~ ~ ;U i i ~ -i i ~ 3 i ~ ~ ~ L-t ~I~ i ~l i ~ ~ ~ ,
-~`-`~> ` _- _ -y~/ ~~ 1 ' ~ r~ ~~ ~.~~. .' ~ Il ~ 1 ~ ~ i ~ ~ '~~ ~ ~14 ~ ,'_I i + ~~ ~ - `' [f i
_ ' ' r~ L_ _ ~ ~ ~ ~.3 ~r'~ ~ ~
~
~~. - ~ ~ ~ ~ 1~ c~L i l ~ ~ y _~~`~ I ~
~ ~~ ! ~ - _ <~ [~-/ -._~.. ~~--u~ I~ ~~~ J . ^~ LI ~ ~~ ~.. ~ ~ J I . I v= ~ ~ ~ ~ .- ~,.
~-
_ _ _ __ _ -
_ , - ~-
_
00 1F0Q ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~ -, ~_- --- ~ =-``~r~~- ~-- ~ ~E. ~ ~~,~ - - ~il ? ? ~ I I ~ r" ,~
v ~___---
~..~
~
Prelimina Site Studies
rY
,_.~
~
~ • ~
f ~' ~ ~~ r
~4
~'~ ~,.+`~,.,,, '~, ;~*' r,
~ ~ .~~~ ~
' ' (
4
~ i4 ~
I 1
l! e
`y k . E
i
~~F~^~
{ R~ ~~~ i
~ s~ .
~
P~ ~
! ` 1 ~~
~~ ~~~ b ~ ~~ ~.
r# ~~ }~~
~¢
r r"-'~-
u4'r~~ r~'~~pr,± H~
~~,~,~~~~~,i~:
i~~;
.
%
L ' J
~
~ '
~~
3.'.,
~ }p(;
i
~'cc.'
~ °i t
~4 ~ ~'' ~~t~S ~~
~ V ~ ~~~, ~, ~ ,
~ 4~.; i, 4i
iI II{~~C1[I ~`r _~~ ~~-~~ ,~'~'s h ,pp t ;.~.
.~Ti ~ ~ ~~ F~
j ~ ~r ~ ,,s {n~ t ~ ~ '
n t f
S ~ ~ )bbr~ ~ f~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~,i .~,t ~~d°~':~ ~~4 :~ y~y~ i -s'"-"'' t d 1 C ~ ~ '
S {v~ ~ ~ f 6~ ~~ ~P ~ . ~~ ~ ~ L' ~I 1 ~ `~ ~ ~° ~:
ur ~y .~ a^ -.~~~ ' N t ~ ` -~ 2~n `" .1~~~ f ~'" f ~~~~s ~rS ~~~_5''+ 'A~
., ~ „ „., c„ y4 4~ ~
_
~, ~.N
~~..~~~f ~ ~~~~~~ ~ ~~
}... Y:.. Y. ~... ~
„='~ U ` `+::'S~ .. f ;-Y1, 7 r ni r,,..;r ) a ~ ~i {~ f. ^~ "-~ .:.
.. . . . ..._.._:_... .,... ... i
{ ~+.~^~~.w , ~K u
w~/ ~y
~F~~,~9~~y~ J~l~'~uN~~ tSrw~i~_p %q`N`l~i+~~^{f ~~ ~.~
d~f~"y1~ 1~'" . C~~f~~~ry~,ly~4~9/~ ~'~+ 1 ,~'~'
',.r`' ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~~~' t p'~ ~r~ , ~
b ~~ ~~ ~ ~
M.~C~ h~x~ ~` Kr ~~~~~~1~1~ { s ~
fi ~wl£~ ~d~~~C~~ ~ ~ _
J,~( ^ypr~'~ N~lNIY f ~ +`.r ) ~..
t h lY~11N b/FEF~1`"~~ ~ y 14~:
~'ri x . ~, i,? ~ ~ ~w. ~„„_ 5" 1
~ ~ ~
S{ P.~~3L i i ~ r ~~~i~ y~ x .mM' ~
i~~.~u~.~;; ~ ~x~~ BVri ~'~ ~ ~ ~ ~~
a r~yz~ '~,~~'lybti ~ "'' "f ' I
~ a%$ ~pv'~~` r x x a~fi&~'~ ~ e" ~"~ {
~`„'~~~~ (~ , K h.~~u r ~, r~ 5. n~i~y~~~r. ~ ~~' s ~~ ~-
~~ ~
~ n ,~ ~iy
;~i~+~ ~%~~~f ~ ~~~ *z ~ .~ r~ ~r '" ~~~ ~ ~ t , ~lF~
~,' d, ~e~ N ~ +' d~.~i '~ tvr ~ ^y r < ~ ia ~l,,k ~ r F ,
~~'~i-n'Ar b ..§"~,"~~ ~FB~~,YI '.~q . ~~ i.r~ S ~ .~~~P 3 '
! „J~ e~ p ~~,~~~~,k'~' t' ~~ ~
~~ °~ i y~Y. n l~ %~µH~~ ~~ y^~"-
ry .~{-q-t~~ ~~~ ~ ~~~ `~, ~ ?w~'St~ g ~ ~t ~.
~+ ; k $L~ ~NP ~ ~' P~~,~. y~y) ~
idd .X V~~ '~L'~`'~'~ Y' , r r .~ y uiiy~~ilp1 ~~~ ~
~Y r,~ .a~t r ~(c,y" sy"~d iEA F E 1 n ~
~~ .~ t .: ~ '1 ~ ~,x{~Yl~f rF r'.bk E! ~. { ;
~b`, ~- . ~~f 8~ ~ ~p~~~jy ~1~~~~fy~~~Rl ~ ~ ~
O~+s Y y '~!
F b N i~~~~~~f~~fii~ p.y~~~t~4iY . ~ '~.
,
1` ~~~"-~"~~~ ~ ~ ~ ; >
k ~~+w J i~ ,.. y r~~, n~ x, ~~
~,~ 1 r „ r ;A~iL"7k~~~~'," ~nwn ~r, rer . . e
{VU,3' ~`y a~ 4~.. fi V 5 '!j'X/ iy'/' q`~r 3 ..~ ~ ~
x ~ , ~ '
~,^~ ~y - ~y~~~ °* , ' ~`~'{' ~ V~ ~,~ :~ ~.
~ ,~~n~~~~~~~0~§~ '~~'k ~~"~4~'~ib~i~xry~t~ F~` rd~t ~~ ~
d~~A ~~~~ ~~wu 1 -~ ~~ ~i `ai~a 5,~.~x~i¢~ ~ ~ t~~~ ~` '~ S~M'"
~ ~!h ''~i~ ~ 'y 'k.. `+pf ~~~ E~f,~ta~ ~L ~i r ~,
~aP~t}qirja.rc~'~~x~;' `Y.~ ~~~~~'k~~~~ ,~~e ~'~ ~'s~~2+"s
8 i ,~~i`*~~ ~ ~, W ~ ""~ r.
i s 4 '~ 4
~ ~
~t~~ ~~Y~~ ~~~ ~ .ht.~~~ '~ ~ ~~~~ k~~~~~ `~~~ i `~
h ~Y ~! ( ~'T~ .~u ~~ t ~ y~ F~ }~J
r~/ } ~i4 ~ ~'~ ~ { ~
!r~ ~~ ~ y.,,~k n 4~` F f+ ~ rj ~ r r ~
N p~~ ~~~ ~~~~~ ~~ ~~~ J ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ .
,~ s ~ ~ ~ +'' ~''~
~~Iak4 ~m ~"" ~ ~~~ f~ ~~~ ~},4~~ ~~in~' ~'"~~~ ~
~ 1 k t 1 ~
~. N ~, 4, . . ~ q ~ . } ~ :
l. ~ 1y . . ~"i i J~ ,~i PiM c ~1
~c ~ . r_ ~;r°r+'a.,~~FV_. ~ ~ ~'1l~'~ s-~~Jt~ i~'~~~~~~'~ ~
i
~~ ~ /
Communit Process
y
~ __~
~_ ~'' ~ : J
Community, Commissions, & City
Council Supported Exploration of:
• A mix of heights up to 65 feet for variation
• Flexible setbacks to improve open space
• Flexible stepbacks for more interesting building forms
• Active retail along Ocean Ave. AND Olympic Drive
• Making the major public open space the link and focus
for retail, live/work, housing and park.
• Some private and secure open space is desirable
_.,l
/
Desi n Concept Plan
g
- ~ ~_. ~ Retail
Amenity
Livet Work
c-,
~t.,
~ _ ' ~4ra,. r - "~ Market Rate Mous
1.~_ ~ .. . .. . ~. ~.
Alfords6le Housirt
3 _
i
i»iJ
lPlp
kRN
MI
ryi
~ ~ , ! ~~ I ~ ~ I I . I ~
~ .,.~~:,..~.e....~..~ . ~...~., ..~~ , . ~.~ . WR..~...~.1
~-,ti ~nsFSyrt
rv
~g
3
~_~
'_:~,,,.,,,.~...~.~.e,.- __. . ~ . .
1 ~ F I yr ~ :.W ~ `. I
• __.
~ _ . .,
~ . .~ ~ ~: . . . ~ . _m____ _ ~ . ~~ _ ~_ . ____. _ ~ .,~
_. .. ..... • .. . .
_ •••~ ~ ~ _ - _ ~°;+~av~•`•
!~
~~
,,
t,,
,~...
Retad
Amenity
Live/ Work
Market Rat~e Hou
AHordable Housi
( y
I ~.
~ ~.
6
~•~
, ~:
~11. ~
.,.
II' rj' ,~
"~ ~1'~~P ~ j
/.° ;' l
tf.;
~~e
'~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i,~;
' ~tt
~~
I~
~,T-=
~ ~ ~~
~~ ~
~' w tY~ > a
rl .~ ,~
~ ' 't,
.
~ ,'{ a .
~
_,
t;
1,
~v
~~
~
~
~
F .
y
,„~l
,~ '
!'~ ~', ~.{/.~
'~$~ ` ~~
~~~
•~~
,~ #
- _._ ---`.`----. ~
~ ~_ .. _
_~ ~`-~-•~--r _„j~_ - _ ~
e ~
`~
~
.h. ., ~-
-~,
-~,~.
~~,.~.¢
~~.~
~
r:~r~ - ~
. ~ _
3ry4
a f~
~~. y.
~~~}~ ~
h
~ fv
~
• •
~ ~
~ • ~
1~1.7_CC«~ ~ . . • ~ ~] ~ ~ • ~ _
~'~
„f
~:;~~.~ ~ ~. . ~!°' _
~ ~r~~: i ~ ~ ~ ~~~ »....~.... I ~ .. ._
1 ..., ~ .~..m.
~ ~~.,
s~ ~ V ' M -..,.~R --
~ ~
~
~ ~~ __
.
_ ~.~~ ~
_______----__ - _ ^.-
~ _ - - ~.__._
( _. _ __ -- --_ .---
_ _ ;--"
-- ~-- ,~..-
~ _. _
,__ _ ~_ - - . ~-----
~ ~ ~_ - -- --~~
:, .-----
__ ~__
,_~ - _ ~----
~ ~_ ~- .~~ _- _ __;~
~ . ~ - _
,;
~
_ - ~- -~ _ = -
! v = I --_ :~ _ ~h~
- _ _ ..~..
_ _ __ ,
. __----_
___ -a
--
~~.~.._ _ --
,i* ~"^+ '
~
.,. ~.,~w;~~ ~
_ _ _~
~. -_ __ _
~~.__ ----
._ __
~ ` -_ _ - _~ _^ _
~
,
.-- _ - - _ ~----- _ ___
i -~
; - -- _ ______ ~----~_
`~-::.+ I
.
;
~ i
~ I
I
`~CI~
. ' ~' ~
. ...e.
.._
,-, .
, . . .s '~~.'~, . ~ _ ~''
~.
n; .
,
.,a~t~^. ~~.
.._ ~.'. ~^~ ~.
.~~~ ~ ~ ~ V~
_ " ,
,
~
. ~....~..~
.~. r.
,
. ~
' ~
. `
~ ". .
. ~°` ~ , .
~ , „
~
~ ~~
„ ,,
m, '
° a:.~~.;n*?.x'~,.'
. ~~.~+,. _
.. '
~
~
. i .:,/': , -
~ . . . ,
, .
.z.'^~
w«, w.s .v,~.«-«.:..,....
~-..»...f.-~,. ~,
._
_
~~
.~ ..
~ ,~ ,rr ~
.
."
~
; ~~
3 ~ ~
...~.».w.a.,...
...»...~ r.~ ~
~« i
~ - µ "
, p
~ ~ ~ •,' •C..
- .
~
,
,
~ ~
~ .. .
~: »~i,^=: `
~ y..
, u ....r.
~
~
a.., _,
., . , :
. . .
-
. x.
.._....,.« ..
~ ~
.. _
~
. :
• i
t''i
~
f
Y . ~
_ ~ . 2,
~.
~
~ ~
r. ..c ..
..: . , ~ m
.
e
~ a
'fi, ~ a;,.~:..>,e,....
~: ~. : ~« ,
:~:.
w.e...,,~..+K.T `
..:m.~r..N...n.+ ~+~.. ~.~,...... ,.-a._-.s-~~- .... ..
~
..
. ~
y I
'-,: i
,.. 'I
q
.
y ~
.
. .
.
.
~
~
Y.4
_ .. , ~fi
~'
i
r
p Y . .
- ~ : , z§ ,~
.,. ~ i ~w
~ , ~. , F R .
:.s...e~ A .
¢..~ ,, e~ ~, .,.~,.. , .--... .., ..,.~..a+r^Sa. ~.
~`. m"~
~ .,.~ . , ,
. '.
k« • ,q,,. . y+.. ~. ...~
.
.e
..a.-.....+kma~«..
,
,.
.m a~ r. -,..
a+~m~v..m4m..~me.hw.e~..iw~
,.
'. ~
°
:
i
_
f
F
.
., .m
»
~1.d~"t-~"
, ..a.. . ~z x,y
v
e
~. -~
' .. _' _
. .~:
'l v ~
~
+
K
~
~
.
a .
~
~
•
.. .. _.. -
__
. •
i
,~ ~
~ v : ,
...~ ,
.. . .~,
.. e..-..er
.
~
~ ~ _
. . ~,
a. ~e.
"~ .,~„.mm./~. ~ ~
.~~~ ~.
i~
~..... ... . ,
~ .
:_ .
. "
~
i . _ - .. ,
.,
"W+.
. { i~
~
~
~
*+».:.~ w
. .. ~
e
~ unv .~ y
}'
. °~
~+~.+n ,
..
- _
. . .
_r. .
..
-
~
-.' .
~ . . .
~S v
~. .`
~ ~
~
* ,
n \
.'. .,« n_
~ ~
. .
.~ ~t ~. ~' ..-
.
., .
.w.~.~., "~-a-ni~wn, ~--•
, . ... ...
. . . y
> 1. .: ..
.~i ~' :
4
. ~
"°o :4
_..- -
,.
~
-.
.. .
,./
. J- ~ ~ .. w^~
' ~
~
"v~s.i;;wm mrnvv
'
~
' E
.: `'
~
~ "J ~r ~
~
~~ '~ ~` "'"C' / ~ ~
~
°"
,~ ~
~~_ ~„~kr . ~q
~_. °PSWM.7a5k~n fa77~+r-
'
~
~
4
5 ~~'~.r•,..'
3 x~ Y.' ~
~
.
~"`Y'~' ,4m ~~
~ ~ ~. 4 , T~ ~ h~ ~
.
~
, ~
f &
~ ~ >
..,~
~w
.: ~», • ,
~ ~
~
~w
+ dG
„
.
..,~w _;
^ d~.' ~ ~
~ ~~,.~
y
'
.
A .
~. ,;f
°
,
»,
~~' 9h
~
- .k
.
9r
~ ~~ ~e"
' R
~ ~
.
.
~ "~`";~~ ... ¢
RyF ~
~
~
~ i3:~
"
'
^~4 ~"-• ; `x +.~ - .
'
; .
w
'
~'
~q~_
'~f "
~ }('
X
mw..m%'
t
'^w4~. .»`.,a~, I&
~ ,y
~ ~
l.
1
{ ~
~ ~~ ~
~
" z~j" 3 °T . ~ d ` °~'.
~~ t ii,,
p ~^^*.~
~ v ~ ~ {
,Yy '$ v
~ j 'f
j
`
rv" ~
" i , ?~ ~ ~. ` 1' y
~
^4.~
~,
6+.+.+'l'",.
~~~~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~
~ ~ ~
.
f l~
~ ~
.
A,~'
~
° -
~~"°~; ~
~; ~
,
~`'
~ n
~` " X
` ~~
~
~~~
°~ ~'
~
j
~ .».
,~
RS
~' ~~ -~ i~
~ # ~
" ~
°
~~
~~~ ~~~~~_~
p ~~~ ~ ~
t
~;.
~~-~ ~ ~
~3~,
~
.s ~ ~~'-~~~~
~
/
~^
a ~
~~~
{
, ,
~ ~ ~
~
,~.°
~»~
~ ~+`, -x~
~
~'` ,/ ,„
~
~ ~~
~~
~ , ~
a
~
~
` '~
~ ~ ~-
~~~~"„~ ,.'' :7
~.C
- s
~.~~~ ~~~~i
• , I ~ ~ ~ ~ • ~
~ ~ ~
. ,
XIR s.z;ki
k ~,~ ~ ~ ~~: ~ ~ '~
~~ ~ ~ J~
~
~ ~:~~ ~
~~~~~~
~ 1 . -~
~_ .~`'L~ ~`~ ~
~..;f. €~(~
~ ~p
u+
+ ~~~~'
i Ei 9
4t
` I
.:~~~~.ti 1
r i '
~i~
I;
51
~"^!7
~ ... ,#.~,.. ~ ~~'~~
~ ' ~
~ ~~d;......~ ..
~..~
~~
~
1~-
~ .
1
/~
,
I e
~
, r ~ e
(
~ ~
F
I
1 ~
~
I
f
F
1
~
a
~
.~
~~
~~
r ._„_..,_,,
~ ~~~re
•
v .r`.+.YA':I4{R
~.P,~
-~ 1
• ~..~,.r , r ~-~_
• .~ ° _
r~ ~ r ',, ~ ``,,..~ -
~ -~. , ._.~'`~ • ~e
f r M1k~ ti
~ • `--.~
s ~ ..~ ^ ~-~`
~ • „e . _.~« ~ . ~ ~-
~ • ~ ~~~
~ _ •. ~.
•
, ~°, ~~ ----~ ~-9 --
~~r~~r~~
~ ~ ,_ •_-_ _.~ .
_, ~_~ _~ ~
I E ~ ~
I i
' ~ ~X'!~?iM~~ SI,V~L`,'~VG i ~
~ ~ ~ t, ,~ 6._ f
.~
~ ~ ~ ~ r.
g I.__._~~. I-_~--_~-_~ h-' I ca..
~~~ ~____--__ _~ ~ _ ._,.
I ° ~ '
-~ l~, ~
r,,,
~
L,
`'a~!
~ ~
~
~ . ~ -
~; i
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
, ~ _ ~ y$
4 ,r`°t ~- ~.., ~~~~
~ S~.
~ 1" .
~ ~'.~,~~ F : ~~ .
,,\ .
~~~~ ~
,~' ~, p _.
..,, ~ .,. 11.
'r ~~.
Reta~i
Amenity
~
,~
A~
• .~
+,.
,~ j.
Live/ Work
Market Rate Hou
Aifordable Housi
~ _ ,,~y, °~'~ti~,_" --° ~
.~a ..4r.n . --~--,__ ._.-~-^--'.`~
~~ ' •~~i^^~^^••••
- - _ -----~`' ~-~~~ --- --- . ~!.~ r~ 7
~~~ __ ~ •
_ ~ ~_ _ _ 1 I
: ,
~.~__.1 . . ~ ~
• ~ ; , ~ ~
--~ '• ~ '~- ~ ~ • ~
I ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ' ~. ~` ~ ~ ~ •
(Fi ~X!STih4~~3t~4tU'~S4G ~ ~iJ. ~ ,u ' ~
."M; Fi.S'.a'.:.f~ 4:+i
- I
-~~J
~_
~'~
~
~
\
~
~~
, ,,,
~u~~.
.:.~~~~ ~ i ~... .. . . : . ~
~ ~ n
A
e ~
~'
h F
!"
6
~ d
e .v" ,;
i
~ ~ . ~ ~ ~. ~: ,
. +
~ "~ .
~
r :
~ ~,,
6
, e ~
~,.
~ ~~ 1
~ I 1
6 ~ '
~ ~~
{ ' '
' ~ ~
R ..~~!
~ ~ ~ ::
M ~
~ ~~
~ ~~
«
~~~~
d
t ~'~
~~.
~ Y~~'' FJ' ~i
~ . ' ~ ~
1 y a7i '
~ a
' . F ~•' ~~ 4M
I !
J .~
\
^~
~~
I~~j~
Retall
Amenily
Livel Work
Market Rate Hou
AHordable Housii
j/f " '~ 1
1! _.1 . ~~ '~1
I'~
~ ~~-._
~ ~~.:~ ~+.~ ~~'
.,., y
~ ~~,~. ~t.~~,~~ ~~~-
K L •6s. ~eSM. . -~-.~.,._. ~~.-~
;.
•...._ ~. .. .. .'' 4 ~
~ ~ ~, _ _~,_._._- - - ---~ ~
.
I , ~. ~~._ - . ~ `
4 _ ~ ~_..___ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ,
,
~ ~:
~
~~ ~ ~
~~~o T~f1 ~ SU~.~'~4G ~ "
~ ~ ~, .,,t ~ ~~~ -~' ~ ~ g'
~
~
{
-_~
6
a „. e +A~ ~!~ f 45.:[
...~.~...~., ~ ~. --- _.^ _.-...~....- -
.•~~^^^^~.
~•~ •~.
~.t^~
~~
•.+
•.
~ .
•~ ~•
+
•
•s
~ o~ ~ ~ •°~•
65'. ~ ~~~
\ • `~
~
iV 11~V~VG~7~/'1~4~~~=. j.. . ••. ~
. •~ VV'V " \
! P
~
!~
~~
B RENTAL
~
6 RENTAL a
z,
~S RESIOENTIA~. ~: i~
i 3 ~ ~
~ f ~ • ^ ~ ~ ~ ~1
. . f~ :
' r~ 38~ 5 RElVTAL ~
~J 5 RENTAL `',
. ~ If1ES~YGTI~~AL'e ~~: , . ~
° „ 4 RENTAL
~ 4 RENTAL ~
~~ 4 RENTAL ;',
' ~3 RESIOENTIAL~~ ~ ~ : ~ . „
` o " ', 3 RENTAL _ 3 RENTAL ^ 3 RENTAL ;
I ,
2 RE$1DEt
VT`IAL:
~
" ~
: '
I .. - ~
,
,
' ,
. ~,~~
..
~~
:
. 2 RENTAI. ~ 2 RENTAL
-
„ ~
~
'
.
.~ , ~ ~ .~ ' ~~~ 1l2 :~
^_ ,, _ . , .
: .
;
OLYMPIC DRIVE ' ~
, }' LIVE/1NORK
1 R£NTAL
1 RENTAL „
^
,.,.- ~ :.,..~.` _ ..F<. . ~ . '
w~t=' ^t-'. ~
.
, , ~.
~ ___.._..__- - - ----..,_----- --- --~ ~--- -- - ------- -'
. -i PARKING i
: _ -1 PARKING
__
'
-2 PARKWG _
~ \ : _2 PARKING - :
i _ ~a~~ f~o
i
Buildings Heights at 12'6"- 7,4%
Buildings Heights at 40'- 7%
Buildings Heights at 50'- 22.6% .Retafl
Buildings Heights at 54'6"- 9
3%
. Ameniry
Buildings Heights at 58'-10%
LivelWork
Buildings Heights at 65'- 43.7% MarketRateHou;
Affordab~e Housir
1.IA~N SiREE~
Public open space 27,619 sqft/
0.63 acres
Private open space 32,461 sqft/
0.74 acres
~
UCE.tN RVENUE
~
~
R
x
Y
4
O
,y+5s
0
~
~
w
~
O
m
U
a
E
>
~
O
1 +sa
MA[N STREET
OCEAN AVE
~~ua~ic open space 1~,~ ru sqtt~
0.64 acres
Private open space 29,547 sqft/
0.67 acres
, ao ~ -~.z.~
~ + 5 ~2
.as j
~
viClae)¢
'~ ~`.~~~~
~ . .. :., , .
, , . ,: ~
.. j- ' .
~-- -- ~_ i
., . F
~..
°'
;
~ _ 1:
~: ~'M
~ '
~~ -~ -
.__'"~ _
~
_ _I a
...___.._1 ~
ii~
~ '_
~ ~~~
!
___ ,
~~ -;--~ ;
` ~~_~ _ '
~~_ ~
~ ~, _
~ ~ ~
T__
_1 _
i ~
- ~- - ;~- -
~~~~~~~~~ 3-'E~~~~~
,
.. ,..~ ~ _.::-
~ ~.F, :
_
-~=
'._.~ ,
` ~
- r
L.'
.
,. ~, ~. "` '
~r++
~
I~' - d
,,
~ ~ -~~~~~
i , .~ ~
~. . ., ~
:.~, r..;.
I. ~ ~ ~
-... . _.r' -i ..- ... r -.,. -
r . _ _ ~'' .~~ ~,,,."• ~',, ' '_~
~ .. . , ." ...' . - - r' .
I ~
^ ~
~ ~ ~
^ ~
~ _ - - '~L )lN ~_IiAU~ i'/~F<K N~; ~'='A~KIiV!~ EM ~N~l~~~t- ~:~'r:ll
~ J
~"~~1: n ~l, ~~_>J
Poteniial FARKIP~G
~~•>~~y~~ ENTRANCEIEXIT ~~~°• FkOPOSE.',FiR~A~,~:~E>~
~
li . _ tf3~r~ .
.s~~ ~
4~ ' - .....__.. .._.~ ..~. ._.~_._ ....._
. i
~ ~ r--_ .~ .~. . ...__.._.,c.._. .'v _~~,.....' ~ .. .- _......-_.~
~~'~,~ ~ ~ ~~
:
~: -
r_
,
,, ~
,
,, , __ ~ rr ~ _-~„
~
--- _,~ -~`
~f ~ ;~-- ~ ~ . . ;
_ _ ~
',i ~~. " ~~"`j ; t ~ ~~'~"~'~ ~ ~ _s,..~,.--,-~ i . ~
~ ~,- - ~..
, ,
~ ~~ ~' y~
.~, .
~
.
, ~ ~ , ..~ - -, e ~.
. .
:
~ ~. ,_ ~
_ . .
~ -~.. -~. ~____,~'.' "}~ J-~ . ~_ = ----,.-- _ - ____
~ : ~z ~
~. - _,r_ ___~~ _. _N. .._ .__ _.. ~ ._..~. .~-.---•-,,,, . _
r ___ ~ _.
_ ~- 1
~~_ ... . _ _. , __
1 I ` ~ ~u 4
_ .. _ . __ _ _..._.
_ __ _~_ ~._ ~"' ~r- ~''~,,y~/'~r~+~'.
- ,
-
1
, ~ ~
_ ~ ~
.~.. , ~ i , , ,
~~~ _ ~, . 1
~,~ ~~~ ~
_.., -..i..:..,~ ~..,ea.~.-~ - ~
~ , ~ - I
r ~, ~ ,. ~ +,
f ~ ~ ~ _. ,~~ ~ ~ ,~ a _ ~' ~
~ ~
, '"k~ ~ ~ .~' ~5 ~ ~ ~ ~ y ~ ~ ~ ~~' ~
`~ ~>P~ ! ~~
' f `~-h`.~y ~h`+~ (~fi4~ ~y ~,
T ~i y ~
~ ;:~ t~ ~~ ~ .: ~ ~` ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
,~ ~ ~j 5~ ~ cry
~ ~ ~* ~ `~ ~~ ~ ~ „ , ~ ~ "~ ~
}~~~ ~~' ~~ ~ ~ ~~~
~, ~ ~ ~. t~,~ _ 6' ~h~ ~ ~ •w.c
~ ~ ~'~ t~ ~~ ~, ~~ ~ ' ~ ~
~ . ~~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~. ~ _ ~.
,~ ti ~i ~ ~' ~ '`~ ;~, ~~
~ry i~
~ ~v
W 'xy`~, ~ ~ ~ . ... . ..
~~ t_ ~~~
~ ,
~_ 1. ~~ ' ~- ..~ .
.~ ~.~~
~ ~~ ~
v~ p , ~ . ~ ~
~: ~
~.
a : ,
`~~.4 ,
„~. ~~~ ~~- =-~ -~.
~,
, ^~,,,~ ;~ . ~^ . a ~ "~" ~N .
a~ ,
~ ~.:,;,
,-,
,- ,~
, M:
~ ~ ~ ~
~ ... ~ ~ ~ 4 ~ ~ ~:~"' ~{. ~~ ~9 t ~ ..
~~~i~~ ~!~ J4' x . i4i.i.~ ~ _.. a ~~~l~ . Y~
.~ ___~. .
: ~~.
, .~ ~..
~
"*,,, ~~....
~,`~ ' ~
~ ..'?~'7w_ ~~~ .:`.s~.._~..a-~. .
}r~ ~ ,,,~,. ~..
' `~~ ...... ~ar~'.
~
. .. > -,
... _ #,.~. -..
~ ..»
~ ~ ..
~ ~ ''~ .'. ~ ~ .
~ '~s »~ "¢ M '"s
, ~,~ _, ~ . r ~ _ _ ~ ~~`;
v'"
:y"
+"M
3°'.~i
~ .. ~~ ~~ "~.
~ ~'
~.
~
~~
.~e-*w.,~ rr~ .. ~ . :
~ _"
/
>
:~~
.
~ . ~.
n ~`~:~'~'
,..
~'_~.~ -
. *.
` `' # ~' , 4~ ~~~~ _ ~ F~ `~'
~ . _, ~ ~~ ~~~ ~. .,f~ ~~~~
~ __-~, ~;
_ ~~~~ ,.,._ ~ .~R~:~
~ _ ~.
`~ ~~~~~~
..
~ ~~. e`;~~ ~
~~ ~ ~~
-~M
,~~ ,
r
~ t..
~ ~
~`;
~.:
.,~.; .
Attachment B
City Council Guiding Principles for Villaqe Development - December 2004
1. Provide a minimum of 325 units with 160 affordable housing units;
2. Contain a mixture of ownership and rental housing, including live-work and family
housing;
3. Minimize height when possible or demonstrate clear advantages for taller
buildings if proposed;
4. Open space should be maximized, flexible, a quality of life design, and included
throughout the project;
5. Present a finer grain to the project; for example, facades be encapsulated with
smaller units and individual entrances to give a more human and pedestrian
scale and neighborhood feel;
6. Residences around park relate to the park to make it a neighborhood park, and
that there be park-like landscaping; and
7. Incorporate alternative energy plans.
Attachment C
^ Public open space 27,619 sqft/
_, 0.63 acres
^ Private open space 32,467 sqftl
0.74 acres
I . ~.__,_.
~ _ '• t.;~
~ ~~ . ~ _ - ~ _ - _ -
I ~~ ,..
_ .,
~_ ,
~ ~- - ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~, '~
j~ ~ ~
' ~ ~ .~ ~~r } ~~ ~, _.. •
~~~.~~
_
i ~ ` ~,~ ., , „ ~ "~ \ -
~ ~ f ~ ~-r~-1-: ~-~--~- ,, _
,
~~
_ -~L-~~ 1 ~ . ~ ~ ~
i'~` - - ~ -~ R ~~~_~T~ a __ _ ~\ - -- - - - - ' I
~ . _ ~ ~_e : - ~ ~ , . ~~ ~ ~
~1--1. " ~ _~ , , -~ .~. . ~ . _
_ -... . ~- ~;4
. , ~ ..
, , _ s~ ~x..,
~
~ .~ ~ . _. ..~.. t -
-
-
~ ~ ~~- , ~~~ ~ ~~ ~
~ ~..~_. ~~ ~ . . : ~ ~ ~ ~.~~~ .~ ~
t -~ '
L,r i.~nmsxeel
Ca
C
~___~ ,
^ - ~ _.~'1.a._ ~_ ~.~
irz~
~ A ~ `°- .
a~_~
~ - { i ~`" 9
B
~ ~-_ ~:~ :~ ..... ...... .
~ ~ . . . . ...~~ ,.~.~ ,.
C ~ _ ~_ ~.~ ~
~. ~~.. ...,,_"'L_.
^ Public open space 28,170 sqW
O.B4 acres
^ Private open space 29,547 sqftJ
0.67 acres
a~ ~,'..~ .~..e., d....-.~e+ ..
C
8 ~.r...~~,r~
D
_ C ~~°=~......~._...._._
0 ~
'L 5 C:c.NeJ= . -5) .a3 r
~ j~ ~,/
~~- ~ ~n~`'(,/l~-/l. ^ ~~ ~..~1.''~~-~~.'~/~U~,~yl- 1'1, ~"~
~ ~.~ ~ r~ ~~, b-~. ~.,~
J U N 1 9 20Q7 ~; ;:~,~~ ~'~,~#,~.2.°~ ~.. ~i_.
,:i ,~~' :~• ~nl~'~=:~ ~~k;. ~
` ~~, J'~I~ 'r~; l~ ~;~;~i,f
Civic Cen er EIR. Comments e t~ons an~ o
'~ F~~ s, ..
Miti ~ation M~asu.~ res •~ ,s c~,~ _. ,~.. 33
~- c
i'~can e dve e 1~T h od I acts ~~~F
Negative and Adverse Neiehborhood Impacts require mitigation and any overriding
consideration designation that fails to provide such proposed mitigation measures will
cause preventable and unnecessary hardsiup and reduction af quality af Iife to residents
of Seaview Terrace living adjacent to this massive development project area. Planned-for
degradation of quality of life of the residents will result in the absence of reasonable and
adequate mitigation measures. Those Negative and Adverse Neighborhood Impacts
include, but are not limited to the followin,g:
+:+ iVEGATTV~E IMPACT #1: .(~S. OF PRIVATE PROPFRTy ~GHTS
Use of nrivate uronertv to nrnvide 8 pnb ie g+ood withn~3t just comDe~~tin~•
• ~1EGATPVE INIPA~'~'Z: LQSS UF~-URFArE PARKING
~tel,y ~djacen,t ~a view Terrace W~~
•:• lYEGATIYE IN1P,~.~,~,~ ~LTMiJI,ATIVE CONSTRUCTION PROJEGTS
stag~. Air pollntion and Noise,~noLtn__ ~t~n
_ • ~GATIVE ~AGT ~4: WORSEN~PtG TRAFFZC C4NGESTION AND
. - " + CIRCiJLATI4N
•:- NF.GA7'IVE IIVIP'AG"~ # 5:
Tntena~ficateon af the Qce~rn 4vet~~y ~trict increased res~dential and visitor
poPnlation will incr~see clepq,ands oa ixt&astructare capacities: Above
gronnd po~-ver poles blight the Coastal Overlay Distriet
• 1~IEGATIVE IMPACT ~G: MORE NOI~F
Inereased reflective noise and sound echoes created by solid structural facades
along the east side of Ocean Ave .
• N~GATIVE IMPAGT ~ 7: DECRFASED PUBLIC ,~AFETY
" ti~e-r.r.~--~~ - ~~+~ K ,G-~-e~.-~'e-._.--
~ubmitted by Stephanie Barbanell• Resident of Santa Manica on july 2~
__._._ _, _
4-43 ~ ~ ~~ ~~
~
~ .iuN i g ~nm
~(~ATIVE IMPACT #1:LOSS U~ PRIV,~ PROPER~Y RIGHTS
~ Use of p`,xavate ~ro~~ to provide a pnblic good without jnst ~omt~nsation:
- Seaview Terrace is a private easement, as per the tract map declaration of I91~
and the Sanborn Insurance Map of 1918, is located immediately opposite the
Civic Center on the westside of Ocean Avenue. (See E~C. A, language, EX. B,
Sanbom Map, EX C, letter to City council from all then Property owners of
Seaview Terrace, EX D, Transezipt excerpt containing remarks of City Attorney
Barry Rosenbaum regarding the legal status of Seaview Terrace to fallow).
- The SMPD has determined that Seaview Terrace is not poliee gatrolable and
Seaview Tertace is not ha.ndicap accessible, as there is a 38-step decline at its
west terminus. (See Chief Butr's letter to Timothy Mc McCornuck, EX. H, and
former SM Planning Commissioner Jennifer Polhemus' letter to the Coastal
Comtnission. EX. E, F, G.)
~ As such, this private property cannot and should not be burdened to provide a
public gaod (provide safe pede~trian aecess) ta and from the Civic Center without
just compensation. (See EX. F Land Use Element Map designating Oceanfront
easdwest access paints)
- See EX A K •
A. Tract no. ~, of Seaview Terrace rocorded 2-13-1914
B. Fxcerpt from that tract map language ststing the purpose of the e~semant
C 3anbom Insurence map ot 1918 (p. 3lebels 3eaview Terrace as a Private Walk)
D. Letter w City Counci! Gnm aU then property ownars on Seaview Tertace affirming that Seaview Te~ ia private4-15-9T
E Letter to Coestal Commission District Direccor from former City Planning Cammissioner, Jennifer Polt~emus 3-8-91
F. Land iJse Stement l~fap iadicating Access points between CSvic Center and Ocean which are Piao. ~cente Tercace, Mazine
Tetzace, Auloway, 8easide Tt,rtace-hOT SEAVIfiW TIIti2ACE
G. Letter to origine! Civic Centet Specific Plan Advisory Committce, oP which I was a member representing the
twmeowr-ers of 5eaview Terrace 5-20-41
H Leteer from SMPD ChieCButts to Tim McCo~mick rcgsrd sefety snd secariry iss~es on 5eaview Terrsce 6-5-03
I. Memorandum co Amhitr,cturai Hoard from Planning Staf'f recommending approvai of iocked gates for Arc~dia TecTace 9-
4$5 '
3. ARB approvat oC locked gstes for ArcadiaTenaca 2-2i-86
Trar-script Excerpt form May 14-04 Planning Cwnmission where City Attomey, Barry Rosenbaum states that the city has a
not legally established ownership of Seaview Tetrece easemen[ (To be submitted
QuESTroxs:
y- Gan the mPitigation measures presented below be incorporated prior to the
eert~f'ication af this ~iR? If not why?
P~?OFOSED MITIGATION MEASURES TO ADDRESS LOSS OF PRIVATE
~'ROPER'~Y RIGHTS:
A. In ord~r to pmtect the residents of 5eaview Tercace from increased pedestria.a
traffic and litter, crime and noise that will result from the intensification of use of
the Givic Ceater, establish ~aeke~ gates a~ ttre Eas~lWes~ e~ds of Se~vrew ~e~see
to protect private property as has been done on Arcadia Tenrace, the only other
~+~lkstreet loca.zed betwee.n ~cea~ Ave~ue a~d ihe oce~. (EX. I a~d J)
B. Because the City disputes this position, have the city quiet the title of Seaview Ternace.
{See City Attorney Rosenbaum's transcripted remarks of 5-19-04 tof~law) _
C. Sup~ork.C,oastal .c.cxnmissi~c- approval, of lock~ed gates f~r Seavi~w Terrac~.
- . . . , . . . ~ ' -. ;•~ •r• ~ ~ ' . ' ~ . ?L . ..~ _
~"F`t
~
~ E. NEGATIVE iMPAC~ #2• LUSS OF GTiRFA('ti+' FAR TG i ed'~ate1X
ad~~cent to Seav~e~v Terrace Wa1_k.s~eet
- Intensificatian of Ci~ric Center will further eacacerbate the competition for and the
resultant loss of the anly surface parking adjacent to Seaview Terrace Walkstreet
that in twn, p~esents a hards~ip to residents of Seaview Terrace, and therefore
negatively impacts resident's quatity of tife.
~ Loss of adjacent surface parking exacerbates loss of access ta residences, reduces
proximate guest pazking, and the quiet enjoyment of their residences. (See
enclosed Seaview Terrace residents' past effort to gain preferential parking
peimits.j I"~Tote that appraximately 95 parking ~emnits i~ave been issued for the 14
spaces on Vicente Terrace and no new parking permits are being issned for the
175Q beach lat Iocated between Appian Way and the Facific Ocean-in any case
these two alternatives dQ not provide surface parking to Seaview Terrace
residents.
~ See Ex. L-Q
L. Petition for preferential parking I2-20-U1
M. Letter from Transportation Management acknowledging that residents of Seaview
Temace have a qualifying Pedtion 2-6-02
I'~. I.etter to i.ucy Dyke regarding loss of surface pazkiua l0-lp..p2
O. Info. Item regazding dismissal of petition for pref. Parking without a city council
hearing 3-13-03
P. Letter from Lucy Dyke regarding hikes in Meter rates adjacent to Seaview Temace
3-20-03
Q. Letter to Cit}r Cfluncil ta Exempt Ocean Ave between Colorado and Pico from
waiver of.parking requirements 9-9-03
OL~S7'IONS• :
Ca~ the m~tigation measures presented below be adopted as part of the
cepti€'~catian process of this EIR in order to grant retief to adjacent
neighbor~? If ~o, how? if aot, wLy?
~
~'ROP4SEn 11~TIC=ATIQi~t MEASiTRFS TQ nnRF~~
Loss of ac~acent snrface parking on Seaview Terrace:
A. Designate the 9-metered parldng spaces on the west side Ocean Avenue,
adjacent to~the northlsouth boundaries of Seaview Terrace preferential
. garlting spaces for residents of Seaview Terrace. ~
4-45
~+ C„ATIVE iMP.~,G~' # 3- ~~nalative Cons~eti~i~& $I th6 Lm_ril~[Ligtf V1C~,tV
~ The conatruction projects that are proposed within this Civic Centcr area will continue a
pattern of significant adverae neighborhood impacts aud present a human health hazard.
A The env'uoruneittal impaeis car~not ~egitimately be considered r.er~parary in light af tbe
reienfless and cominuous patt~rn of non-stop, tazge-scale development that 6as oce~
in immediate proximity ~ Seaview Temace residential area for the last twenty years.
y Non-stop lar,ge-scale canstruction commenced with the ckvelopment o~ the Lflew's Hatel
and has continued into the pnesent with the Rand Corpo~raiion Headyuarters Praject.
~ In betwecn, the Shutter's Hotel, the Merigot Hotel, the Caaa del Mar Hotd, Projcct New
Hope, and the re-devetopment of the Santa Monica P'ier all occurr~d, many were
simultaneonsly und~r construction.
~ The cumulative negative impacts af non-stop consin~tion include but are not limited to:
- Air pollution i.e, fugidve dust inhalation and exposure,
~ Increase wck traffic, machinery noise,
- Traffic blockages to adjacent neighbars of Seaview Terraae
9 pamage to alley adjacent to Seaview Terna+ce.
~UES'.['iONS:
-~n #he following mdtigatians measores be reqoired and adopbed in order to
certi~y this EIR, ar became con+ditiane of approv$I of development of the
Civic Center? If so, haw? I~ not, please eaplain in speci~ic terms, item by
item.
PROPUSED NIITIGATION ~rrF:AfiimFfi Tn enn~r~4!~ c~rrr.~,rrrr.s~rrvF
C011TSTRU+CTIQN IIVIPAGT~:
A. P'rovide temporary relacation fees to residents of 5eaview Tenace during the
excavation pha.se, and excessively noisy phases of the construction projects to
minimize exposure to fugitive dust and aarai dishirbances.
B. Restrict Saturday construction hours from commencing before 9 am
C. Increase height of construction fences and enclase construction site fences with
tarps.
D. Prohibit constructian trucks frum staging in the middle of Ocean Avenue such
that they block aecess to Ehe Vicente Place Alley.
E. Prohibit the use of Vicente Place (The alley adjacent to Seaview Tena~cee) by
conshvction related veiucles associated with the construction of structures ia the
!~ivic Center.
~. Avoid the use of Appian Way by construction related veluctes.
_ . _._ _ _ _ ;
;
4-46
~GATIVE IMPA~ ~
Worsening Traffic Circnlatian
~ The intensification of traffic circulation prob}ems wiil increase due to the
intensification of develapmei-t.
- W~I the non-s3gnaled int~rsectiona listecl below that are all Iocated on
the westside of Ocean Avenoe befiween Colarado Bh-d and Pico Blvd
be incladed for stndy in tLe tra~'ic aualysis ~ction of the EIR? If nat,
why?
~
a Pico Blvd and Appian Way
b. Vicente Terrace and Qcean Avenue
c. Vicente Place and Ocean Avenue
d. Vicente Place and Appian Way
e. Auta Way (aka Pacif'tc Terrace) and Ocean Avenue
f. Auto Way (aka Pacific. Tenace) and Appian Way
, g. Mazine Terrace and Ocean Ave
h. Marine Terrace and Appian Way
i, Seaside Terrace and Ocean Avenue
~. Seaside Terrace and Appian Way
~ Sit~ee this development ~is located in the Uceao Overlgy distrfict,
adjacent ta the Pacific Qcean the #! locai, re~ianai, uat~nnal, and
iaternatiunai attraction snd tonrist destinatfon ~ Santa Monica, wiil
weekend traffic stady stndfes be nndertaken in real smm~rer weatLer
candt~tions? If not, why? .
PROPUSED u~A~~c~x wr~.sc~rut~e TO ADDRESS~ WORSENING TRAFFIG
CONGESTION particularly dnring weekends and peak beach vlsiiing Lonrs ~n the
Caastal overiay distrir.t in whicb this large-scale prnject is Iocsbed.
A. Nieaswe traffic eonditians at the non-signaled intersections cited above that will
be impacted by the proposed large-scale developmen~
B. Measure traffic conditions in real time an s weekends and peak beach visiting
hours.
C. Scale down development accordingly in an effort to live witIrin infrastructure
capacities.
--,
447 ~
~
~ NEG~.~,VE IlVIPACT # S:Intensificattion o€ tbe Qcean Overlay Distr~ct
incr+eased residen#utl and visitor population will increase clemands on ~nfi~stractnre
capacities: Above gronnd power pales blight the Coastal Overlay District
- Visual blight and negative impacts to the Civic Center view shed in the
Ocean Overlay District West of the Civic Center e~st in the form of 4
Power poles in Vicente P'lace Alley.
~' The mitigatian measure proposed betow would offer an. enhancement and
bea~cation of the general neighborhood located immediately adjacent to
the Ce~ter and wonld be mutaally ben~ciaS and improve the visual
aesthetics of the coastal overlay district in which both the neighborhood
arid the Civic Center are located.
T~ the proposed mftigation t~t follawa passible? If not, why?
PROPOSE~ 11~TIGATION ME~~t~F Tp ADDR~~
way,~ tt~r e,~tat~ce and besati~y the Oce~n ~verl~v Di~iric
and the (}cean view corridor:
A. Underground the 4 power poles in conjunction with the development of
tfie Civic Center as promised by City Ma~nager Susan McCarthy.
__
_ _f
4-48 ~
~~ AT- -~' IlVIPACT #6: MORE 1rTOISE
Increaseci reflecNve noi~e ranr~ ~~~~~ ,~~b~s createc~ by solid str~~ctural
c es a ong e t side of Ocean Avenue
- Reflective nois~ and sound echoes have increa.~e since the
construction of the Massive l~and Corporation building
Structure that is located behind what is now being propvsed for
the east side f Ocean Avenue.
3> What design measures are being considered to break up the
structural spaces on the east side of Qcean Avenue that face
Seaview Terrace and Vicente Terrace so that a reflective wall of
sound or canyon effect is not created? If no such measures are
being undertaken, explain why? What can be done to reduce
and or mitigate the reflective sound phenomenon?
- Can the following mitigations measures be required in order to
_ certify this EIR, or became conditions of approval of
development of the Civic Center? If not, please explain in
speci~c terms, item by item.
?y-
-~' PRnPOG_F.I~ MI7TGA1'ION MEAS TRF~ TU ADDRF,.S~ t7vr'u~ s cED
~TOISE LE .T fi~temming from the creation of r ective w lls of
~: _~
A. Provided dua! glazed windows to residences that face the civic
center vn the westside af Qcean Avenue (the Seaview Motel @
1760 (~cean Avenue.)
449
~GA~ ~A-c~r # ~:
Loss of Public Safety
- Safety risks are posed by the proximity of housing and a daycare center
nezt to Rand Corporation Headquarters, a think tank, which is engages in
work on top-secret military projects and is therefore considered a potential
terrorist target~
A Residential housing, a daycaze center, and playing field have all been
pxoposed adjac~nt to the Rand corporation headquart~rs.
- In a US State Department Memorandum that was prepared foz the Rand
Development Project, it was determined that there would be far fewer
bomb sweeps prior to visits by dignitaries if the public was not permitted
to park in its underground parking facility.
QUESTIONS:
A Given the top secret military work that is undertaken at the R.and Corp and that it
is one of the few designated terrarist targets in Santa Monica, what precaudons'
are being undertakan to protect and secure the other land uses mentioned above?
3> If no precautions in the form of mitigation measures have been considered or
undertaken, please explain why? ~
- Will there be an increase of police offtcers added ta the foree based on estimated
inereases in the xesidential population in the civic Center?
i~ Have visitor population increases ta the Civic Center area been detemuned? ff so
what impact will they have on golice service in the civic center area and city at
large? If inereases in visitor population to the civic center will occur, how will
that impaet police service respanse fime?
y If no determination of the impact to police service as a result of increases of
visitor populatioas in the civic center have been calculated or considered, please
explain why.
PROP'OSED MIT~CATION ~'ASURF~~O ADDRESS P~~, iC SAFF.TY
C0~ITCERNS;. - - -
A. Add at least one police officer to the SMPD force because residential
housing in the Civic center will potentially increase by at least 1000 people
based on # of residential units planned.
B. Set aside funds to pay for such an officer.
C. Disclose to prospecti~-e residents and the guardians of the clZildreri-at the
daycare center the nature of the work and seeurity risks inherent in being
in proximity of a high-risk tand use.
~-so j
~
GENERAL Q~TESTIONS: ~
-~ Was there a pubiic scoping session to determiae potential
neighborhoad impacts to study in advance of the preparation of this
Civic Center EIR. docurr~ent? If not, why?
- How much will the preparation of this EIR T3ocument have cost the
city upqn its completion?
- How much maney and time has been allotted to respond to the
questions and comments that are received during the circulation of the
Civic Center Draft E~R in total?
- I~ow much time/research was required to address my comments?
- Which experts wer~e specifically called upon to research and verify nay
concerns?
~ How can such experts be contacted?
- If ~his ETR.document can only be certified with a statement of over-
riding circumstances because the adverse enaironmental impacts
cannot be mitigated to insignificance, or that infra-structure capacities
hav~ been maxed out-i.e. the tr~c intersections ad,jacent to the
Civic center wi~I continue to be F rated, does that mean that there will
be no mitigation measures offered what-so-ever?
- When the City is the landlord, developer, planner and the decision
maker, how can the EIR process not appear to be r~fe with conflicts of
intere~t?
- Based on the above, in what ways are checks and baIances preserved
in the EIR certification process?
4-51
~!(~ATED ~~.IST UF EXHIBITS ~T AR~ FFi'RFN('F~ ~'r~
NEIGHBORHOO I1V~ACTC Il~T ~NSF Tn THIS CIVI~ ~~u R~
~
Sumnnary of Proposed Civic Center EIR Mitigations Related tfl Neighborhood Impacts
Negafive Impact #1 Loss of private property tights
A. Tract no. 25b2, of Seaview Tercace recorded 2-13-1914
B. ERCerpt from that tract map language statiag tite pwpose of the easement
C. Sanborn Insurance ~map Qf 1918 (p- 2labelg Seaview Terrace as a Private Watk)
D. Letter to City Council from ail then property owners on Seaview Terrace
affirmi~g tbat Seaview Terrace is private4-15-9I
E. Letter to Coastal ~ommission District Director from former City Planning
Commissioner, Jennifer Polhemus 3-8-91
F. Land U~e Element Map indicating Access points between Civic Center and pcean
which are Pico, Vicente Terrace, Marine Terrace, Autoway, Seaside
Tenace-NOT SEAVIEW TERRACE -
G. ~etter to original Civic Center Spec~e Plan Advisory Committee, of which I
was a member representing the homeowners of Seaview Terrace 5-20-91
H. Letter fmm SMPD Chief Butts to Tim Mc~ormick regard safety and security
issues on Seaview Tezrace 5-5-03
I. Memorandum to Architectural $oard from Plauning Staff Fecommending
approval of locked gates for Arcadia Terrace 9-485
J. ARB appmval of locked gates for Ar~adia Temace 2-21-86
K. Transcript Excer~pt form May 19-04 Planning Commission where City Attorney,
Barry Rasenbaum states that the city has a not legally established ownerslup of
Seaview Tenace easement (To be submitted}
ie,.
Neg~tirre Impact #2 L~cs of Sarface Parking
M. PeEition for preferentiai parking i2-20-01
l~i, Letter from Transportation Management acknowledging that residents of Seaview
Terrace have a qualifying g~tition 2-6-02
O. Letter to Luey Dyke regarding loss of surface parldng 1Q-10-U2
P. Info. I~em regarYiing dismissal af petition for pref. Parking without a city council
hearing 3-13-03
Q. Letter from Lucy Dyke regazding hikes in Meter rates adjacent to Seaview
Terrace 3-2U-03
,R. Letrer to City Council to Exempt Qc;ean Ave between Golorado and Pico
from waiver of parking requirements 9-9-03
Su~mmary of Proposead Civ~ic Center EIR 1Vlitigafaons Retated tu Neighborhaod
Impacts
452
~ .
~h
~'+-P~' I'°MIT(GATION Mg Ri1RF ADDBF~.c TnC.c n~r pnnrs~ ~~~~~ R~ II~ -
A, dn order ta pivtect tUe icsidents of. 9~aview Tcrrace from increased pedestrian tsaft"~c and litter, crime and
na~se tlmi wiII re.4u}t from the imens~cation of uso of the Civic Centu.
B. Esta~blish lockec! gates at tbo &ast/Wast ends of Seaview teerace to protect gtirate PmPeRl' as is done oa
Arca,dia'fetrace. iLe only arther walkstreet locabed b~.ween Oceaa Ave~e and the ocean. (E7~.1 and d}
C. Bec~ii`se the`C~ty disputes this position, have the aty quiet the titlc of Seaview Ter~arx.
D_ Sdp~rt i~oastal ~issia~ apptoyal of loaktd gates for Seaview Tetrece,
A• I]esi6a~t~e the.9-nnetrs~ed }~atkia$ spaces on the we~t side Ocean Avonue, ad,ja~centto the nocthfsouth
bo~mderics of SCavi~w Terr~e preferential parlang spa~xs far reside~;s nf 3esview Teria~ce.
PAfl~OfiEI}MITIGATIUN"ME Ra'~,U ADDi~i~c C[II.MLfTJATIVE C9NSTRLiCI'iOH IMtACTB
A. Provide temporary relocatian feea to residenfs of Seaview Terrace during the excavation phaso, and
exce~ively noisy phases of tho constrac6on projocis to minimizs exposore to fugitive dust and awai
disturb~ances. '
B. Res~ict Set~udey oanatruction hours fmm commencing before 9 am
C. i"ncrease heiighi of construction' Cences and anclose coassin~ction site fences with latps.
D. Prohibit construction trucks fr~n staging itt the middle of Oeesn Avenue such that ihey hlock acczss to tl-e
Vice~te Piece Alley.
E. Psobibit tl~ use af Vicente Place (Tbe allsy adjacent to Seaviaw Terraca) by ca~don releted vei~ic(es
associated with tt+~ ~irt-etion of structures in tLe Civic Gentec
F. Avoid tt~e t~e of Appian Way by ca~ructioa related vehicle,s ~
?BOPO~+:D ~I1TIGATION MEA~LrnES TO ADDHESS WORSEHIATt'~ TRAgg1C CpNGEgT~QN ~uriug
weQk~nnds aad pesk be8ch visidng hours In the Coestal orerlsy dietrict in wlttch this large-seala pro,~eCt is
loeatefl.
A. Measvre ttaffic conditioas at the rx~n-signaled 'uuecsections ciied above iBat will be impacted by the proposed
larg~e-scale development .
B. Measure treffic conditions in real time on s weeluends and peak beach visiting twura.
~,
C. Scaie dawn deve~opment accordingly ia an; etfort to live wiWin inf~ure c~pe~cities.
PAOM)3ED MiT[tiA'~'ION MFASitu~ TO ADD~~R ~ys to enhance ~~'.~.~n~ ~
Ilistrict and the Ocean yiew eorridor• .
.4. UndergroVnd ihe 4 power poles in conjuaction with tha develcipment of We Civic Center as promised by Cily
Manager St~sn McGarthg.
.
tAOP(1SED MITItiAT1UN M A~SiIAR14 TQ ADD~_~S ~~RASR~NS~L~F..T~.~aY~~ ~... ~+~ it~ ~.~... . i~
~CEStion of reflechvc w~alis a~P~p~t
A. Provided dual glazed windows to residences Wat face the civic center oa the westside of Ocean Aven~ (the
3e~view Mote! ~ 1760 Ocean Aveauc.y
A. Add at least o~ pcilice offcer to the SMPD force because rasidential housing in the Civic eenter witl
potentis#ly incnessc by at least 1Q00 peogte besed on ~ of residentiai wnits pIanned.
B. Sat aside funds to pay for such an ofticer.
C. Disclose to prospective residents and the guardiaas of the chiidmn at the daycere cenier We netwe of the
work and gecwcity risks inherent in being in pmximity of a high-cisk laud use.
453 `
] ~ ~~ .. . • f ~ •
. . . . .. . . . ~ ~. ' ~ ~ ~ eu~ri,?...~~-
... . -
._. . . . : . . . . , . . . . . . ~ . .
. = ~ :. -.~ ~ . _ . _ ~ : ~ . ~ . , ~ .--~ T~ ~ L`T ~ ~'S~'~2 ~-- ~.. . .. ~ : : .
_ . . . . . , .. ~ -
~ : :~. . ~ .. ~ _~ : . . ~ ..~. . . . ~ ~ ~i1'r~NT'A Mt]1111C~1-:~ : ~ ~;-- : ~ : . .: ~ . . ~ .
. .: . . ~ . '~ . ~. : ~ ~ ~ : :~ ~ c~Ll~malv~ - . - ~-~ ~ . ~ ~ ~: ~ ~ ~ ~.
~. ~ ~ . ~ :-: ~..-- ~~. . ~ ~. ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ . . .
• • ' .+Q+.~ ~.J.Irlwiu~w sl~. ~~.w.iw ~/ -M.L..~~/ ~~.~~: M~ dlrr/./ ~i~~/IM ajr T~.~.~'wrfM~~w ~silC~ R..~! O~ . " . - •
~ ~ ' ~, . 1 viw~ Ns t~~r /~~w ~~~ .S+w Iri~ ~. M~,/ Sww r~~Ii~.~.~~~ i~.. a~ r. ti~~~rir sw ~+ taa~. , j~ .
~ ~ : ~ ; ;:~ , ' . +t4iM. !?~l~ 14si iIb ' . . Pi~~+/I~ L~- ~.y~/K ¢~l ~/ . i . • •
. • . ` . . ':` ' ' ' ~ Gg.l.i'~.wri. . . . ~ ~ • . • , . .....f.r • .
. . . .:'i~s..' il,Hr*. , : A~ ~/'.~N• . . ... . • : . ' ' ,
- ~ : ~ ~ ~ ~. , . ~ ~ . . . . : .' ~ . . .. . ~~,~:.. •,r _ .. ~ . _ .. . " Y .
: • . ' . . . ~ . • . • . . ,;; ..r• 'x . . ?~,,; -.,s .
W~{w.~ yClw~•f+v•Y~f ~'ll~~~s ~1~~ rrw~~~ ~i w~' ~n n~~~w~I~le~Ha~w1. y { . , a.. .'~ ' .
yL~r ~/F4~ -~~ i~~IiIN.M M~w w~ f~t w..v.i~.A~ ..i w~s ... ~-~ a~ " _~~~~:~~~~ fiim'd'' I~.ti~r.~+Miflr -~^
~ =r /L~.M.~ rJ~~a a~wu~~i1 ~~.u~• } /. ~.~~ ~ s/u.. /.Na +tisi~I ~~-4 "_' ~- A-61hr~ s+I ~I~'~ tw~~i~M ~~.~ ~trr~/Arf
/w J~w~ r~ •~.~~.~7 ~ TA~ iw~t.' •h.r~w~ ~~r. 1.~ IW~~f~~~!'~YYY11~-N aMr rw~ f [
e~•~~JJ--.y..• ~. ... ~.y.M ~I
)•~••~~ v~lA.~ ~-.N f.nh• ~~~t /~~/~ ~~1 /'"'r 3 . ~w~ rw-~ +NM~ sw~.~.~~~ari1~~~~rY~~~ ~ rN ~~NJt~~t~1~:~,
' -`~/ - J J ~J I ' • '~1A.iir~May+~~AI}iM~~j 1
~ . ~-~"~~ T~rl~7~J~.7R~.~a~` r ' ' ~ ..~ ~ ~~ ~
~ ~M .~.'.r•~~ ~bK+~".t Z • , • • • . • ~ ~~~"r~1
~~
!rM .~ ~ L+Efrw.~ . . . .
A. ~1.~~1~.A+~r...~fa. •
Or~A:•~f,~.M.~.r~'C ).S wt. f6..N.:^s»:M«i......i T~w.,,. 1.f... ~....C/!.Nyf~/.
~IK.. P~aw::w..N'eL..r~.. Gi.w~ .~t lu.~' .
r ~~..r,Jr~.+. at ~1t .. .~~,r. •
l~•w... JiAi . r, L1 Ie'TiM~ri. ~~i4N•~ JM A~:.~ A.... I J ~~ ~ /~~•~•yI ~/r r~~~rii~~Ml r~ ~~'...y .
r~..• •.~si...~.+-,..wl kt~...+W i r+. 1 -~+~~ atw~r~Ma1wN ti~~ M4~~~~r'e~ e~Mt~~~r.I~r ~..-•
~ ... +w.a ra.~ w.e. ~r...er. e4. ~.w
n...i.::~n. / •.... S r..~.... rra~,...I ~ S~.n. ~..w•t........~r~..~. ~.i ~y d.ti~w./Ju/+w~i•.4 ~.~ .
":m.' ~ ! +,~~*w r' !L'^ "'"'~.'~ '~ - i .
N.r^ A~r..;.s.~.~ . (eL-ft«,_ ~ _~ ~ _, . . • ' , . . -
. "l ~r..i c:.ri~.~ .f.a,I.q.~i~. s~wn. :~ ~.
, • . !"'t'~"""q. ' . _ ~ , .
. ~ ~ '~~
! AItMry K/fi~4~ (I~HI n 1!.~,! wwd wrfJ~.~~~w/ MM/A ~w -Ai ~rwf ~~~..~ 't ~ -~.~.~~I ~~ ' ~~ • .
1Plir~i*Yj A!f IMe /le~l~~L .ie• ; n h: ~•a :w.. ~./ IM.' I'~nse .v' l. v .
~ .~,r~,~. ~,. ir.. ~w~W- rW1 L
~~~rKf/p~~ iaY r! ~j~y r~ 6v..~..e:.t ; r.. ~., . :.-.,r : 4.rv~t ewn,. n/ f~L~ ~.~ .. ..~..a ~~~ ~y` ~
.'.~~`~~'A~r ~~~...ii...t . ~ ` • r ' r ~u i~.l l. ~ 1 •ni r ~ . • ~/"`
~ /! J ( t: t ....•• 1'..~~ wry L'J.r« .aA~~ f~ww'~Mla p4~ nllli! AAM~{ Ar ~ (•... . ~: . ~. . . ~ ~ y ~ !~ ~~ ~~
7~ : wAtrO7Mi1 ~~~6r L:.ye~ sI Lu1 d7fl~~, dwb ~i G~i~- ~: ~ •W? dY . 1~~ ~~ ~i
~rl3~, q,, ` ~C,1'~r, tr`'- ~ `~ ~ 6 r.~ 1'~i~ ~ ~ `~ ~ ~ b ~
~y ~_......_._._.o..,~,,F ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
.
p a...r-- ~ : ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~
. lttap,t :. ,. .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
, ~-,~ ~ ~~... . ~
~ ~ ~~ ~ ~i~~~~~g~~`
. •5~~~~a ~~1~` $•
.. '. ~ ~.~~ . •% . ~~ .~ x
S ~~
'~' . ~. ~ ~~
`5...~ra~~~lr~i.Y.+l~~n.w4:.~~f.~LMAq/~~GI.4.tl •
~
~ `~~ ~$ '
t/A.~rw•..~.iw ~• C•.w~i/w.~n.,~}~/Y9IV~I1~/./ps•.....w ~wrwn.r iR~i
I4n• .~~/r.~ w--s~~ ~.~r...,~.M ~.a~~~~~w Y~~1' ifil . ~~~i.rw ~~a~~
• ~w..~».~.+.i w... •/ .4~+r.. ~n. ~~.~I~/~~. sr~ww..~..w ~I~~. QS/~~L
.'Yi.~~r~li ~.~. Mr II~ L.l ~ 6'Ar.A n~~.1~r As~.i~ .~,. Ih .L.~ ~/~..r ~~~ y-l ~/
~/i.~~rv~~ ~.N...R..~r y II~ !M/~f~~~ G/J ~I J~~R~f~/Mi~ f
Tj..rwf a...~rTAAf~A~ L~.yrHSJn...IN.i~ ..~i~~i~.r ~r~yQ~Iyr
C:..r..J.s.. ~.is... .~.•~r.+s frV ~w M~ ~ dd~ ~+ ~d,1~p ~M~
~„- r ~ s <<_,~. i~ _ _~Y,,
C:,~cx:~..~.~.~rr ..,c..~ryi ~ .
. cs.e%r .t 4: .Aip•~„ C~.c.f.....~
_ 47~ _"' ^+if(~.~* . ~ .
Q!t ~a ='4~~~~y ~wR/'j fA~~*~.,~~~~./•~wiE....w~.:rT~s~~ ~ItM4~ ~
~' .~r~. /js+...,~s~.ss w~~. nMy.ti ~.~..~A. ~f.iw~w«. ~-..t./r~~.t..rr
~ itiA~irr.•MwsweTj.~Y F... a~~~.w..~.~. . . r
~ .ii atiL ~• p~,
~~''.~Sf MENT' LhlJdtil~r~/~~} C'~`~' B .C~~ 1~~~yOti..w ~..w.t;
_ ~ ~4 t. SI. ~C ~ ~~'1.}.Jy
M~ T~•+• ~XN~f~ ~~rw~~wl4i~Mw-~AM/~/rM ~~~~w~t~i~k, S~~l~•r4~~w
,p..*~~ •l T.~'~1'~L'~k ~•Niwh~/r+..~.II~.iA~/Ii ~(}~MMY+.M ~I~M~
Jr 17' .i'~i+wrFrl~ ~~'n..~~~ arN Mji;/t~Y.n.swwl ~a ~1~~~M ~~4 /~ a.~. ~.
_._~T..__i1;I. ~saO7• 7^11oe1~ f s/~{8 ~~ M YM~ fin ~~A~~I .f.r0~/~..yvw f/~~~A ~i
~w~w..s .t..,ti~~~, f,.~H•~ .~ ,~.'1rt R~'~il,'iwr7, -sr~.r ~~aa +a~ ~. ~
4a~, r~~..~.~. ~ i.r, h~b.+.~ i.t li.t..y7M,K....r t•M*I~~,4M. ~w~w»q
~ I --~•~~ Nu~,~w+~r~.l~/Y~v ~r.v.wiM/v~w~u~~rw~L~~.rtEa. ~.rrr4~.M
~
~ ~ ~GII~7 ~YO/~Yt. ' •A 4
. •
~~ ~+eaview 'i'errace Tract Map L~anguage
Tract l~Io, ~5~2 Baok ~5 Fage 36
Recorded Feb~ 13, 191~
"'There shall be a joint easement of a~. xhe owners of lots 1
to 14 inclusive of #ra~t #2562 to aIl said owners of said Iots
~~-- lto 14 inclusiv~ af the north wes~erl~ 15 fe~t of ~Qts
14,13,12,1 ~.,1~,9, and 8 and the southwes~er~y 15 feet of
lots ~,2,3,4,5,6, and ~. Tract #25b~ to be used for ~rk and
walk p-urposes, also an easement of the northwesterly 3 fcet
of lc~ts ~,2,3,4,5,5, and 7, Tract #~562 ta be t~sed for walk, .
sewer, ~vater, gas, ~lectric, t.~I~phone and light purpose as
and such purposes c~~y.
The abov~ easements to be abandoned c~nly on the consent --
~ aIl the vwners of all the vwners of al1 of the above lots Z
ta 1~4 inclusive cxf Tcact #25b2 Sauta 11~ionica." .
, ~~r.,~,.,lV _ ~- i~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~
~ .. ~ .....r,w 1rr-~r.r _ ~ '~~~1/'+0~7 /QI~
:~
DOs ~
~~r~
~~-rt~-~
,~.~r ~-rs~
~
~1~,~',,~r; f•._..:
+~'to~~''
:~~~~ ~'~
~~5~'r~ ~
.,~.~r~-..~rQ r?`~
~ .~- ~P~ ~.~ ~-v~
t
. "rW
. ,~~~~j" `
I ~
l
f~
~~ •
r .~ / r. ~.~i~'i6;~1~f~~.,il~Hfft~J~
±~~ : , ~ ,.~
4 - ;
~ s~ '.
' • . ~ , 17~~'~~
~1 .i,:C^
' ~iX.
~/ - ~w.s+:a1G~
~l~i• .
~ , 1r~
, ~;t: ' ~
+t+ . ~ .~;
.^~~ ` ~1 ,r~•:{.~'
i• ,
:,
,1: _~:~
f r;.. _iJ '~-'.~ .
~~ w ~
• `i
. , • ~~~..~.i
11 BI~(~A
.. . .
. - . ;',~_..''~
_ , ~ /~ ~~a~ ~
~ ` ~..~1 •+~'~! '
~ x;b
J i
r. ~. +.• , C
~, . ~• .irt~a.
/ , , tr:t.~~l
+" \ ~ ..
_ _.
_ _ __
4-56
~~N~~,~ ~~F,;~i
~~'~~ '• '•~ :r~~~
, ; ;~ ~""~'~+:
~/ 1 • . .~ - ={~ _••t t~..r~ ; ~ .~?b1, '
"'j'~` ~:`~I': ~' i .1~: ~..
~+'~, ~4.'' ~~';i..~ ~ j~ ~':` ^
:~.. ~' • "r, .. j ;Y.
~ ; ir 4' , w `~! ~„
6':7~'~:~ + '• . . ..F,;%~•.~~
" +~ ~'i+~`~: i./ ~ ~a:: • . 7~~',~ y .
C% .:l. ' I, ; ~.'~, ~. '"
' „rF; , . , ' r' • • .;~:• »
;( A.~ ., :k '~ s'.~ '!~{
~`:t~''~:t~ ''2~, t~ ~t-~~ .'t
~.:;:~, : ',::.i , ,• ::~: •:: : ~~~
~ .~' `....~ ~' i . ..x:.^~ 4. ~
•". }.. ,, .~ • ti, '' „t
~~~,;R`.•_!'~C@.1!•'r':. ~.~ ,:a? ~1 . ,_ .
.~~~
~ ~
I
i
I
~
. {~.'~!•
~ , i: .. .. ;~ ~n~;~~
-, ; .,;,; :,;~:, ~
-r : ~ . .. . ::~.. •~,;.!~.,
1~ ~ ~y . . . ~. .N .~,t, 1 :~., +,
1 1• ~I/ ~ ! , • ~ ~,~ '~ „•~„~-:
~ ~ fw ~ S • , : ~ ~' • • ~'~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~
~• ~ ~ '~ '_• ~ ~; ti.~la~,. . ^ : ~ ~) ~ ~.Y, ~ i~ ,~i! 1~•~•1L`(R__ •^'f •
~ ~ `~ r , .. . ! s ~ } rl . . l,,~ '~~f4'`•`lft y ~ ,
j _ .:' .c • • ' 1`. E ' ' , ~r ..~:~: ~;Mr ;~~~~~'~.~ ` . .
; • ~ ~ ~ ~ ' . ~ ~ , ', { ( j~ ~r~~~i'
y~ • •~: v ~t~r:.~'~r~:
~. tp r i~ •J/•. •~'~ta7S.. , • • . , • - . : •_ •~"•r x4t^
~~ ~ ~ i :•~! . t Y . • S ~'.. y'.~ ~~ '•~'
~~ i ` i 'J L '.~r~47c,: :. ~ ' ~ ' ' ~ . ' Y ,' : ."y~'
;,A ~,, t . c,,F` ; ,~t :,.w•~. ,. -; ~ , ,~ i ,,M~.a'~ •
` •l~/ ~ • ~I~Y
,~M • 1;~ _ . . ; . ~ • , ~ :.rc., _~
,C; ,e . { ~ o!: • ,~.
. ~ ' • ,~`{,`" r'~,:' ~ ~i'',
~1 ~D ~ f~' ~.~~.. ~ { ' • ~i ~R.~;~.Hyj`h_~~ ~g~ta+.
~~ ~ ~ y~' ' ~• •', •, ; :~ ~ ~ ~ '. j,~ ~.~~as•. ~'L
i. , .~., t~i' ~ ,;.
~ 7~ _t~~ ~:.~,~- ~ ~s,. • t ' k ~- . _ '.~.; . •.•• ~ ~"~f ,.~
,ct ;~, ~ ~~ .:~.x, ~,~: ~ ... :1~ ~ , . ~ ., ~
p F p ` ' `o _ a~':': '~ .;. ° i _ . ~, •p~~ ~
r . ~' : .~a.: ~~ # ~ ~; ~~= . i
.:;4: ?'"~t ~ ~ '+• ~ ; • ~ .~ . ~ ~~: ~.'~.~.=..~ '~s
••,,~ :a~ .r ~ ~~i. ^;u~ ~ t , , .:i''i~.•-''-~x~:,~;'?~ '
~~~~ ~ ~ , .s•'...., . '~ ? { 'i ~ ;.:v,.; `.,;r~:
~ ~„ ` s .. • . ' ~ ~' . . , • ~~1.
~ ls/Gh R .. t;• j~. i.i }' ti r';:
' . '1 ~'`•• l••''r ti:y
• : •~~ ~ .•l Y a' •N~r.{:.'
~} * ~ i":i[.i~ ~~. _ ' . :. ~ ~~,,' ,~._ ; ~.,., .
S'~+:= ~~o ~.`; Y ; • . .::. af ':i ~yq~;~':y;, .r~ ••~,'' ~S~t•[' •:
~ ~ ~: Is • •,,.,., • . _~'" ~~.'~i'~~i~. t_
~ : ~ ; . ; • ~ ~ ~g~ ~ fi.:+a~:_or.aeaor 1L~ : !:'' ~,~~,~ ~~ ~~' .s•~. - ~.~
~ ~! •~t 2~' ' ~X E G •~^' 4 r,~ .y`[x 'i.':SL"~'~.~•..r ~.~
J ~ + • ; , , . . • ,; s ~ W`, i' • ri; T"~,4~;+ 4i:'J~'~ I
~ swit< r~iiw w~ r t ' .. ' ' ?+ i'1 ~, ~+,` ii?~~:' `'t "^'
~~ • ,1 'y'~ ~"'"-
' . , • . ,L '~ ,a~: r'~'~- ~~ts:!
~ f r...`.~~ .
, ~ ' ' • ' i . : I~ ti ' ' .z j. :
i. • ~'.~t'.`.~ i
' ~ ~ ~ •~ ~~~~~ ~'~~~~Y1.
. '~' , , ' • .,~' •,~ai~:I~E' •~:7{¢~r~"~{~
~+~~~~ .1; :r• i, :f'~
j ~--jC/`1V 1 t'. ~.J~-~ hl,~ ~ ~' l , ' ~i ~ `ti ~ i : ~ ::.t ~: :..1,
~rl ~ ~ 1~: . i;i.'i:.~ • '
. , r .~a: ~«: ~~:: ~'
. .APPtAN . . i . , . .~~~ ~~.~~.,.~.,.:A:~ ..
. , . 1NAY . . ~~~ ~" * ~~~'" ~ ~~ ~ :
~»r :1-. .~::` .,. ;•
_ i . . . . . ., .. ; , . .. : ' .. ~~#* ~; ~:~ x' .s::
~~ i '. , , ::.4,,~,. ~ :~
~ ~ : . . ~~~1 , , ~~-:
,:. ,~~.'y h~_ .. .. ~,y.
. ' ' ~. . . ' ' t '•~ . ~'4~' ~} i ~~~~+"~' ~ t
. :,.~y. ~_ :~;,~:•~k~ .~~..J
~ . . , }.,~. .-t~;~~
~ ; ~ :; ;,~., .,K,
~=3~ . i . . . : • :.~; ~~• ,!,:. ;r:
~ ~ •-r ..~~ ~~~= ~:~
k ~ . . . , ;; ~ .1; ,,~. ~ .t~
~ .~
t ~ : ~ . , ; `~ . ` ' .'~• .~~~' } ~ ~.
. _ ,' '. , ~ =u~:• • L~ ••.ri.
' • • ~ • . . , : ~ ~•, r~,'~ ~ ~ ~'~: .~ :~
_ '' : . • •' . :. ~',' ; r , `
. . . , 1 . _ „, . . . I'~ . ~rr V ~
~, ~ ,
.t .. - t- . K` • • ~, •: y'•. .ti 1+ '
' .j ~G. . y' ~ . ~; .~••~••~ : .~. .~ti~.LY.+. ~
- ~ ~'ROM~NAD~ ' ~'O~~i~+N =fR..~...::.,:. .u:;~~ ~ ...~ «~a~'ti~'
I '" r, e..' ON'f, .:• : a~a ~'"~;b i:'~;1 K
_ . , t _~ " • ,. . :? .
, , .; . . I 'f' • 2".,.. •~ ~: "%~;' ~' „{~ .
; .1: • , , ' .. . , ~ ~' ~ ~~'• ,~, tr~' c~ i
. a~. ' . '• ' .~ ' 'r , • . . .~''~4 '~-w`~ ~y ':
. . '~., ~ _'~. ~S~ _
~ .i• . . • ' ~ .; ' ,. S ~„ r~, -i; f.
' i '' ''~~ ' ~L''.~w.~ .'/'. ": -~v'!~ t'~ s
; f~~~f~' e . : C. • . ..~ ~ ~ 'd l i•:•• t: r `h ~ ~ .. : 1...,'i • ~ :;~: i5 .~~J '~~~ `~
.n' ~µ,~.:.~ S ` ~ '~~ ~~~'Y.~'~'4a ,~ ~ .•~ ••'.~+::~.:. ~~y ~~y1
-~,~. ~y, . ..~, - ,., ,: jrs. ~,. ~: ,::;',, ~ •; •• • ~r
7~ y +~ ~ ~,, ~t.: ,.
~~ t r, a P i.:.y~ria . ~~ . "h .
:'t ~i• ,~ ,5~~'F^t`- ~ ?~T~~Yi+~::s'+'~i_. .~~'r` ~.~ 1•. s
..~•n.. v~~a!s 1 ~. w:~~^ ~L:a.. ~s cte;ji'i.~;.~,?l~`. •.
. + 1
~i.~ . . ,. . ~ .
_ 457 _ _ __ __i
f~C.C
g,~•D
r, -
M
April 13, 1991
Ta: Santa Moni~a City Counail Members
Frorn: All the propert~ awners of Seaview Terrace
Re: Local Caastal P1an of April 1991
Plea~s be advised that we, the owners of all the Seaview
Terrace property and of the acaompanying grivata easement rights,
deem the designation of Seaview Terrace as a public easement in the
Lacal Coastal Plan oP April 1991 to be in error and in direat
conflict with the~caastal plan's awn stated goals and policies
regarding private property rights~ publia safety, and coastal.
acce~sibility. We therefore insist that the language designating
Seaview Terzace as a public easement be removed from the LCP
document, Policy 34 and 35~ page 67. (See Exhibit 2 and 3}
I. SEAVIEW TERRACE IS A PRIVATE EASEMENT
P., Cou~nty ~acards show ~~,v w Terraae ta be orivate
Per County records af February 1.3, 1914, Boak 25, page 36,.
'~ There shall be a joint easem~nt cf all ow~ers of Lots 1-~
14 inclusive of Tract 2562..." and thi.s easement can b~
" abandQned only ~n consent of all the owners c5f a31 the
above lots 1-14 inc].usive of Tract 2562 Santa Manica."
This olearly means that the easement belongs ta the property
owners, nat the ger~eral public, not the City and in
practical purposes was establ.ished to benefit the property
owners in order to secur~ access to the Terrace. (See
Exhibit 4~
B. Seaview Terrace is not ident'i~,~ed en C3t~ maps because it
~.s pr~.vate.
1. Seaviaw Terraoe was not listed on City maps ~'or th~
purposes of EIRs for 4 ad~jacent pro~ects (Loew's, Hyatt,
Magui.re Thomas hoteis and Ocean F1axa) within 54d feat
of Seaview Terrace.
+k~D
4,59 _ _ ' p. f
P• _
Page iT
2. Seaview Tarrace is not lis~ed by name on the map o~ the
vjry document ured~r disaussian, the LCP. (See Exhibit
6
3. 5eaview Terraca is not listed on city~s Land Us~ and
Circul~tion Element document,
~
The fact that it is not listed on the LUCE map (Sae
Exhibit 5) is significant }aecause the LCP states that if
there is a conflict between the LCP and LUCE, the LUCE
takes precedent. (LCP Page 6I Genwral Falicy number 3)
Marire Terrace is designated on the LUCE as the accessway
betwe~n the beach and the Civ~.c ~enter. Therefore, it
fo].lQws fcr th~ purposes af LCP Poli~cy 34 and 35 that
Marine Terrace should be dasignated as the publia
acc~s~way nnt Sesview Terrace. (See Exhibit 5)
C.
1. ~eaview Terrace is ida»tical in afficial County Tract Mag
descriptian t~ Arcadia Terrace, and Arcadia T~rrace has
bean recognized in official City dacuments to be a
private easement. In a planning staff taemo of Ssptamber
4, ~.985, it is stated that '~Araadia Terraa~ is a pr3.vate
walkway which extends between ocsan Ave. and Appian
Way..." If Arcadia Tarrace is a private waZkway, Seaview
Terrace is a private walkwa~. (See Exhibit_ 7)
D.
E, The desianation of S,gavf.ew Terr~ce as a x~ublic acce~swav
places a~~clg,ud" an the t~t~g af priva~,~ro~~v.
1. Public po2ic~r is beirig created in a stat+e document which
in affeat puts a lien on private property withcut anv
compensati4n.
___.___ _
L-7C t~ 459 ..
P~ ~
1. A nexus was not established betw~en the achievement af
public ~olicy goals and th~ kaenefits ta private property
owners by the imposition of these palicy gaals. This
is one-sided and unfeir. (8ee Nollafl vs. Californa.a
Coastal Commission and AH 1600.)
~%'G
r.a ~
Page IT_Z
Fa
i. Per the LCP access policy 9 C& D, page 63, acce~a policy
should be implemented in a manner that takes into account
the "proximity caf the access ar~a to ad~acent residential
uses...sa.as ta proteat the privacp of ad~acent property
owners." Seaview Terrace is completely residential and
by being designated as the acce~ssway be~ween the Civic
Center and the beach, the rights of adiacent progerty
owners are not being protected. (See~ LCP golicy 34)
II. PUBLIC SAFETY
A. The LCP states that, "acce~ss ~~jal~,aot b~ inaonsiffitent
~ with t~}e ~ub~,~,c~~fety". (LCF Page 62, General Acce~s
Palicy number BC.) Speaifical.ly the LCF states that
"access to the coast...shall be provided for ~,~„ the
people consistent with the public safety needs". (LCP
P~-ge 61 General Access Palicy nttmlaer 5. )
Seavi.ew Terrace, with its 38 step descent to th~e beach
renders itself a.naccessible to the disabled/wheelchair
bound and as such, is not equallyr available to the ~ntire
pub].ic. Given these facts, there is not true g.~,ic
ac~ess,
S.
1. Seaview Terraae has never been patralled by the
polias. It is not accessib2e to patrol by police
cars, bicycles or hor~eback.
C. Pub '~safety reau~res maintenance and resnonsibi3.itv for
t~}e t~ubl.ic accesswav. ~
1. Seaview Terrace has never been the recipient of any
city maintenance or other city serviees. Access
shall nat be required, '"until a public agency or
p~ivate assoaiation agrees to exc~pt responsibility
for maintenance and liability for the acaessway."
(LCP page 62, poliay S}
__.__ _. __ _
460
~m
R4
Page IV
ZII. COASTAL ACCESS
A.
1. Within one or two blocks of Seaviaw Terrace the
beac~l can be acces~sd, without stair~ and with
disabled accessibi2ity by six existing public
accessways.
a) Pico 8].vd. ' '
'b) Vicente Terrace
c} Vicente Flaae
*d} Nlarine Ter~ace {designated in LucE Fage ?9 as
official Civic Center/Beach east/west
connection)
ej Seasfde Terrace
~) Autcway
Ther~ are r.a other areas of city beaahfront off of
oaean Avenue tb.at can claim even 1,~2 ~ the above
nu~nber of p=aximate access paints.
In canclusion, we do nat objeat to t~e LCp, WE WANT Tp aE
'°~EQUALLY PROTECTED HY IT. We are not appased to caastal access,
`'However, we do ab~ect to designating a private easement as a gublic
~>acce$swayr particularly when this prfvate ea~ement is surrounded
by six ather public acces~ways, is not palice patrolled, is not
maintained by th~ city and is nat accesaible to thQ
disab2ed~wheelchair bound.
Sea~view Terrace is pr~vate. For the LCP to state t~then,tiae
would be to compromise ~.ts stated goals and policies reg~rding
private propezty rights, puY~lic satety and a~cessibility.
We re~pectfully r~que~st that alI lanquage designating 8eaview.
Terrace as.a aoasta? accessway bQ removed.
_ _ __ . ._ _ .
4-61
~ ~
P~4
. r. u~ ~ ~c~,k ~~•a..,rvlr.&P~US Y.,81
,~-`"~' PI~'~1S' ~
~ ~~ ~~5~~.~'
S~~L 1lW L~~.~J l
jennifer L. Polhernus, M.A.
25? ~ Thirtybecon+d Street • Sanca hrf nnica, +Calif~rnia' 9i~44S-'310'Z ----
t213) 399-1~ai ~~1~ ~
MArch 8. 1991
~l~r. ~Chuck Damm. i~istrict nir~ccort
iwir. Sim Ryan, S:aff Analyst
California Caasta~ Cammis~ion
245 Wast e~aadwsy. Suice 38~
Long Be~ch- CA 90842
RE: Coaatat Camxnission Applicat~ian No. ~-90-928
Applicant: Maguire Thom~s Par~ners Development, Ltd.
Pro~ct Laca~ion: t 733 Ocearr Avenue. Sanca Monica
Dear Slrs:
In a recxni lettar (dated February 1 i. l991) to you from paul Berlant, Saata I~lonicai Direccar
of LUTM, C~ty staff toak thc pcr~iuon that a sign should ae postsd at Seavi~w Tensce
indicating a publlc access route. :~
l am writ~n~ to canfirm that thts posicioa is in co~flic4 wilh the tecommendation nf ehe ~anta.
Monica Plannin~ Commission, as expre~.~ed ic~ Palicy 34 .;: thc Local Co~u1 pla~~, The~
Planning Comm~ssion recommended that public acccss signa~ be p~~ui that such
signaga be placed at mare approprlate sircet~, includin$ Vicente Terrace. Aaia`~a,p+ may ~
also be epproprlate.
..~y
The Plenning Commission's reasons for recommending ,~gai,isc signage at Seavicw Tercace ~Y'
included:
t. The street is not accassible ~o the handicapped d~se ~o numeraus steps and an
incline th~t g~itts gr~d~ rapidly and ~nexpc.~s~dly.
2, The street is fairly s~+cluded, and not palice patrolled.
3. Soavisw Tenace does not provide direct access to the beach. It dead ends
into Appian Way' with no proximate access ta the beach. .
Sincaroly,
Jcnnifer L. Folhemus
Santa Monica Pluining Commissio~r
.-va~~•~• uia~~w rax ~ransmi[~a~ m BR~c~ 7671 1'orp~w~ -
~ rom
. o.
~. ,
s E~ iX
d=sz -~-- __; ~ ~
I
_.._ . . . , . ...~ . E~ F
' LAND USE ELEMENT
' ~ ~~.
'~ ' + ~.
6 .~
C
~
,~.: ~~_
~V a
1 1
~ ~ ,~'~
vURE 21 '
OCEANFRONT: lMPROVE EAST-WEST CONNECTIONS
~ ~ __ ._ ~ _ ---------_____ _.
4-63 ! ~, ~.
~
May 2~, 1991
ai.fic Plan Advi~o~y Comtaittte
Tc: Civic Cent~r 9pe
From: Stephar~i~ earbaaell, Me~'ex
5ubja Ped~~trian Crosawalka
Givea ths folZowinq:
1. That the LUCE rsc~~ends Marine Terraa~ as the
Eastlweet accaaaway ~rom tha Givi~ Center to
the beach. -
2. That Seaview Terr~cs is nat a pubiic accesaway.
3. That a reaid~nt of Sm~viaw Terrace waa kiiled
M~y 12, 1991, in the exiating non-signall~d
' Ocean Ave. crosswalk.
• 4. That the propo~sed crasswalk ~hose West terminus
would be Seaview Terrac~, and as such wauld eonfl:
With the "~ otection of the livahi2ity of the
surroundi.nq =e~idan~i.al neighborhood" in terms o~
~ $afe~y, nois~a, pr~Vr~C~-y and cleanlinca~ crested
by the incrcaae af foot traf~ic.
5. That the Oc~aa Av~. cronawalk from the Givie Cent
to the beach bs linked to a safe up~bl_'iC accessway
that meats the following criteria:
a. Laada directly to the beaeh. -
b. Provides acc+ess far the entire public„
c. Is pol3ce patrolled.
d. Is maintainec3 by the City.
2 thcrefore :~ov.e that tho Ianguage dastgnatin~ an Ocean Ave
crosswalk whose western tnrminua 38 Ssaview Terrace~ be
stricken and that one af the foliowing locatiana be
designated in its plaee:
a. Mariae Tcsrace~
b. Auta~tay
c. Seasfde Terrace
d. South side of Vicentc Terrace
/.
~~u.-~-~.-
5te~phanie Sarbane3J.
.-vC.~ ~~
.
4-64 ~
~
~•
G:'
. ~ ~~ J~Ra~ T. ~Ylfs h~
GAlefof bllce
, , oaoarnnenrotPottn
~385 M~in it~ett
~P Bas 2200
C,~y of 9anb Monka. CalltorNa 9a07-7I00
~auta M~a~1ea`
Jurw~ Z~, 2DD3
Mr.1'Im McCor^nid~, 9t~fidfnq O~fffcer
t:fq- o~t eanbe Monic~a .
PfsnntnQ er~d Comnx~~ft~r Deveiopmertt
108ffi M~in $ttsat
8enl~ Monk:e~ Celtfomia BO+t01
Desr Mr. AAcCarm~Ck
1 wMt~ thls 1~tar cn t~enaj+ af tt~ reeid~nbe of 8eaview Tenace fn ropsr~ ~o the uMqw
eatety and reou~-ty ~seuee ei~rnifloaM to the~ neiph6ortiood.
G~~vlew TaReca Tract was eetehli~h~d fn 19'14 and Is one of oMy 1wa wrik ~b that
retnaM In 9anie Monica. Its roelder~e induds 7 cMidren (6 unde~ the ps of e)~ 2
elderlY w~ornen erver 80 y~eare of epe. end sev~era) slrq~le worr~n.
Sas~~ew Tqrre~ce Is Isolete~d frvm mojor triorouphtQns~ b~ec:sww~ It IR ~ wgdc etneet 1h~ la
~t r~Y v~~lWe i~am C~an RroruN or ARpl~n Way. tt i~ A narmw n~M wiit- a
36-e~ep dedine at ~ta w~est end that oen oMy ~ccommodate faot traf~ic. tt ts, thrrrtas,
-at aooesafae by patnal car, bicyale, horee. Or mot~orayole baceuae of ris unlque
tcipnpraipRy, Ti~e net~n+e of lhfs welk street end ib IoR~don nrks ~ p~rtkular~y expasad
and vuinerabld to oppvrtux~fattc crime. At! af !he homss on 6eav~+ Te+'rao~ hars bean
burQfsrized, sarr~e m~,rttlple times, at ona tlma or aripthsr In the aot~e of tlu i~rri 1a
yesrs. Eeeview Ten~eoe~a unique ioc~tton a1ar~ tha ,~aut~ ~,~~{ ~~n Vemlce
~nd the 3anta Monicx~ Pler expvees it to a d~nfAcant, har~dcare translu~t elanent.
ft~ rsa{d~nt~ of 8eaview Temaee have basn P~rdCUlarly vf~118M and hav~n b~en
wvrlctnp wlth ttn polios departrnent to ee~ure their aete~iy for cn~nY Y~eri. A
nslphportwod w~stch has been ealiv+a achd in piece efnce 1884, How+aver, dee~dte th~
5696 redu~dlon In crime m 8snts MoMca owr the last 10 y~ra~ fhe ateaa cor~tlnues ~p
hav~a unlque oecurlty ooncems due to lte le~cic Gt esey police patrol ac~cs~dbdtty.
N 1 08~ b0 Of any fUrfh~ aesi~tlC@ in ~eM t0 tt1898 i~8Li68~ P188S0 d!! flOt h88it6t@ ZU
cont~td rn~ at (310) 4b8-8401.
Blno~nly~
~~~~
•1AiM1~8 T, 8
Ghiaf o/ Polict
c~: S'tept~aNe Berbenelt
_ 4-65 _ __ ~
' ~
j~ ~ N
t,xtt t ~3 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~^
r'..' !
cxT~ PLANNING DIVISI~N
C ITY OF ~aANTA ?'~ONI CA
' M E M ~ R A N D U M
DATE: September 4, 1985
~ TQ~ Archztectural Review Hoard
FROM: Plann.i.ng Sta~f
SUBJECT: AR8 2725, Arcadia Terrace, Timot~y Kostyic
REQU EST
ApplS.cant reguests approval of wrought i.ron securi.ty
gates at tx-~ east an,d we6t ends af Arcadia fierrace.
~ - 9~,cx~~oUNn
Arcada.a Te~race a,s a privat~ wa~,7cway wfiich extet~ds
b~tween Ocean Aueaue and Agpian Way. Proge=tiee fac,ing
thxs walkway are a mix of 3.uw densitiy residenl~ial types.
Resi.dents have experi.er~cad a loss af privacy at~d litter
~ by tYie inc~eased number .cf p~edestrians using the +yvalk-
way, ar~d ~ decrease in the sense o~ reaurity for tize
area.
Th~ applxcant, who represe~nts the propertg awr~ers. yro-
pa~es to 1i.mit access to t2ye a~rea through instal~.atian
,. Q~E a wraught iron ~ence anc~ security gate system.
. visibila.ty into the ax~a wi11 be maint$a,ned.
RECOM'"~lENDATION
Planna.ng staf~ recommends ~,ppr4val af the proposal as
~ submitted.
__ __~._ _..____) ~~
~ ~
~Kv~. .7H'CO"+~~ r7~7. I'~U. • JiCJ'YJiJ.J'-t0 ...A:. l~i Cc..+J.~ ..G.GOY'~'i ~'~
~ ~-~
~
~~~
` '~r\~ ~ .. • r 1~. . ~ ~ r~ ~ • .
RRCHiTECTURAt REYIEW a0aP.0 -- CITY OF $ART~ MpNiCA
AvP~iCAT10N FOR 1-RCHi?£CtURAL tiEYtE!!
• ~ .
r REV! ~? rtuMBER: a~ a--2,~~,s REvt EN_ DA7E :~~~ 8~~ ~
~r
~
~~
~ !~ • (
FEf ~I5 ~
Sr cr~ +
~rCC~tt~p, ~~
.-~.~""" .
aace t ~~~
_ ~~-~:-~..~.~
1. A?P~-T dNT 1~JF~RMA~TtOti .
R. Natnea _ ~T,~'r~na„4 'T 1Cr~ *•rr ysJ'.~ +\`1y'Ei
~.....r,,,:;~. PGCl1et ~-c ~f
9. !lnilusg Addresa: rc~r ne~eaaw.~
C. Appiieane Sar caheek ona-
~ Retcx4 C~me: ot Propezty ~ Aymt at L~qal O~mer
~ Laero~ of Prop~rsy oe~sr ACMwT e~e
~,_ _
_,._,~„~,_,,,~
2. PRO.~E[F DESCRiPTiori
l~. sereee AdBrass ok Projece:
B. xOnAs~4:~,~,,,~„ Naaa ot Buaineee• E~~+'GH AC7Q N7'Pdt,Atilp
G:~'ll'E=rP"~~~- lx~~.~
C. 9riaP qeaesipcior_ oE erojset: 4.,e~,•r.Tr ~:,nie r-.y :.na~- n.in
LU~"_~ 1' Af•eP'XiK: ; n A~-arn~~-C~~u,~rte• l~sri.rr.s~
D. Sxiae3nq Sq. PC.: .~~ ?sepbs~d Sq. Ft,:~i~~~_.
~.-...~~
C. RS+pe o6 kmvicr: ~ah~ak ail ehse appiy) ~
~ Cenoapeual Ravia~ Q L+~ndaaape Aevie~.
~ r~avssw tor Final agprova! ~g~,,~;,
F. Pee~iaua City G~unc:l ar Plaetaing Camaission ACiian Oataa;
~ ~
'~f
~•-
? ~ ~.
~
\ Siee P1an ~ Fiocr n:ans ~ Landeenpe/Irrlgacion ~
~lavaesons Q Coler9/ISatarials ~ p~~ ~„
. ~
::~ave read Lhe reviev quidili.aee, agr~s W av~pply.eha inEOraaeian _
requizea, and underreand =hae eha epviw will a,eeadutsad i~ ~
aceardane~ wstk eh• ravic~ gviealinao. I, or a qualifl~d e~p[osae+ .
. eas~+-e, ~113. be preaene a; ane a~aeinq ov psra~nt she pro?eat.
taawe tpleaae p.snt) :~'~'i~r~+M,r~~ Siqaatmes~~~,,..7~'1 ~~~
4. Atrtoy: :lor etaf: neai
Findiaqa o! iaet, Condi.eion9, Roaaona Eor J~etions:
dqoe ~~~~
19-1~ A~i~'C.~•~~'~oT'P/1'~'3',E.~.+"'
~1P'R. .i / ob~~"' 7~d•7` .
~ _ IZwRd?kQf~ n3 ~LWN1~ ia'a~'~l ~'~1[' ~.•..AiLiM ~.~M'P'
'~~'MT •r ~"1~M'~' ~YT_YS A.^~..~. ~ nM.rle~ w ~ '+rt ~..,
~~p rinlltw 1cru7Hn QF-~14~P_~?rrA ir1+~- 1.~-'~LY rltina .i~
~
~
_ _ _ _ _.
4-67 ~~
~.
~
To: ~ Uytce Director of Transpartation fax 310-57fi-917C1 12-zp-pi
From: esiderrts of Seaview TeRace
Re: Request for prefer~+tiat par~cing permit~s in conjunc~on with ovemight parking after 6 QM
on Ocean Ave. at the meters adjacent to Seaview Terrace
Seaview Terrace, which vcu~ains onty a private waikway--type easement, i~ an ir~act trac~
that was estabfished i~ 1914 and is Iocated perpendia~lar ta Ocean Avenue and Appian
Way, approximatety 300 feet north of Pico Boulevard. At the west er~ of the terrace there
is a 38 step decline to Appian Way. Appian Way is a twa-way, single-ianed street where
no stopping is allow~l. West ofi Appian Way ~ a state beach lot where or~e must pay for
parking at aU ~mes. At the ~ end af the ~ is an alle~y that als4 slopes from Ocean
Avenue ta Appian Way by severa) feet. T'h~ northem sicie of the terraoe is adjaoent to the
border af the Merigot Hotei, separated by another private 3 foat easement. The oniy
ad"~ac~ent surfaoe parking that Seaview Ter~ace has, i~ located at a series ~ paricing meters
on Ocean Avenue tha~ ane free aft~r fi PM. As mor~e and more c~ornmerc~al development
has surrounded Seaview Tem~e, whic~ ~s tocated in ~ area zvned RVC, the shortage o#
adjac.ent s~x#a~oe parking has. ina~eased and tlie quality af Iife af the resldents, the `R' , in the
RVC zone, has sutfered aabrdingly-.
For a very ~ong ~me the residents of Seaview Terraoe, have sought to have, at the very
ieast free~ avemight adjaoerrt parking wt~ich is at swfac~e levet with their homes, as ~s
er~joyed by the majority oi residents ~ the c~ty. Endosed then, ~e let~ers of peti~on for
preferential parking Permits in cxx~jwx~ian with ovemight parldng a~er 6 PM on Clcean
Avenue at the meters adjacent to Seaview Terrace. (There are 9-12 meters)
~e- S~-~M P L. ~°'
. dedare under penalty of perjury:
That !/we have r~ad the above deciaration and know the oontents thereof: That the sama is true of mylour
awn knowledge ~cept as to those matters which are there~n stated on intorma~on and beli$f, and as to
thase matters I twebetieve to be true.
Executed an ~ -----------at - CaGf
Address
telephone number
___..___. . _ . _..
4-68
~
M•
1~•
February 6, 2402
Ms. Stephanie Barbanell
. Mr. Jerry Bass
, '!6 Seaview Terrace
~ , Santa Monica, CA 90401
,, ~ Dear Ms. Barbanell and Mr. Bass:
We have r•eceived the additional signatures which you submitted for preferential parking
on Seaview Terrace.
I have re-checked the petition for ovemight preferentiai parking at the meters an acean
Aver~ue adjacent to Seaview Terrace. i found that it now repres~ents 69°!0 of the
residential dweliing units in 6uildings on Seaview Terrace. City policy requires a
minimum of twatt~irds of the dwelling units be represented to have a qualifying petitfon.
Our records and field research indicate #here are 29 dwelling units in properties
adjacent ta Seaview Terrace, and your petition represents 20 of those units. Therefare,
your pe#itian now qualifies fior us to initiate the process of implementing preferential
parking.
To reiterate fr~om my previous letter, the process for getting preferential parking is as
#o{iows: After a qualifying petition has been received, the City is required by law to do a
park+ng occupancy study. Your study wifi be completed in our next round. F~esutts fram
this study are then discussed at a neighbarhood meeting. The City Council then
det~rmines ~whefher ornot to create a preferential parlcing zone. This process generally
takes six to nine mon#hs to complete. After that, the City would bring this matter to the
Coastal Commission.
Please cail me at 310/458-8292 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Ruth Harper
Transportation Planning Associate
a-ss ~
; N
.
~~
To: i_ucy Dyke and Ruth Har~r
From: Stephanie Babanei!
Re: Overn~ght Parl~ng on the east and west side ot 1700-i 8Q4 blo~ck of peear~ Ave. in the
abseru~, of residential preferentiai parlcing zone.
1 Q-10-~2
Dear Ms. Dyke and Ms Har~aer:
The plan to insti#ute overnight park~ng every other night on the east and west side of 1 T0p-
~ 800 blo~~k af Ocean Ave. in t~e absence of the sst~hlishmen# ofi residen~al preferential
parking zone for tt~ residents af the Seaview Terr~e Walkstreet i~ itt-conceived artd
extremely damagit~g to the resident~ becauss the commercial uses in the n~~gh~~~
#aced with the same dire p~arking shorfiages but armed with professional parkers Hn'li
compfetefy monopotize the spaces. Cyvemigt~t,c~ampers prohibited fran ttue beach lats wi~~
also vie for i~ase spaaes.
This pian is bereft of arry benefit to the residqnts ar~! rather than #~etping the reside~iai
parking situation, it wili, in fact, further absorb the already exiremely limited su~ pa€kirig
available to residents of Seaview Terrace. The p~an a big mistake arxf must nat be brought
~ fruition.
------- __..___--
470 i
i
~
~~
'~C~y
F:1PCDiSharelfnfa itemslSeaview Terrace prefpark.doc
March 13, 2Q03 Santa Monica, CA
INF~RMATION ITEM
TO: Mayor and City Gouncii
FRQM: City Staff
SUBJECT: Petition for Preferential Parking near Seaview Ter~ace
Introduction
This report addresses the submission of a qualifying petition for preferential parking.
The residents of Seaview Temace, a waik street located befinreen Ocean Avenue and
Appian Way, have submitted a qualifying petition. The petition is a request to have
pre#erential parking ovemight aiong the meters on Ocean Avenue, adjacent to Ssaview
Terrace.
Backaround
As part of the budget adoption process, funds were eiiminated for the preparation of
studies far new preferential parking districts. Council requested notice of new
preferential parking applications to determine when and if funding might be available.
Discussion
Residents of Seaview Terrace seek ovemight preferentiai parking (after 6 p.m.} along
the meters on Ocean Avenue between the southern driveway o# Le Merigot Hote! to
~cente Place North. Seaview Temace (a tract established in 1914) slopes steepty
down from Ocean Avenue to Appian Way, ending in a series af approximately 38 steps
leading down to Appian Way. 7he meters along (acean Avenue are currently free after
fi p.m., and ovemight parking altemates befween the East and west sides, as 3 a.m. to
5 a.m. street sweeping occurs every night on altemate sides of the street. There are
eight meters on 4cean Aveue which have been identified by residents far preferentiat
___ . _._.. _
4-i1 I
¢'9C•
P[i~
~~
parking. However, one ofi these meters is adjacent to Le Merigot HQtel (south of their
e~at driveway~ and three at~e adjacent to the Seaview Motor Ho#s! and would not be
inctuded in a prefensntiat parlcing zone. The zone, therefore, might consist of oniy four
meters.
The residents of ~eavie+n~ Te+rrace are curc~ntly eligible for preferential parking permits
which they can use vn Vicente Terrace, directly to tt~e sou#h. ~cente Terrac+e, however,
~rovides only 14 on-street parking spa~ces and also provides only daykime preferen~al
parking restrictions betw~n 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. Residents are also etigibfe to paric in
Beach Lot 3S lacated af the foot of Se~aview Terrace on Appian V1tay. Permits cost
$9'10 per year. Many residents do have permits for this lot, but there is aiso a waiting
list.
Summarv
it appears that the Seaview Terrace petit~on effort may affec~ four meters. The
processing of preferentiai~ parking studies wi#hin the Coastal Zorne is b4th time-
consuming and expensive. Staff does not propose proceeding with this request.
Prepared by: Suzsnne Frick, Dirsctor of Ptanning and Community Development
~ucy Dyke, Transportation Ptanning Manager
Beth Rolandson, Senior Transportation Pianner
Ruth Harper, Transportation Planning Associate
4-~2 ~
~'~+
~x~
~~ ~
__.__ ____.__.._.__.__._..._._. ~
~ _ ~_ ~` C ~ tv ~ C ~~'~'~ ~ .r----
~; -~ :~ ~~ ~ ~r~---=
~.---____...:..:; _..._...__...~_.. __-.__-~----------...._....___._..~._.._._.___._..._ ..............
OCEAN AVE
-.~
~ ~
_ _i
4-73 '
~
Subj: Parking ~+leter Rates
Date: Thursday, March 24, 20a3 ~ 0;14:46 AM
Frflm: Lucy-DykeC ei.santa-monica.ca.us
To: Barbanell+@aol.com
Stephanie:
Here is the link to the staff report regarding the decision to raise the parking
rates. The official action was part of the mid-year budget deliberations, and
there is discussion of it in fihe staff report. There is also an ~attachment to the
staff report that includes the entire item that went befvre the Council in
Qecember.
1 understas5d that you feel that this decsian could not have b+een~ taken with the
interests of you and your neighbors in mind. { believe that ~Council was quite
aware of fihe impact of increasing these rates on residents and visitors and has
avoided taking an action like this for many years. It is possible that increasing
rates can improve parking avaifability.
f understand that you are also irate and di~gusted about the staff
recommendation not to pursue preferentiat parking for the four spaces that
could be regulated. Pursuing this matter would necessarily entail a great
commitment of City resources and am am not at a11 optimistic ~abaut th+e
postentiat response to the Coasta) Commission.
There is one area in which the City has really pushed to improve access to
parking for y-ou and your ~neighbors and that is to support and offer you the
limited specia) nightt~me access to the beach parking, for which the City has
fought with the State aver a period of years.
http:~/pe~.ci.santa-
monica.ca.us/citycler~c/council/agendas/2043I24U30225/s240302254~-
A.htm
7I21 /a4 America Online : CreStive49 Page 1
_..._. ... . _... . _
474
'~a
~~
T~: C~ty Council Members/ Mary Stewert fax 310-394-2962 September 9, 2ClQ3
From: Stephanie Barbaneii 3~0-45i-3346
Re: City Councii Agenda item 7 D: ~xempt Ocean Ave iaetween ~olorado and. Pico from the
waiver o# parktng requfrements for outdoor dining.
Dear Councfl Memt~ers:
Piease aa:spt this letter in place of rny sttendance tonight to speak to item 7 D and please take in
~count the concems expressed in this letter in your deliberatior+s on this ttem.
Please sxempt fJcean A've beiween Calarado and Pico from the waiver oi parktng requirements
for ot~tdoor din[ng bec~use there is a waeftai shortfatl of sut#ace patici~g for the residents wha live
on the wests[de ot Ucean Avenue between Pica and Colorado Boutevards, particularty those who
live on the onty two remaining wslkstreeUterraces by the beach in #he City of Santa Monfca.
This area c~ntains homes, apartmerrt houses and hoteis originaily buift in the eariy 20th csntury
with limited or no on-sits parking spaces because street parking was ad~uate when tha
residences were built and that r~a+ned the case until tha {ate 1980's. Since then, Cityy approved
planning and davdopment projects have con~istenUy and iargely ignored the impacts of alt that
developm'e~t on the extremety limited proximate residentia! parking resources.
Seavlew Terrrace and Arcadla Terrace have no vehicular traffic, n4 street or cutbside paricing
running adjacent to their hames. Both Terraces are k~cated betavsen Ocean Avenue and both
Terraaes declir-e approximate{y 38 stsps down ~o Appian Way, where no stopping is albwed at
any tirne. On Seaview Terrace, in particular, we relv on Oce~n Av~us to nrovide the anlv
swfece ~ing to o~rr homes.
If the autdoor parking provision waiver is approved without the requested exemption of C)cean
Avenue b~ween Pico and Colorado Bautevards the si$nificarrtly adverse paricing conditions in
this neighborf~ood wil! be #urther exacerbated. See a statem~tt of the cur~ent pas{ccing coriditions
beiaw.
Currerrt Parkino Gondlt~
-1. in 20D1-2, Seaview Ta~ace Residents request for 8 Prefererrtia( Parking spaces a~ong the
we~tside of Ocean Aven~e ~jacent to Seav(ew Terrace was rejec~ed without a City Cauncil
Hearing.
2. Vicente Te~~ce, which is lacated one street souih oi Seaview Terraee between Ckean and
•Appian Way, only has a14 space capacity but approximately 57 preferer~tial res~tent paricing
permits f~ave b~een issued. Ail the spaces are t~sually flHed -- especiat4y at night.
3. No new resid~ntial ovemight parking permits are being issued for the ce~tra~l beach lats
located b~we~ Picv Biwd. and Colorado Bivd, wast ot Ocean Avenus. .
4. The aid Pritticin tot at 1825 ~cean Avenu~ does not provide pubik parking.
5. The 129 Room Luxury Hatei, Casa dei Mar, buitt in the 1920's was grandfathered by the city
withhout any provlsion for an-site parking, during its compiete remode! in the late 199+Q's.
.475
~aC R
~~1
6. In 200~ 3, an c3ty-own~l prope-ty, #he former Pacific Shores Hotei was remodeled and has
become the168 Room Luxury Hofiel, the Viceroy Hotet. In the course af the rer~nodef, restaurant's
~~9 ~aP~~~Y eXR~~d by 2Ut?°6 --from 9~ seats ta 3t~ seats but was not require~d to prorvide
more than the originally permitted on-sife 1 y 0 parking spaces on site.
7. tn the late i980's, wtien the 175 Room Luxury Hotei, Le Merigot, was still ownecf by Maguire
Thamas Partners, they sought and rsceived a Zoning Administra#ive qppraval to re-stripe their
~arking !ot In order to provide 20 parking spots to adjacent Seaviaw Terrace resideri#s. Though
the zoning admi~istrati~ve approvai was r-eve~ revoked, the new own~s Af fhe hotet did not honor
the promise of twenty residen~ai parking spaces to be dedicated #o the adjacent residents in the
mid 1990's. ~
8. The Sea Castle oNgina~ly built fn the 1920's, was damaged by the earthQuake Qf '94; i~talty
demolished 2 years Is#er atter it burned dnwn to the ground, and then was r~uNt with 178 units
and provides onry 90 on-site parking spaces. .
9. No less than three reduced Parking Variances have already baen is~.+ed between Coiorado
and Pico, off the west~cie of pcean Avenue:
a. Twa restaurants an the Sar~#a Monica Pier: ~armer Sinbad's @ 250 and Former Ash
Grove Q 370
b:~ Praject New Hope, located o~ Ucean Avenue. Just south of Colorado Bivd.
c. Capa Restaurant ~ t8i0 Ocean Avenue
't0. Recently Cora's ~ottee Shop @ i802 Ocean Avenue, ad/acent ta 3eaview Terrsce,
9ncreased the seating capacity of its restaurant 200% (24 addi~anai ouhdoor dining seats were
added without any AR8 Permits). with the. instaHation of a heated oukdoor treliis. (The same treliis
that was denfect for Capo @- 181p pcean Ave. and for which no ARB approvai has t~een
received.) Cora's expanded its hours of operation to inciude evening dinner service, in the
absence o# the provision at any additional parking for its patrons or its employeas. Capo
Restaurant hours oi operation are now in confiict with Cora's hours o# operation and have
resutted in the greatty intensified loss of eventng parking on t)cean Avenue adjacar~# to Seaview
Terrace.
~ 1. There is a loss ot 120 weskend SurtaCe Patking s~a3Ces formerJy provided by Rar~d
Corporation. The new Rand Facility containing 40p+ tmclergrourui patking spaces are off limits to
the public fior securlty reasons
The only free surface parking that exfsts for the residents of Seaview Terrace and Arcadia
Terrace is affer 6 pm aiong Ocean Ave. Patrans and employees o# the hotefis and ~estaurants
continually vie with residents tor the extremely limited tree psrkirtg.
.
CONCLU310N:
The continu~, systematic loss ofi prox~mate, tree, or reasonably priced surtace parlcing that ~e
rest of the residents of Santa Monica en~oy to a much greater extent. is rapidiy being los~# and the
qualitjr of the resideMs is consequentJy fessened.
Please require that busin~ses seeking ta expand outdoor dining servics provide the prereq~site
ad~quate parking in the area on Ocean Avenue, between Cotorddo and Pico.
476
~i1C~
.?c
Santa Monlca Civic Center Specxfic Plan Fna! EIR
Section 4.D Comments and Responses
Letter 9
COA~IMENTpR Stephanie 8arbanell Resident, Santa Monica
L?A'I'E: July 21, 2004
RESPONSE:
The commentor expresses an opinion that the Specific Plaxi would result in several negative
and adverse neighborhood impacts that would affect the Seaview Terrace neighborhoad.
Responses to each o# fihe cammentor's concerns are provided beiow. ,
Response 9A
The commentor eupresses concern about the bwrden of providing a pedestrian access path
through Seaview Terrace. The comr~,P„t does not raise environm~ntal issnes. As a public
prescriptive easement for walk and pazk purposes; the public is allowed to use Seaview
Tenace.
The ~ommentor provides a range of suggested mitigation measures to address the itnpacts in
azeas o# traffic; crime, and noise that she opines will inerease with the development o~ the
proposed projeet. These issues aze each addressed in the BIIL The fiIR finds that xnany traffic
impacts can be addressed throu.gh mitigation measures. Ther~ are unavoidable txaffic impacts
to some neighborhoods fihat have been identified, but none have been identified for fihe
Seaview Te~rrace ar~a. Please see Section 4.14, Trnnspvrtation,/I'raffic. Impacts associafied with
crime were fo~und #o be a less ~an sigctifi:cant Please see Section 4.12, Public Sesvic.es. Impac~s
asso~-iated with noise wexe also found to be less ~han significant. Please see ~on 4.1U, I~Toise.
R onse 9B
The commentor expresses concern that the intensification of the Civic Center area will
negatively affect quality of life for residents of Seaview Terrace by further exacerbating the
campe~ition for surface sireet parking, 'I'he commentar refe~reiices a series of petitions and ~
Ietters between residents and the City of Santa Monica that document the 1listory of a prior
request for prefexential parkin~ and requests that the nine metered parldng spaces on the west
side of Ocean Aventrte adjacent to the north/sauth boundaries of Seaview Terrace be
designated as preferential parking spaces for Seaview Terrace residents as a miti.gation measuxe
in the Civic Center fiiR.
~1s discussed in Section 4.14, Transportation and Circulation (see pages 4.14 -38 through 4.14-
44), #he proposed project wilI not have a~ignibicant impact on pazking after mitigation. As a
result, parking demands of the proposed CCSP uses wauld be accoxnmodated on-site. No off-
site mitigation measures wovld be required to niitigate pazking intpacis of the CCSP. While the
parking conditions described in the residents` pe#itions and letters are af concern to the
residents, the requested action to provide relief fio the Seaview Terrace residents couid not be
unposed as a mi~igation measure for the CCSP.
~ Ciiy of Sania Monlca
477
Sar~ta Monica Civic Center Specific Plan Final EIR
Sectlon 4.0 Comments anct Responses
Re.sponse 9C
The cammeni~or expresses concern over cumulative constraction impacts that would be
associated with imple.mentation of the Specific Plan in light of the on going canstrucEion in the
surrounding areas. She suggests several nlitigation measures for inclctsion in the Draft EII~ to
address cumulative construction impacts. As discussed, in Section 4.3, Construciion Effects, of
the Draft EIR, teniporary construction related air quality effects were defiermined ta be
significanfi and vnavoi.dable. A.11 other temporary construction related impacts (truck traffie,
naise, salid waste, erosion and sedimentaiion) were determineci either to be signi~icant but
mi~igable or less than signi.fiicant without mitigation. Most of the measures proposed by the
commentor aze consistent wfitth the City's practice of attempting to m;n;n,;~p con~fru,ctian
impacts on xesidential areas and local streets. Therefore, to better address iunpacts identified by
commentor, mitigatinn measure CON-1 will be appended axid a new mitigati.on measure will
be added to address construction impacts and will be required as eonditions of appraval of the
Civic Center Sperific Plan as follows:
COP+i 1ja~ Construction bnpact Mitigation P1an.
~ Corestruction trucks artd eq~ment shaIl b~ sta~ed so thr~t aacess to Vicente
Plarr~ ~s nvt blocked. .
~ Aliei~s bPfzveen Qc~art Boulevard and the Prnrneruide/Ocearc Front Waik
shatl not b~ used by consEruction vejiicies durin,~ cor~sfiuction z~ithin the
Ctrnc Cent+er Specific Plan area
• Corisiruction vehicles shnl~ not use Appian Wr,~
CON-1~'b) ' Construction Fences Fight foot tall construciion #ences shall be used along
~ the penmeter of all canstruction sites '
It should be noted th~~t, as described in Seetion 4.3, Canstructiort EfJ`'ects, of the Draft EIR, the
project would be required to adhere to all City regulations related to constructi,on hours,
including the Santa Moxtica Municipal Code Iinvt#s related to ccrostruction haurs,- Thus, the
rnmmentof s suggested measure to prohibit canstruction on Saturda.ys fram starting before 9:00
A1VI is not necessary. The suggested measure regarding provision of temporary relocation #eee
in Seaview Terrace residen#s during construciaon does not directly relate to project-related
impacts and therefore caxunot be imposed in the Draft EIR The suggested measure regazding
the use of tarps to enclose.construction sites is not feasible given the size and scale of sorne of
the constxuction projects proposed within the Speafic P1an area and the need for nwbility of
construction equipment. The EIlZ inciudes nutigation measures that require the use of tarps or
other rnateriaT ta cover slnckp~led soil ta prevent dns~ Please see Mitigation Measure CQN 2(a}
in Section 4.3, Cansttuction Effects. '
Res onse 9D
The commQn{~ ~~ y~hether fiaen non-signaled intersections list~d by the commentor can be
included for study and asks whether weekend traffiic studies will be undertaken in real summer
weather conditions. The commentor proposea three measures: rneasuring 6raf{ic conditions at
the ten non-eignaled intersec6ioz~s; measuring traffic condition~s in real time on weekends and
~ . Cfty of Santa Motilca
478
Santa Monica Civic Center Specffic Plan Final EIR
Section 4.0 Comments and Res~onses
peak beach visiting hours; and scaling down developmeant accordingly to live within
infrastructvre capacities.
Regarding the ten wnsig11A~17ed intersections listed in the comnnent letter, five of the ten
intersections were evaluated in the CCSP Draft ~R. These are:
• Vicente Terrace/Ocean Avez~-ue (fiIR intersection #14);
• Pacific Terrace/Ocean Avenue (#12);
~ Pacific Terrace/Appian Way (#3);
• Seaside Terrace/Ocean Avenue (#11); and
~ Seaside Terxace/Appian Way (#2).
The Draft EIR did not identify a significant impact of the Civic C.entex Specific Plan at any of
these five intersections, Although the other five intersectians listed in the comment letter (Pico
Boulevard jAppian Way, Vicente Place/Ocean ~venue, Vzcente Place/Appian Way, Marine
Terrace/Ocean Avenue, and Mazine Terrace/Appian Way) were not evaluated in the Draft
EIIt, theze is no reason to conclude that the CCSP would have a significant impact at these five
Iocatians, given that they are similar in operations and location to the five that were evaluated
and found to have no impact. Very little traffic generated by future uses in the CCSP area xs
expected to travel through the area west of Ocean Avenue between Colorado Boulevard and
Pico Boulevard, given that Appian Way has been closed to through traffic between Pacific
Coast Highway (PCH~ and Seaside Terrace (eliminating Appzan Way as a route to the Civic
Center area from. PCH) and Civic Center Specific Plan traffic to/fram the south would likely
use Main Street, Neilson Way, or Ocean Avenue/Barnard Way, not Appian Way to Pico
Boulevard to Ocean Avenue.
Regazding the comment about conducting weekend traffic stuclies during summer weather
condi,tions, the Draft EIR did evaluate potential traffic impacts during the weekend nnidday
peak period (1 to 5 PIVn. The traffic count data used as the basis for the weekend analysis was
collected in the sum.mer of 2003 fo~ the atudy intersections contained in the City of Santa
Monica's Tra, fJ`'cx database (August of 2001 far four intersections not included in the City's
Trafj"tx dafiabase) and therefore represents summer weekend conditions.
In regards to the commentor's request to scale down development in an effort to live within
iur~frastructure capacities, as noted previtously, the Draft fiIlZ did not identify significant traffic
impacts of the CCSP project in the area west of Ocean Avenue of primary concern~to the
commentor. (Overall, however, the Draft EIR clid identify the potential for unavoidable
significant traffic impacts at up to nine intersections iM the vianity of the project (seven
intersections at which no feasible mitigation has been identified and two intersections at which
implementation of mitigatiaz~ would be beyond the control of the City of Santa Monica). The
Draft BIR also identified the potential for unavoidable significant traffic impacts on portions of
4~ Street and on portions of the Santa Monica Freeway. For tltis reason, approval of the Civic
Center Specific Plan would require adaption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations
specifying findings as to why the benefits of the proposed project are considered to outweigh
the unavoidable significant irnpacts. The City Council will consider these impacts in its review
of the project.
~ CJfy ~f Santa Monica
4-79
Sartta Monica Civ(c Center Speciflc Plan Fina) ~IR
Section 4.0 Comments and Responses
Response 9E
The commentor expresses concern about the visual impact of four above-ground utility poles
alang the Vicente Place alley and asks whether the poles can be undergrounded i~xi ~onjunction
with development in the Specific Plan area. T'he poles are an existing condition and are not an
impact of the Specific Plan. T'herefore, no nexus e~dsts between identified visual condition and
the implementation of the proposed project, and no mitigation measure is required under
CEQA to address this condition.
Response 9F
The commentor notes that noise 1eveLs alang Ocean Avenue have appeared to inc~ease after
construction of the RAND building an.d asks several questiona about what is being done to
avaid creation of a reflective sound wall along the east side of Ocean. She al.so suggests a
mitigation measure that would provide dual-glazed windows to residences that face the Civic
Center area on the west side of Oceari Avenue. As discussed ixi. Response 8A above, the noise
analysis within the Draft EIR did not identify significant noise impacts along Clcean Avenue
between Pacific Terrace and Vicente Terrace due to implementation of the Specific Pian. Since
thexe are no project specific noise impacts, mitigation is not requireci as part of the proposed
Specitic Plan.
Response 9G
The commentor notes that the RAND Corporation i.s a think t~nk that works on mili~ary
projects and is a potential terrorist target, and questions the safety of placing housing and child
care services in the vicinity of the RAND building. She poses severai questions, including.
whether any precautions are being taken to protect the surrounding Iand uses; whether the
number of police oHicers will be increased based on the estimated increase in population in the
Specific Plan area; whether incxeases in the visitor population to the Civic Center have been
determined and if so, how that will affect police response times. Finally, she suggests the
inclusion of tttree nutigation measures in the Draft EII2 to address public safety.
There is no evidence available to lead to a conclusion that development of the Specific Flan area
wo~ld raise the threat of terrorism over the level that presently e~aists, The ongoing Cify
procedures to ensure pnblic safety would continue with imple7nentation af the Specific Plan.
As discussed in Section 4.12, Public Services, impacts on police services as a resul.t of the CCSP
would be less than sigru£icant. .
The commentof s recommended mitigation measure regarding disclosure of the nature of the
work done at RAND and the security risks associated with being Iocated near the KAND
building is not zelated to any identified en~ironmental impacts and its inclusion is not
warranted in the EIR.
Res~onse 9H
The commentor poses several general questions. Although these questions do not raise any
environmental issues, answers aze provided below as a courtesy to the commentor.
~ C/ty of Santa Monlca
4-80
~'dc'~ -~ ~-3~
"~~~tVE~ ~U~d i 9 2007
OFF;C.~ J
CI T v~C~ ~ sTx ~
In response to a message dated 10/9/06 4:35:02 PM frorg~~~ ~~~ ~ 2 P~,~ 5; 33
James.Kemper@SMGOV.NET
S'~~TA hiOPdfCty, CdLtF.
Subject: Village Comments
From: Stephanie Barbanell, former member of the Civic Center Specific Plan Advisory
Committee '87-'89
10-11-06
Dear Jim;
Thank you for your letter which i have annotated below. Essentially we want
our private waikstreet street,~eaview Terra p no eac~~e Terrace, gated and
we want preferential parking on the meters that front Seaview Terrace at
Ocean Avenue provided for Seaview Terrace Residents in order to mitigate the
intensificati~ of use the ViAage Development Project will cause.
STEPHANIE'S ANN TATED RESPONtF
!n a message dated 7 0/9/06 4:35:02
PM, James.Kemper@SMGOV.NET writes:
Stephanie,
Thanks for your comments regarding tfie proposed Vilfage deveiopment.
The next workshop regarding fhe Village is scheduled for Thursday, November 9th,
6pm - 8pm at Virginia Avenue Park. You should fiave received a postcard in the maii
- if not, let me kriow, and i will make sure one is mai-ed to you for referencelreminder.
The concerns you communicated to me via phone today are as follows:
1. SEAVfEW TERRA E(not Seaside Terraeej is not an appropriafe access
way from the Viilage to the beach, because SEAVIEW TERRACE is not accessible
[there is sfairway at western endj, it dead-ends at Ocean Ave and af Appian Way, is it
not police patrolable and it is private as per our property titles.
6/77/07 America Online ; Barbaneft Page 1
1~-~~ ~ U~
,.~~~ , „ ~~n,
The SM Pier, Ahiko Moomat, , Seaside Terrace, Auto Way/Pacific Terrace, ~cente
Terrace, Ucente Place, and Pico Btvd are appropriate pedestrian accessways
because they are public, handicap accessible, and police patrolable.
Additionally, the Loews Hotel development removed an accessway where a
loading dack is now located at Appian Way. Whatever happened to that
replacement accessway? The Loew's Hote! removed an accessway that was
supposed to be repiaced by another access way between the Loew's'Hotef and the
Merigot Hotel . This was never done. In it's place the Hotef should provide
pedestrian passage through the Notel.
Ttte property owners of Seaview Terrace agree that is both ur~#air and unjast to
provide a pubtic good without due process or just compensation.
~ike Arcadia Terrace, a walkstreet just north of the loews Hotel, we want Seaview
Terrace gated in order to preserve the quiet enjoyment of our property in the face
of the intensification ot use that #his village development creates.
2. (n order to prevent the further decrease and greafer competition for the already
minimal parking opportunities on Ocean Avenue #or residents west of Ocean Avenue --
#he necessary mitigation measure to offsef the intensification of use caused by the
Village Qevelopment is to provide preferenfial parking for the residents of .~ieaview
Terrace at the 8 mefers that fronf the walksfreet on the westside of Ocean Avenue.
1 know you prefer that your comments not be `summarized', but 1 need to understand
your comments to put them forth for consideration.
Let me know if I have them right.
The above annotations get it right.
Actualizing the mitigation measures above would grant us the relief we believe is
reasonabfe and fair in the {ight so much intensification of use in our immediate area.
6/1 i/07 America Ontine : Barbanell Page 2
Thank you for your help.
Sincerely,
Stephanie Barbanell
Jim Kemper
Housing & Redevelopment Division
City of Santa Monica
310-434-2647
6/11/07 America Online : Barbanell Page 3
Page 1 of 1
From:
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 20Q7 5:00 PM
To: Lula Garmon; Cierk Mailbox; Counal Mailbox
Subject: Reject the Viilage Project
Attachments: avic center specific pian+.zip
To City Council Members ltem 8b
From: Stephanie Barbanell and Jerry Bass
1 B Seaview Terrace
Sanfa Monica, Ga. 90401
Re: Reject the Village Project item 8b
June 19, 2007
Council Members:
~D -1'~
~~
~Ury 1 9 2007
We ask you to rejed ttre Vllage projed because the usa, size, scate and massiag are inappropriafe for the Civic
Center sfte. (See the Givic Cente~ EIR Specific Plan Responses attachment: comments, ques6ons, and support
documents of commentafor Stephanie Barbaneil section 41t3)
The civic center shoutd be dedicated soiely to those uses that wiil be available to al/ the residants of the citv,
not used for private residences.
The addition of 354 + units of housing as planned will necessarily increase intensification of use down Seaview
7errace, because the project phan appears to designate Seaview as a public access way from the Vilage to the
beach.
This is compietety inappropriate, because 3eaview Terrace is a private walkstreet as per Uie Sanbom Insurance
Map of 1918 which is not handicap accessible, not visibfe from the adjacent vehicular traffic arteries, poorty
lighted at night, and cannot be patrolled or accessed by poiice cars or motorcycles due to its unique topography.
If this project is approved as currentty planned, the City of Santa Monica will continue its unlawfut practice of
burdening the private property of Seaview Terrace to provide a public good without just
compensation to the property owners who jointly owned the Seaview Terrace easements.
The city wili continue its asionishingiy arrogarrt practice of ignoring ihe rights of the residents who have been so
negatively impacted and whose quality of life has suffered by the relentless and unabated intensification of use in
the immediate area
(Please see correspondence with Housing Director Jim Kemper attachment 2)
Thank yau.
Sincerely,
Jerty Bass and Stephanie Barbanetl
,k«.~xx~«:~.:e«...:,w,.~,~r«,~,a~w~m~~.+.,tx~es-~.
See what's free at http:/lwww.aol.com.
~kDO ~0
6/I9/2007 ~~
~111N A ~z ~nn~
Santa Monica Civic Center Specific Plan Final EIR
Section 4A Comments and Responses
Public scoping meetings were held on January 21, 2003 at the Civic Auditorium East
Wing and on Apri115, 2004 at the Ken Edwards Center. In accordance with CEQA
requirements, a Notices of Prepazation of an Environmental Impact Repart (NOP) were
prepared and circulated for 30 days, which invited pablic comments on the scope of the
EIR and identified the date, time, and location of the scoping meetisig. A copy of this
NOP and the letters sent in response to the NOP are included in Appendix A of the
Draft EIR.
• The City entered into a contractual agreement with the environmental consultant,
Rincon Consultants, far preparation of the EIlZ for an amount not to exceed $232,870.
This includes the fees for the preparation of detailed studies on historic resources,
iraffic, and parking.
• The budget and scope of wark that was agreed upon by the City and the consultant
estimated a total of 88 hours of staff time fo respond to comments received on the Draft
EIR, for a total cost of $8,000.
• Approximately 8 hours ot consultant time each for the environmental consultant and
the traffic subconsultant were required to address the commentoi's concerns.
• The environmental consulting team, including staff from Rincon Consultants, PCR
Services Corporation (historic resources), and Kaku Associates (traffic subconsultants),
as well as members of the City staff, prepazed the responses to comments.
• Stephen Svete, AICP, of Rincon Consultants is the Principal-in-charge of the EIR
preparation. Tom Gaul of Kaku Associates is the lead consultant in chazge of the
transportation and parking analysis contained in the EII2. City of Santa Monica s
Assistant Plannulg Director, Andy Agle, may be reached at (310) 458-8341.
• According to the CEQA Guidelines (5ection 15092,15096(h)), after making findings for
each signi.(icant environmental impact of the project and considering the Final EIR, a
lead agency mvst not approve the project if it will have a significant effect on the
environment after imposiflon of feasible mitigation unless the lead agency finds that the
benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts of the
project. In that case, a Statement of Overriding Considerations is required for those
unpacts that cannot be mitigated. Any mitigation measures presented in the EIIZ that
aze determined to be available and feasible by the lead agency are required to be
implemented if the project is approved, regardless of whether other impacts were
determiued to be iuinutigable and a Statement of Overriding Considerations is adopted.
• The review and potential approval process must be undertaken in compliance with all
applicable legal requirements, including extensive public review, comment and
pazticipation.
~ City of Santa Monica
4-81
Julp 20, 2004
Andp Agle
Planning Division
1685 Maiu Steeet #312
5anta Nlonica, CA 90401
Deax Iv~. Agle and Rincon Consultants,
~{~Tef . li'.~ . ~ I ~' ~ "~ ` )
'Thauk you £or the oppottuuiip to comtnent on the Dxaft EIR fox the Civic Centes
Specific Plan. As a Citp of Santa Monica Landtnarks Coinmissioner, I have a great
coimnitment to the historic xesources of Santa Monica and will confine mp cominents to
the sections of rhe zeport that pertaiu to them.
The xeport accuxatelp states the sa ~cance of the Nlain Street Bridge both in relation to
~ the history and development of Santa Monica and to the quality and historic significance
of its azchitectuce. T7~is xeport and the Santa Monica Historic Resources Inventosy aze in
agreewent that the Main Street Bxidge is eligible for listing in the National Registex as
well as local listing. Onlp a handful of Santa Monica's histoxic xesoutces rise to that leveL
In its discussion of the potential impacts of the City Sernices Builcling only the
re]ationship to the adjacent Citp Hall is mentioned. Omitted aze considerations of its
pzogimitp to the bridge. The Citp Sernices Building would actuallp steaddle the east end
of the bxidge, potentiallp obscuring it and its ori 'nal lampposts fsom view from the rest
of the Civic Cent~ axea and damaging its historic conteat. The building could eas$p
ovexwhelm the bridge with its scale or clash mith it in stple. Please add mitigations fot
these cixcumstances. Please note that a discussion of the Nlain Street Bridge will he oa
the Landmar.ks Commission agenda in August.
The xeport also undexstands the iconic stature of the Seaxs Building at 302 Coloxado.
~ The Seazs Building is cut~enflp in the pxocess of being considexed fox landmaxlc status.
The final decision has been delayed until the Lanrlmarks Commission's Octobet meeting
at the zequest of the ownex. The consultants seport and staff xeport fox the deslgnation
of the 5eats building have alteady been published and state that the Seaxs Building
actually meets all sia criteria for local landmark desi~,mation (only one is xequixe~ and is
another of the few buildings in Santa Monica eligible fox the National Register.
It appeaxs that the plant stoxe just east of tfie snaiu Seazs building but on the same
pxopexty may contain enough integtiip to be included in the potential designation.
Originally a gas station, the small structure xepeats manp of the design themes and
7'/O ICENSINGTON ROAd SANTA MONICA~ CA~IfORNIA 90405 ~1~~-349-503b
4-82
finishes of the laxgez building. Niost of it is in tact behind the plants. The CCSP indicates
that thexe could be new development on the Se~s site along Foutth Street that could
lead to the demolition of the plant stare. If the Landmarks Commission votes to
landmark Seazs, anytbing built on the propertp ~vill have to be companble with the
landmasked steuctuxes according to the Sectetai-9 of the Interiox's Standasds. if
demolition of the smallex building is desired and deemed unavoidable for the conanued
use of the historic pxoperty, appxopxiate mitigations mould be requited
It appe~s in this xeport that mitigations are onlp offeted fox designated landtvar.ks but
the veiy high status of these iwo ptoperties, theie egcellent integritp and the fact that thep
aze adjacent to one anoth~ certainly wartants special considexauon.
Thank pou.
Sincexelp,
,k ~1 a ,~~--~~,,Q
. ~~_~---~, ` /,°~°~( ~
~ J
Nina Fxesco
4-83
---- YVLLL1Vt1L111~+YJ1V~?JU~~VG1
To: All Council Members
~ ~C~ ~~ ~ ~
From: Jo ce S~me: Pro e AU~ ~ 4 2007
y } p rty, owner on the West side of Ocean Avenue -directly across
the street from the Village of:
1) 11 affordable aparhnent units @ 6 Seaview Terrace
2) 17 affordable motel rooms @ 1760 Ocean
3) 3 apartment units @ 40 Seaviecu Terrace
Re: PARKING AND ACCESS Hazdships caused by Village Project which ]acks of
protection of, and creates intensified competition for the already existing shortfall of
adjacent street pazking for my existing 31 affordable units.
Dear Council Iviembers:
Please ~enied tlus proposed project on the grounds that it will over burden the existing
neighborhood in terms of parking, canyon effect on Ocean Avenue, reflective noise and
moming shadows-All of which will be Yo the detriment of the neighborhood and will
significantly negatively i~npact the residential neighborhood to the west.
This project is too massive and simply out of scafe with the other residential properties in
the adjacent neighborhood in terms of the comperition for the severely limited street
packir.g that exists due to past out of scale development in the immediate area.
As a provider of 30 years wort3~ of affordable housing and lodging on the west side of
Ocean Avenue directly across from the proposed Village project site, I demand at the
minimu~€f, that greferential street parking be provided for my 31 Iodgets and tenants
immediately adjacent to Seaview Terrace {a walkstreet.), if this project ofretail and up
32b units and with oniy 600 + patking spaces is to be approved. To do othenvise, is to
create an unnecessary liardship for the tenants and lodgers for whom I pro~~ide affordable
beach side housing.
S' cerely,
~ ~
Joyce Syme
.~IFGUST 14, 2007 ~
~
~a ~
-+ ~„ ca
~" c ~'-";~a
~ ~ -~t~"r*~
G - -~~L'~
~ •a= {7 ~` 7'Fi
r~
' ~ -~ rn''~~
~s~:g
~ ~ ~~€~
i+ ~
t- w
~
~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~~. _.
AU~ Y 4 2DQ7
~'d ggggggtip~£ ~a}oW n~aineaS tll5£0 LO b6 6ny
`~~'l~; ~j~
~- n~
Unit and Price Information on Sampie of Actual Apartment Building Sales in Santa Monica Since January 2006
' Address' City ' MLS Tracking No. : Sate Date ' Sale Price No. of Units Price Per Unit
1 2121 DELAWARE AVE 5qtvTA MoNicn 05-065909 5/za/zoo6 S8as,ooo 5 ~i5s,ooo
2(2302 OAK ST .
3 SANTA MONTCA ~~; ~ 05-067457 6/1/2p05 s $1,690,000 7 : ;$241,429 :~.
1320 9TH ST
~ SANTA MONICA 05-070345 e/i3/zooa ~i,750,000 9 $Y94,444
4
~~:1748 18TH ST ~.. SHNTA,MONICA ' 05-072455 3/14/2006 $935,000 4 ~~ ~~; $233,750 '
5 2928 EXPOSITION BLVD sntvra rvtotulca 05-073639 s/i~/zooe Sezs,ooo a gzsi,zso
&'1311 OCEAN PARK: sarvrnMONtca 05-d73883 a/ss/zoos ~z,s92,soo sz i gzls,oaz '
7 1661 APPIAN WAY
'
SANTA MONICA
OB-OO~}4Z5
5/9/2006
$2,~00,00o
iz ,
~zzs,ooo
8~~:3~0 B/~Y S~ SANTA MONICA ~' ~6-~~5573 9/18/2006 '~~ $6,400,000 26 ~: ;$246,154 ~:~
9 1543 EUCLID ST satvra MoNica 06-009947 a/zs/zoo6 ~i,5~s,ooo 10 ~15~,500
10 2635 23RD ST saN~rA MoNtca 06-030613 s/is/zoo5 ~x,sai,rso ~ gzzo,~6i
~~ 1307 ~4T1-~ ST SANTA MONICA 06-1'I'IOS7 9/29/2006 $1,100,000 . 6 ~ ~$183,333~~~
12 2255 30TH ST saNna MoNica ', 06-113877 ai/zo/2oo5 ~z,s~s,ooo i~ ; gzsi,a~i r
13 1527 PRINCETON ST #1 saruTn Motvica 06-117159 io/zi/zaos S1,aso,ooo a gzai,es~
, 14 !819 OCEAN PARK ! SNNTA MONICA '~~ 06-121815 1/30/2007 : $1,ip0,000 6 ~. :: $Y83,333 ':
15 2221 OCEAN PARK #3 snruTa MotutcA 06-122643 s/is/zoo~ Sl,iso,ooo 6 ~1y1,66~
16 1805 7TH;5T saNrq MaNica 06-143909 s/is/2ao~ ~i,iso,ooo s gzso,ooo !
17 2425 3RD ST sarura MoNiCa 06-145919 z/xs/zoo~ #2,soo,oo0 12 g2o8,333
18'1541 BERKELEY S7 saNrq MoNica 06-149103 2/~/zoo~ ~9~9,~0o a :~zaa,szs ')
19 1433 HARVARD ST sntvTa Motvica 06-149193 z/z~/zoo~ Sl,~oo,ooo $ gzlz,soo
TOTALS: $34,658,330 166 Average: $209,577