SR-12-11-2007-8D~~+
~ ~;tYo, City Council Report
Santa Monica
City Council Meeting: December 11, 2007
Agenda Item: ~
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Eileen Fogarty, Planning & Community Development
Subject: Civic Center Village Development Agreement Design Update
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council hear public testimony, discuss the updated
design concepts for the Civic Center Vi~tage Development Agreement and determine
whether the proposed revised design, including a shared parking program, meets the
intent of the Councii's authorization to negotiate a development agreement as
discussed at the August 14, 2007 public hearing.
Executive Summary
On August 14, 2007 the City Council gave authorization to commence development
agreement negotiations for the Civic Center Village residential development per the
diagrammatic illustrations shown in Attachment A. Of particular note at the August 14~n
Council meeting was the evolving nature of Site C, which comprises approximately 30
percent of the residences. The Council directed staff to commence negotiations based
on the overall massing proposed in Attachment A, which provides for a limited height
increase over the approved Civic Center Specific Plan (CCSP), and an increase up to
96 feet for the southern portion of the site, adjacent to the Viceroy hotel.
As the project has progressed, the Related Company has determined that an alternative
design concept for Site C is preferable, (Attachment B) which addresses their concerns
related to the interior character of the units. The revised design provides three distinct
building elements on a raised podium with private open space. Related proposed the
alternative in order to enhance livability by increasing future residents' access to open
space, views and amenities. Several Site C concepts were reviewed by staff. This
report will describe:
1) The initial updated concept with three elements up to 96 feet,
2) An option responding to staff's request to reduce height to range from 76-96 feet
(Described fully in Attachment B)
1
3) Staff's recommended modification to decrease massing of the 86 foot high central
section in order to more closely approximate the City Council's August direction.
The concept for Site C has evolved to an extent that staff requests input from the Cit~
Council to determine if the updated design addresses the intent of their August 14t
direction.
The updated design for sites A and B are also presented, including:
• Refinements to the building facades,
• Landscaping concepts,
• Garage design which includes only one access point from First Court Alley. The
development team has decided not to pursue a second access which would
require an entrance along the edge of the future park to the north of the new
Olympic Drive.
This report also discusses the proposed shared parking analysis which recommends
that approximately 8% of the 612 parking spaces share uses between commercial and
residential, as these uses are located on the same site with the intent that residents will
make use of the on-site neighborhood serving uses, and will principaliy occur at
different times of day.
Background
The total project is comprised of both affordable and market rate housing spread over
2
the three sites referred to as A, B and C.
Site Uses
Sites A and B are integrated with shared open space and shared garage space, with
Site A providing condominium units and approximately 8,000 square feet of
retail/commercial on the ground floor. Site B consists of affordable housing, and Site C,
which fronts Ocean Avenue, consists of for-sale units with approximately 5,800 square
feet of commercial/retail space on the ground floor. The "Living Street" and public plaza
are incorporated into sites A and B. Site C functions separately from Sites A and B,
providing, on-site open space and parking. The Civic Center Village Development
financing model includes revenue from the sale of the condominiums on both Site A and
Site C as a contributing funding source to subsidize the construction costs of the
affordable units and the related infrastructure.
Site C- Height and Mass Concepts
August 2007- The following diagram reflects the design concept for Site C presented to
the City Council in August 2007. The Council authorized continuing with this design
approach after reviewing the previous, blockier massing design. This approach allowed
variation in the massing across the whole site. With extra height on the southern
portion, adjacent to an equally tall building, units could be moved from site A to reduce
the massing on the park frontage of what will become Palisades Garden Walk.
.:
t
3 . . ~ r; .
~,
~ ~ . °°96' ~' , ~~
~
~~
~
: ~
~ ~ ~::
~~.r,
~ " Y
, ~
, -~ ,. , , ', . i .
i S ,~ , .. ...
i . ~.y_. y~
Height diagram for Site C as reviewed by City Council August 14, 2007 -
3
Desiqn Revisions for Improved Liqht, Air, and Views
October 2007- The Related Company initially proposed the concept illustrated below.
This revised scheme included three building elements of equal height, with maximum
height at the rear of the site up to 96 feet.
~t~ff r~yues#sd r~~aa~t§~n in h~ight
/
76'= 7 FLOOR
26'= 2 FLOORS
Sb'= 5 FLOORS
65'a 5 FlO0R5
7b'=7 PLOORS
Sb'=8 FLOORS
48=9 FlOORS
Staff requested that the applicant revise the design to address the Council's direction to
expiore a 96 foot portion to be at the southern corner of the site adjacent to the Viceroy
hotel rather than in three elements.
November 2007- The Related Company submitted the revised design, illustrated in the
foilowing diagram, as their preferred option for responding to staff's request. In this
option the lobby and elevator (circulation core) are located in the central portion of the
project, allowing the corners to be retaii anchors, with the outdoor plaza and water
feature serving as a petlestrian focal point.
4
Height diagram of initial revrsed concept- October, 2007
~i/' i {~3~'C;?3~'sa31r3Y3 ~;tM17~3=',
~~dil~~d ~~I~h~ ~.--~. as• ~ t I~ I 1`4~
7b'
,.-- - ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~b ~o, r
\.\y Sfi' ib'
~ ~1~ ~..t3~3~~
, ,
.~ °,
V /~
l
\ \\ l/
/~ /
=ight diagram for Proposed Revised Site C, developers preferred option
Discussion
76'=7 FIOOR
26'=2 FLOORS
56' = 5 FLOORS
fib'=6FL0065
76' = 7 FLOORS
86' ~ 8 FLOORS
96' = 9 PLOORS
The Related Company proposed the alternative scheme for Site C with the three distinct
building elements in order to enhance livability by increasing future residents' access to
open space, views and amenities. This option provides for a height silhouette as
follows:
• Northern element, adjacent to 1733 Ocean Ave:
56 feet at street far~ade, stepping up to 76 feet at rear
• Central element
26 feet at street fa~ade. stepping up to 76, and 86 feet at rear
• Southern element, adjacent to Viceroy Hotel
66 feet at street frontage, stepping up to 96 feet.
Access to open space, views and amenities will improve the marketability of the
residences on Site C and thereby create a solid subsidy for the 160 units of affordable
housing in the Civic Center Village.
5
_
~ ~
~:
A
~
~ ~
i ~'~ ~~~ ~ ~..~~./ <~.-
~%
~ ~1'~ _a: , "
Revised concept for Site C, deve/oper's preferred option-NovemBer 2007
(Fully described in Attachment 8)
6
~:r
Revised Site C Looking North from Ocean Avenue, developer's preferred option
Discussions with the applicant on design issues have focused on the appropriate
relationship of height and mass within the stated financiai feasibility of providing
between 94-99 units on this site. Staff supports the revised concept in relation to the
urban design benefits provided by the pedestrian orientation and the public amenity of
the small street front plaza and water feature, as well as access to light and air.
However inclusion of a penthouse unit at 86 feet on the central portion contributes to the
height and massing, and staff proposes that a modified silhouette would more closely
approximate the Council's August 14, 2007 direction in relation to height..
Staff's recommended modified option- The following represents staff's modification to
the developers preferred option. This reduces the height on the central portion, but does
not require the relocation of the circulation core, thus preserving the urban design
benefits and pedestrian orientation of the street front.
ryiEpyq,~Jy~3 ~ ~_ r
~'S~d94aGre.~ ~S"9~~~ ~/ p.'~1}:>iy~~'1~~%?J~3 N 35~ 3~~~)s1333-1 ~C~13~3~i
1~7ech~nic~! equipment only ~t 86 feai ,~ '^~
$6'
7b'
7b'
i b'
~ t~ i
~ \ \ I 55' lfi' ~- . ~ fl,
1
~ 9 ~~~
S
n5 ~
1 \~ ~
~ ~ ~~~~ ~~
UI
d
\~
Height diagram, staff's proposed modification- retaining central circulation core and relocating penthouse
unit
7
Comparison of August and November Designs for Site C:- In relation to the concept
reviewed in August, the revised design provides three separate, narrower building
elements, with an increase in height from 72 to 76 feet at the mid range, a middle
element at 76 feet with a mechanical enclosure reaching 86 feet (with the staff
modification to the central portion shown), and the tallest element remaining at the
same maximum height of 96 feet, but with a reduced width from 87 to 57 feet at the
street frontage.
8
The benefits to the revised design are:
. East-west oriented building mass allows for breaks in the buiiding to provide
increased air and light to the units and optimizing sustainable cooling with ocean
breezes, and private open space.
• The southern corner, the tallest component, is narrowed by approximately 30
feet, reducing the mass on the street frontage.
• A small plaza as public open space and a water feature are amenities on the
ground floor.
• Evolved urban design for the streetscape, with retail components as corner
anchors.
While staff seeks direction from the City Council on a preferred height and massing
scheme, design details such as articulation of the pedestrian base, corner treatments at
all levels, landscaping, fa~ade details, building materials and sun shading devices, will
continue to be refined throughout the development agreement negotiation process.
Sites A and B
The basic massing concepts for Sites A and B have not changed significantly. The
subterranean garage has been redesigned so it will not be located under the new
Olympic Drive. Therefore, a second access point which would utilize a portion of the
future park has been eliminated, and the parking access for Sites A and B will be
located off of First Court Ailey.
Attachment B also contains the current design concepts for Sites A and B, including the
design concepts developed for the landscaping program in response to the City
Council's comments in August.
9
~
~ i . i ~ ~
~
y~4%
S~° ~ ~~
-
y~i~9~~~
~r~ ~ ~,
r
k~"
~
A
, ~,;~`•lP ~;
F
~ ' 3
:~ > ~.,.v
~ ` .~"
x
Landscaping concepts, further defailed in Attachment C
Parkin
The Related Company has submitted a shared parking analysis for staff review. The
report recommends shared parking for approximately 8% of the total 612 spaces. These
spaces would be shared between commerciai and residential uses on the same site
with different hours of peak use. Justification for the shared use includes:
• Car ownership rates in Santa Monica's downtown neighborhoods are significantly
lower than in other parts of the City. This project is similarly located in an area
with relatively good transit access and many land uses that are complementary
to residentiai uses.
Shared parking supports the City's sustainability goals and the need to shift to
more efficient transportation modes that broaden options beyond individual
vehicles.
Any reduction in parking may be conditioned through the DA negotiation process
to require implementation practices such as separating housing costs from
parking costs, and requiring the continued provision of identified spaces for
neighborhood serving businesses.
Staff requests Council direction on whether supporting shared parking for approximately
8% of the spaces would be acceptable, provided staff approves of the final parking
10
demand analysis, and that appropriate conditions are in place to ensure that the parking
supply and demand can be balanced over time.
Process and Schedule
The City Councii's August 14, 2007 authorization to commence formal negotiations
represented the culmination of a number of community workshops and commission
meetings held during 2006 and 2007 which focused on the design concept for the Civic
Center Village.
During consideration of this item, the City Council requested information about the
process and opportunities for additional input prior to the next scheduled public hearing.
A community meeting on the current proposal will be held on November 29, 2007, and
staff will provide a synopsis of the community input during the oral presentation at the
December 11, 2007 hearing.
The anticipated schedule for the Civic Center Village as currently proposed is as
follows:
Fall 2007
• Preliminary design schematics submitted to City
• Community meeting to review design progress and provide input
Winter 2008
• Schematics design and formal application submitted to City
Spring
. Pianning Commission consideration of DA
• City Council consideration of DA
Summer 2008
. Architecturai Review Board Review
. Coastal Commission Application
11
Fall 2008
• State Multifamily Housing Program Appiication for additional funds for affordable
housing
If the City Council is in agreement that the updated design refiects community
objectives for the Civic Center Village, staff and the Related Company will continue to
negotiate the Development Agreement based on the massing diagram in Attachment B,
or another option determined at the hearing, and the project will proceed per the
anticipated timeline. The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on the
Development Agreement for this project, and will make recommendations to the City
Council in early 2008. The City Council will then consider the approval of the Civic
Center Village Development Agreement, in light of the Planning Commission
recommendations.
The afFordable housing component of this project is anticipated to be funded in part by
the State Multifamily Housing program (MHP). In order to participate in this outside
funding mechanism, the project needs to receive Development Agreement and Coastal
Commission approval prior to the funding application deadline of October 2008.
Alternatives
The City Council could take afternative action by:
1.) Determining that the design proposed at the August 14th public hearing was
preferable
2.) Providing direction to staff to proceed with the an alternative height and massing
concept
Public Outreach
City staff will host a design update community meeting on November 29, 2007 to
12
receive input on the design progress since the August 2007 public hearing. Staff will
give an update on the input received at the community meeting as part of the oral staff
report to City Council at the December 11, 2007 meeting.
Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
There is no direct budgetary impact to confirming that the current design follows the
intent of the Council's direction. However, revisions which would extend the projecYs
entitlement timeline beyond the funding application deadline of October could resuit in
failure to secure the MHP funding for the affordable housing component. If the MHP
funding is not secured, an additional City subsidy of between 7 and 8 miilion dollars
would be required to make the proposed project financially feasible. .
Prepared by: Sarah Lejeune, AICP, Senior Pianner
Director, Plannin~ & CohS~nity
Development
Forwarded to Council:
P: L~n~ Ewell
Cit~Cdianager
Attachments
Attachment A: August 14, 2007 design concept
Attachment B: December 11, 2007 revised design concept including landscaping
F:\CityPlanning\ShareNillage-CCSP\FINAL Council Village Stf Rpt design Update (5)-jk.doc
13
ATTACHMENT A
August 14, 2007 design Concept 2 as presented
14
,~y,~~~
_. `
~
~° °- -- ~-
~
AASXIMLb y
VliPiteFlrS ~
BFSQYI ~ ~ ~ ~
!i a
Y I
b.
A:
51 ~
~
K
'~E~
r
~ ~
~
~~ ' ~ u
$~
<
~~ :. ua
ieaAU
x mw
~ ~
n uif
i
.
i
~
~
uik
~.
~ . ~
' ~ w~~
~ ~w
a. :
~ ~ ~' ~
~
~ a
~
~
1..~ ..i. ~..,..e~
'1' ~-~~ ......~ ~"~~~_.~~~'~.~~~.~.`
m.rnvnnr.r
;'~
~w",~,
~Ai~-W."'- _.__.._..-
~~
+F-~$ . t . +~ It~l
~ ~
I ~
i~F^ .. ~~~ .
~I~e~ "`~~ .. . ;.~ .
Re~e{I
~~: pmenfly
.. "~ Live/ Wwk
'~~_ Merka~ Rata Housing
Fllordabla Housing
~ ',...
~ ~
~
#
~
~
~ ~~
~
th ~
,~
,~' ;
~ 6
I
~ ~~s
~i/ k. J -.p,~
~ t
.'i I
11
~. F
,"' I' ~I ~~~1
. I ~ ~:~'~
$Ir.
If.~ 5~I
~ ~: 1 N I ~.:
I"~
~ I' .Y~I
A
~
f+ a
~ M
L~ ~ ~
~ ~.
~ :
i
~ .
'.. ~.~ f ~ i, ~
. ~ri
~'i ~ ii ~
~ i
i..
-~ ~; yJ ,. g~
, p ~.a
r
7~~
r,:nxirrc,a ,
~ : ~.
ubKRrriC'~5 m' ~ t Se.
sao,v ~` ~F~~ .. ,-
~ ~ ~~ .
~
" :~dj,s~
~ ~~;;~ .
u _
~ 3„
bM1P
'F°.e
~ ~
F50SlIh'G&U~[Oln~
'lawnnpr
~~. ~
_"}n~' _~~P
~~ R • Wi ~~d~l
;- `
.~ ~e ~t+ tY ~
w- ~
. . . .
Relell
7 Amenity
~~~( LIVelWOrk
'~. Markel Rate Fbusing
Allordabla Houvng
g
4J.
'~ ~
~
n
~
. .. ,,. ....,> . Reietl
. . `~.. " ~ .. .
~
a ~
~ . . Nmenfly
~"~
, p a ~ k{ ~ ~t, ~ . ,~ Uve/ Wwk
•. ,~~ ~~~~~~~e~~ . k l .u-~r~~•-~^--..i. Ay
~PFir~g i . . ps, ~-~ '`"' ~'~`"^-_„~_ ' ~`' .. ~~,MatkelRateHousing
WbYlletiF3~ ~~ ' . ~ ~~.t{ W,~ ~ {`~ .
atsmn . . . ~ ~ta ~.,.' . '4 Y. ~ ~^~;.. ~ AlfortlableHOUSing
~ ~ e,
o~
~
~•
1
uf3,
9~
~
I
~;
~ ! ~
~ 4 ~~
F
. ~ . ~ ~~
.._ _
~~ ~ ~
~''.
r
(~
1
ll
o~
` t~
~
;
j
''
~
e~ µ.
e~
I1
;
y
~A
!~
;
I'; ~ ~i
~x~ ,.ua..~ ~ i
} I .____.
I
V ~
~ F
`~ ' ~I
~~ ~~~u4NU4er
.r~.,.,,,:~
~
~
Site " C" Hei~hts
2 stories = 1096
3 stories = 12%
4 staries = 16%
5 stories = 295
6 stories = 32%
S stories = 30%
Average ht: = 64'~"
~ ~i ~ ~
Sike "C. °,~ ,
64a_~a~ ~ r
heigh#
51be ~~~.,
96' max. ~
h ei ght
- ~
~..~
P~
~ 96' #all
1
Buil~ding Height
~
~
,~',~r~•+c .
.7'f2,~.°C~l~ .~s-.~.r..J' ~'~f~
~~ 4~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~I ~~d .~~. ~. ~~
-r.
'~ _-
~ ~~~ ~~
~.
~ ~
/j
I
~
~~~ ~~
t
~L_ '~
.•-.1r t-~.~~~
~-.. ?
~
~
w~,~.~~ _,,,~ ~~,~ ,~ua_...~
'~`~ ~' ,~"~,"
~? c ;~ ~ ~' ~ ~-°.~ .
'
~j ~~ ~ ,
`
4 {
P
.~..»~»
;~
.,.~
u
~...>..y
~
`c3'~
.
v~ ,
I
I F
.~S1,M1"W.g' 7` ry7' ~ ""O
~.
4 ~ ~,'*
i ~
~ I .
~ ~'r~7'.,I' Hr'?~
I
~
, ~
~ ~
_~
~
~
~ i
'
-
~
~ ~-~ Gr,..r,~s~ ~,~ ~
l~*',~`'k"/r.N'° .~C~w' _
~ ~ ~ i
§
~ ~
i ~
~ _ - ~ r
_~
s
~
~
~
~ ,
j~
~ I -_ .. '
~
___ _ . .
i ~
-- '
~
( ' L
~~`,~ ~t/f~' ,CS.cz,~z-` ~ ~ - , ~ ~ ~ .~
~?r.+w ~`+b9,~ ' ~.a~~' . ,_-
~ [ t~-, »~"r? -~n~.~~5. e
~
i ~
r -
~ ~ .. '. __ ,.
.
..
d
9'~
^^
~
~,.. ~~
.,+:r
.. ~
.N7
r/I
--` iSS~
'
' .._. ':
~~.~~+.L~.dt.#e~'~E`~i.mh- i
~~
~ ~. _ . -
~ i __'"' .
..
( ._. ~
' .
4_~
ri
-" ~
-~ .S yv.«+2;f3a'.I Gr4.a~,C?~v.1 Ts7
~ ~
~, i ` ~~ I @Ra'.Nx. '=~Y .~..i'" r .-#rl1'.~..~.
P~'~":''U ~,,Aq~.fa.,r~ANG. : , w.
:~;
.1
~.~ , .
I _ 1 . .
q
.
I ,~ -v~. .
~- f i ,
~
i
~
~~i i p
y
+/
Gr'ICluK- .~°~1'l ~' L'4^"~l~ i.a
rt''
~^
,+~,~yx,z~.~-~ ~.~.~,~'~-
~
~:M«~ ~Z~,~~ ,~u~~ .
,
'
~ ~ > . _.
~
~ } ~~~
:~~ ~~~~~~
~~~~~ ~~~~-
~' a.~z f l~.~,~ ~ •~r . ~~
Council authorized this option presented at August 14 meeting
ATTACHMENT B
December 11, 2007 revised design concept including landscaping
15
~
~- ~~
~ ~~
~_. ~~ ~,
~ ~
k~~ B
i~fi~
~:~
t
~~ ~
~,,. ~
..-,,,