SR-040808-8A~_
~;,Yo, City Council Report
sanra Mon~~B
City Council Meeting: March 25, 2008
Agenda Item:~_
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Eileen Fogarty, Planning & Community Development. Department
Subject: Discussion of Development Agreement Concept Plans for an
Entertainment Production Facility at 2834 Colorado Avenue
Recommended Action
Staff recommends the City Council discuss the appropriateness and potential public
benefits of the applicant's Development Agreement proposal for a new entertainment
production facility at 2834 Colorado Avenue and provide direction regarding negotiating
points that should be addressed and alternatives.
Executive Summary
This hearing is part of the initial round of hearings before the Planning Commission and
City Council to obtain preliminary feedback on concept plans for a proposed creative
office/production studio.. While a Development Agreement is exempt from zoning
standards, it must comply with the General Plan. This proposed use is consistent with
the General Plan. It is also consistent with the City Council direction for this portion of
the industrial area of the LUCE. This Development Agreement proposal is being
processed pursuant to Interim Ordinance No. 2242 (CCS), which was enacted to
prevent the continued piecemeal development of this area with large blocks of
development without adequate infrastructure, amenities and services. During the pre-
submittal hearing on a Development Agreement proposal for the Village Trailer Park on
November 27, 2007, the City Council directed staff to work with the owners of 2834,
2912 and 2930 Colorado Avenue, to consider coordinated project alternatives.
Accordingly, the Development Agreement process would also allow the City to
coordinate this project with redevelopment proposals for the two adjacent parcels to
integrate land use policies with transportation solutions and gain public infrastructure-
that would not be possible with a piecemeal approach. This proposal is consistent with
the existing creative arts and entertainment uses as well as the general direction to
encourage creative arts uses in this area of the City.
The Planning Commission prepared recommendations for public .benefits associated
with the applicant's proposal for the three-story, 45 foot high, 153,000 square foot
entertainment production building over a basement and subterranean parking garage on
December 12, 2007. The Commission also recommends modifying the building design
to breakup its long linear scale. In response to the Planning Commission's concern the
1
applicant is preparing a modified concept design, but that rendering was not available to
be transmitted with this report.
Because the City is engaged in developing new General Plan policies and vision for this
area of the City, a Development Agreement for this project also needs to contemplate
the LUCE vision so that the project that ultimately returns to the Planning Commission
and City Council not only addresses community concerns, but its design, uses, features
and infrastructure will contribute to the community.
Staff suggests the Council focus on the following items in considering this matter:
a. The desirability of the proposed use and its consistency with the neighborhood
context;
b. Consistency with the General Plan;
c. Any alternatives that should be considered;
d. Any negotiating points that should be addressed; and
e. Identify desirable infrastructure/public benefits
If a Development Agreement is initiated, the negotiations between the applicant and the
City should:
1) Achieve a design and uses that contemplates the _LUCE vision while being
consistent with the adopted General Plan;
2) Negotiate public benefits such as open space and pedestrian amenities;
3) Negotiate Transportation Demand Management to reduce single-occupant
vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled; and
4) Negotiate public benefits that improve infrastructure, circulation and use of public
transit that is coordinated to encourage similar benefits from the adjacent
properties.
Based on feedback that has been received from the Planning Commission and will be
received from the City Council, the applicant will determine how or whether to pursue
the Development Agreement. If the Development Agreement process is pursued, fiscal
impacts to the City would be identified during the negotiation process and addressed in
the ultimate proposal to the City Council
Background
The applicant submitted Development Review (DR 06-009), Design Compatibility Permit
(DCP 06-006) and Vesting Tract Map (TM 06-024) applications to develop the site with
54 artist studio condominiums on August 15, 2006. This project is in the environmental
review stage and has not been scheduled for a public hearing. Because of the type of
applications and the submittal date, the artist studio condominium project can be
processed without a Development Agreement and would not provide the public benefits
2
that could be gained from pursuing the entertainment studio project. While these
applications were being processed with the City, the applicant was contacted by a
representative from a major movie and multi-media entertainment production company
to develop the site for their production headquarters. As a result, the applicant has
placed the artist studio condominium applications on hold while this Development
Agreement proposal is pursued. Those applications will be withdrawn if the
Development Agreement proposal is successful.
Prior Citv Council Direction
Following the public hearing on a Development Agreement proposal for the Village
Trailer Park located at 2930 Colorado Avenue on November 27, 2007, the City Council
directed staff to work with the owners of 2834, 2912 and 2930 Colorado Avenue, which
encompass almost half of the land of this oversized block, to consider coordinated
project alternatives. Staff has met with the three property owners and believes that
separate Development Agreements may be appropriate for three different projects
which can be coordinated to provide a mix of land uses and transportation solutions that
achieve superior results for the community, including new infrastructure that would be
infeasible with piecemeal development..
Zon
The property is generally surrounded by one and two story commercial buildings
occupied by movie production, industrial, public utility yard and auto repair uses.
3
Properties across Colorado Avenue to the north are developed with one and two story
apartments and condominiums and have a low scale residential character. The site is
developed with two rows of single-story buildings, some with open-bay garages that are
occupied with a variety of small industrial and commercial businesses. The existing
development will be demolished for the redevelopment project.
Discussion
Development Agreements are not quasi judicial matters like Development Review
Permits or Conditional Use Permits. They are negotiated contracts between the City
and an applicant and are implemented by ordinance. To avoid negotiating a project the
City Council cannot ultimately accept, staff scheduled this preliminary discussion at the
outset of this process. The Planning Commission reviewed the concept plans at their
December 12, 2007 meeting and their recommendations to the City Council are
included later in this report. The City Council's discussion will provide direction. to staff
and inform the property owner of key issues that need to be addressed during the
Development Agreement negotiation process. Attachment C contains the applicant's
summary and concept plans.
Applicant's Project Description
The applicant proposed two redevelopment alternatives to the Planning Commission;
however the Planning Commission's discussion was based on the three-story, 45 foot
high, 153,000 square foot entertainment production building over a basement and two-
level subterranean parking garage proposal. The basement would contain ancillary
facilities, including media storage vaults, conference and screening rooms.
The building would be occupied by a single movie, music, television and video
production company. The proposed use is consistent with the property's LMSD zoning
and Special Office District land use designation. The subterranean parking garage
would provide approximately 412 parking spaces plus four at-grade freight loading
spaces that would be accessed from a two-way driveway from Stewart Street.
4
However, if the City council directs redesign as recommended, the number of parking
spaces would be revised to comply with parking requirements for the ultimate mix of
uses. The site is currently developed with .32,000 square feet of single-story
industrial/commercial buildings that would be demolished. The applicant's proposal
identifies timing as a critical issue. Specifically, City approvals and permits need to
permit construction to begin no later than January, 2009, allowing occupancy in early
2011.
The applicant has suggested that the following list of project features will provide public
benefit:
1. Open space on the corner of Stewart and Colorado Avenue;
2. New revenue from the project to the Santa Monica School District;
3. Opportunities for high paying jobs for Santa Monica residents;
4. Lighter traffic during peak hours as compared to existing use and general office
use;
5. Higher public transit use;
6. The post-production, film and music industry provides high employment with
lower impact on the streets, environment and surrounding neighborhoods
compared to traditional uses;
7. LEED certified;
8. Pedestrian orientated design;
9. Lionsgate provides social benefits; and
10.As owner, Lionsgate is a good neighbor.
At this early stage in the process, the proposed conceptual plans are extremely
schematic. Comprehensive project. plans and alternatives would be develdped duririg
the Development Agreement process based on direction from the City Council
pertaining to the project's size, scale, uses and public benefits. As discussed in the
General Plan section below, the project must be consistent with the current General
Plan as well as anticipating the evolving vision of the Land Use and Circulation
Elements (LUCE) update for this area.
5
General Plan Consistency
The City is actively engaged in developing new General Plan policies and vision for this
area of the City. Although the new policies may not be adopted before this proposal is
ready for final consideration, the evolving LUCE vision is based on planning principals
and community values that should shape any proposal for this site. Accordingly, the
Development Agreement for this project needs to contemplate the LUCE vision so that
the project that ultimately returns to the Planning Commission and City Council not only
addresses community concerns, but its design, uses, features and infrastructure will be
consistent with community goals.
In this case, the proposed creative arts studio use is consistent with the adopted Land
Use Element and has also been identified during the recent LUCE public workshops for
the industrial area as a continued appropriate use for the area. Although additional
public hearings will be held to refine the community vision for this area, creative arts and
entertainment use was clearly identified by the community to be retained in this area.
The subject property is located in the Special Office District of the General Plan Land
Use Element. Land Use Policy 1.8.7 allows a maximum height of three stories and 45
feet and a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 2.0 in this district. The proposal's three-
story, 45 feet high, 2.0 FAR is consistent with this policy. The creative
office/entertainment production use is consistent with Land Use. Objective 1.8 to
"Provide opportunity for office and advanced technology uses requiring large floor
areas."
The property is approximately '/4 mile (reasonable walking distance) of the potential
Bergamot METRO rail station. While the LUCE vision is still being developed, there is
community support to identify the areas adjacent to the Bergamot transit station as
future creative arts neighborhoods. Therefore, it appears that this project, as a creative
arts and entertainment use, is consistent with this emerging LUCE vision and an
6
opportunity to better utilize the future rail transit opportunity to reduce long term traffic
impacts.
Overall Size. Scale and Design
The size of the proposed building is consistent with the current General Plan. However,
the conceptual plans as presented are extremely schematic and primarily provide a
starting point for discussion. While the proposal is consistent with recent building trends
for this area, staff is concerned with the building's 490 foot length, but a number of
design options are available to break-up its .apparent mass along Stewart Street.
Comprehensive project plans will be developed during the Development Agreement
process based on direction from the Planning Commission and City Council pertaining
to the project's size, scale, uses and public benefits.
Neighborhood Context
The General Plan provides direction for the long term development of the City. Again,
the LUCE policies and vision that are currently evolving represent the key context for
evaluating neighborhood compatibility for this area. Pursuant to the LUCE, the project
needs to:
1) Create a walkable environment with appropriate scale;
2) Provide public services and amenities such as open space;
3) Address needed infrastructure and circulation;
4) Reflect use or uses identified in the plan; and
5) Interface with the proposed METRO station to the south.
In addition to the General Plan, the type and scale of existing and future development
surrounding. the project are used to evaluate the project's overall size and scale.
Properties on the north side along Colorado Avenue are primarily developed. with one
and two story apartments and condominiums. Properties on the south side of Colorado
Avenue and west side of Stewart Street, adjacent to the proposed project site are
generally developed with one and two story industrial, studio and commercial buildings
7
that typically range from 18 to 40 feet high. The Village Trailer Park, is located 220 feet
further east and is developed with trailers and single-story accessory structures.
Currently, two-story, 30 to 45 foot high entertainment/media production studio, artist
studio, SRO housing and private schools represent typical projects that are either
proposed or under construction in this district.
Planning Commission Action
The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on this proposal on December
12, 2007. Based on input from the applicant and the public, the Planning Commission
recommended the following to the City Council
• Begin Development Agreement negotiations;
• Require some ground floor pedestrian oriented design and uses (food service);
• Require contributions to the Big Blue Bus until the light rail is operational;
• Require contributions to a minibus which serves the LMSD district;
• Require a parks contribution;
• Negotiate an easement along the south property line to connect the street grid
through the site and allow increased height to compensate;
• Negotiate an easement for electric cars, bicycles;
• Require public art on-site;
• Ensure that the project connects well with the streetscape and bike lanes;
• Require shared parking with parking spaces available to the adjacent
neighborhood;
• Require trip reduction measures;
• Provide publicly accessible open space along Colorado Avenue;
• Provide film internships to City residents;
• Break up the long rectangular look of the building along Stewart Street and
provide a sensitive treatment to the Colorado Avenue fagade;
• Require a publicly accessible on-site flex car facility;
• Require an on-site infant and toddler care facility with extended hours to be
operated by the applicant;
• Require street furniture at nearby bus stops; and
• Provide assistance and compensation for small businesses forced to relocate as
a result of the project.
A copy of the December 12, 2007 Planning Commission minutes is contained in
Attachment A.
8
Alternatives
In addition to the recommended action, the City Council could continue the discussion
for analysis of additional options with agreement from the applicant.
Environmental Analysis
CEQA review is not required for the purpose of a preliminary discussion of the feasibility
of a potential project and the appropriateness and potential public benefits of a
Development Agreement for the site (State CEQA. Guidelines Section 15262).
Environmental analysis will be completed prior. to considering approval if the
Development Agreement process is engaged.
Public Outreach
Sign posting and mailed notices are not required by Code for this initial discussion
procedure; however, notice of the public hearing was mailed to all owners and
residential and commercial tenants of property located within a (500 foot) radius of the
project and published in the Santa Monica Daily Press at least ten consecutive calendar
days prior to the hearing.
Budget/Financial Impact
Staff costs for the Development Agreement process are paid from application fees.
There is a wide range of public benefits that the developer could be required to provide
pursuant to the Development Agreement negotiations. The associated fiscal impact will
be determined prior to the Development Agreement returning for City Council
consideration.
9
Prepared by:
Bruce Leach, Special Projects Administrator
ATTACHMENTS:
A. December 12, 2007 Planning Commission Report
B. Public Notification & Comment Material
C. Proposal Summary & Plans
10
Approved: Forwarded to Council:
ATTACHMENT A
November 14/ December 12, 2007 Planning Commission Staff Report & Minutes
11
~r
City of
sanra Monica planning Commission Report
Planning Commission Meeting: November 14, 2007
(Continued to December 12, 2007)
Agenda Item: 10-A
Ta Planning Commission
From: Amanda Schachter, City Planning Division Manager
Subject: Discussion of Concept Plans to redevelop the property located at 2834
Colorado Avenue.
Address: 2834 Colorado Avenue
Applicant: Colorado Creative Studios, LLC.
Recommended Action
It is recommended that the Planning Commission:
1. Recommend that the City Council initiate the Development Agreement negotiation
and review process;
2. Discuss the applicant's Development Agreement proposal and provide direction
regarding its potential public benefits and appropriateness for the redevelopment of
the site.
Executive Summary
The applicant is proposing that the City consider a Development Agreement to permit
redevelopment of the site with athree-story,. 115,200 square foot entertainment
production building over a subterranean parking garage. The building would be
occupied by a major movie and multi-media production company. The proposed use is
consistent with the property's LMSD zoning and Special Office District land use
designation.
While a Development Agreement is exempt from zoning standards, it must comply with
the General Plan. Because the City is engaged in developing new General Plan
policies and vision for this area of the City, a Development Agreement for this project
also needs to contemplate the LUCE vision so that the project that ultimately returns to
the Planning Commission and City Council not only addresses community concerns, but
its design, uses, features and infrastructure will contribute to the community.
Staff suggests the Commission focus on the following items in considering this matter:
12
a. The desirability of the proposed use and
neighborhood context;
b. Consistency with the General Plan;
c. Any alternatives that should be considered;
d. Any negotiating points that should be addressed;
e. Identify desirable infrastructure/public benefits
its consistency with the
and
If a Development Agreement is initiated, the negotiations between the applicant and the
City should:
5) Achieve a design and uses that contemplates the LUCE vision while being
consistent with the adopted General Plan;
6) Negotiate public benefits such as open space and pedestrian amenities;
7) Negotiate Transportation Demand Management to reduce single-occupant
vehicle trips; and
8) Negotiate public benefits that improve infrastructure, circulation and use of public
transit.
Background
The applicant submitted Development Review (DR 06-009), Design Compatibility Permit
(DCP 06-006) and Tract Map (TM 06-024) applications to develop the site with 54 artist
studios on August 15, 2006. While these applications were being processed with the
City, the applicant was contacted by a representative from a major movie and multi-
media entertainment production company to develop the site for their production
headquarters. As a result, the applicant has placed the artist studio condominium
applications on hold while this Development Agreement proposal is pursued. Those
applications will be withdrawn if the Development Agreement proposal is successful.
Project /Site Information
The following table provides a brief summary of the project location.
and Site Information Table
LMSD
(Light .Manufacturing
Studio District)
Land Use Element
Designation:
Parcel Area (SF)
Parcel Dimensions:
Special Office District
1.76 Acres
(76,795 sq. ft.)
120' x 640'
13
Existing On-Site One-story light
Improvements (Year industrial (age of
Built): buildings vary from
1948 through 1950s)
Rent Control Status: Commercial Exempt
Adjacent Zoning LMSD-south a east
Districts and Land Uses: LMSD & C5-west
R2 -North
The property is generally surrounded by one and two story commercial buildings
occupied by movie production, industrial, public utility yard and auto repair uses.
Properties across Colorado Avenue to the north are developed with one and two story
apartments and condominiums and have a low scale residential character. The site is
developed with two rows of single-story buildings, some with open-bay garages that are
occupied with a variety of small industrial and commercial businesses. The existing
development will be demolished for the redevelopment project.
Discussion
Development Agreements are negotiated contracts between the city and an applicant
that specifies the design details and requirements of a project. In order to avoid
negotiating a project the City finds unacceptable, this matter was scheduled to enable a
pro-active discussion with the Planning Commission. The Commission's discussion will
help advise the City Council, provide initial direction to staff and inform the property
owner. The information gathered during this discussion will be used by the applicant
and City Council to evaluate the potential health, safety and welfare benefits and
impacts of the proposal and potential alternatives. Attachment B contains the
applicant's summary and concept plans.
Applicant's Project Description
The applicant proposes that the City consider a Development Agreement to redevelop
the site with athree-story, 115,200 square foot. entertain production building over atwo-
level subterranean parking garage. The building would be occupied by a single tenant
movie; music, television and video production company. The proposed use is
consistent with the property's LMSD zoning and Special Office District land use
designation. The subterranean parking garage would. provide 412 parking spaces plus
four at-grade freight loading spaces that would be accessed from atwo-way driveway
from Stewart Street. The number of parking spaces comply with parking requirements
for the use. The site is currently developed with 32,000 square feet of single-story
industrial/commercial buildings that would be demolished. The applicant's proposal
identifies timing as a critical issue. Specifically, City approvals and permits need to
14
permit construction to begin no later than January, 2009, allowing occupancy in early
2011.
The applicant has suggested that the following list of project features will provide public
benefit:
1. New tax revenue from the project for the use of Santa Monica.
2. New revenue from the project to the Santa Monica School District.
3. Opportunities for high paying jobs for Santa Monica residents.
4. There will be no impact on traffic over existing use of the site because work
schedules are flexible with the Music, Film, and Post-Production industries.
Typical of creative companies, the workday starts staggered after 9:00 A.M. and
ends staggered after 7:00 P.M., which is after the morning and evening peak
traffic times.
5. There could be more public transit used because the Post-Production, Film, and
Music industries employ a high percentage of young people, who are more apt to
car pool or use the transit systems. There is a bus line on Colorado Avenue and
the proposed Expo Line stop at Bergamot Station is less than a 5-minute walk
from this building.
6. The entertainment industry facilities are high paying jobs with lower impact on the
streets, environment and surrounding neighborhoods compared to traditional
uses.
7. Since this is new construction, it will present opportunities for a sustainable green
designed building, supporting Santa Monica's goal to be recognized as a Green
City.
8. The new project will replace an older property without pedestrian amenities. A
new building with sustainable landscaping and improved design elements is
intended to create a pedestrian friendly street scape.
At this early stage in the process, the proposed conceptual plans are extremely
schematic. Comprehensive project plans and alternatives can be developed during the
Development Agreement process based on direction from the Planning Commission
and City Council pertaining to the project's size, scale, uses and public benefits. As
discussed in the General Plan section below, the project. must be consistent with the
current General Plan as well as anticipating the evolving vision of the Land Use and
Circulation Elements (LUCE) update for this area.
General Plan Consistency
The City is actively engaged in developing new General Plan policies and vision for this
area of the City. Although the new policies may not be adopted before this proposal is
ready for final consideration, the evolving LUCE vision is based on planning principals
and community values that should. shape any proposal for this site. Accordingly, the
Development Agreement for this project needs to contemplate the LUCE vision so that
the project that ultimately returns to the Planning Commission and City Council not only
addresses community concerns, but its design, uses, features and infrastructure will be
consistent with community goals.
15
In this case, the proposed creative arts studio use is consistent with the adopted Land
Use Element and has also been identified during the recent LUCE public workshops for
the industrial area as a continued appropriate use for the area. Additional workshops
are scheduled to refine the community vision for this area; however, creative arts is a
use that is expected to be identified as appropriate for the area in the final proposal.
The subject property is located in the Special Office District of the General Plan Land
Use Element. Land Use Policy 1.8.7 allows a maximum height of three. stories and 45
feet and a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 2.0 in this district. The proposal's three-
story, 45' high, 1.5 FAR is consistent with this policy. The entertainment production use
is also consistent with Land Use Objective 1.8 to "Provide opportunity for office and
advanced technology uses requiring large floor areas."
The property is also located within reasonable walking distance of the potential
Bergamot METRO rail station. While the LUCE vision is still being developed, there is
community support to identify the areas adjacent to the- Bergamot transit .station as
future creative arts neighborhoods. Therefore, it appears that this project, as a creative
arts and entertainment use, is consistent with this emerging LUCE vision and an
opportunity to better utilize the future rail transit opportunity.
Overall Size, Scale and Design
The size of the proposed building is within the size limits of the General Plan. However,
the conceptual plans as presented are extremely schematic and primarily provide a
starting point for discussion. Comprehensive project plans will be developed during the
development agreement process based on direction from the Planning Commission and
City Council pertaining to the project's size; scale, uses and public benefits.
Neighborhood Context
The General Plan provides direction for the long term development of the City. Again,
the LUCE policies and vision that are currently evolving represent the key context for
evaluating neighborhood compatibility for this area. Pursuant to the LUCE, the project
needs to:
6) Create a walk able environment with appropriate scale;
7) Provide public services and amenities such as open space;
8) Address needed infrastructure and circulation;
9) Reflect use or uses identified in the plan; and
10)Interface with the proposed METRO station to the south.
In addition to the General Plan, the type and scale of existing and future development
surrounding the project are used to evaluate the project's overall size and scale.
Properties on the north side along Colorado Avenue are primarily developed with one
and two story apartments and condominiums. Properties on the south side of Colorado
Avenue and west side of Stewart Street, adjacent to the proposed project site are
generally developed with one and two story industrial, studio and commercial buildings
16
that typically range from 18 to 40 feet high. The Village Trailer Park, is located 220 feet
further east and is developed with trailers and single-story accessory structures.
Currently, two-story, 30 to 45 foot high entertainment/media production studio, artist
studio,. SRO housing and private schools represent typical projects that are either
proposed or under construction in this district.
As of the preparation of this report, two letters from the public in support of the proposal
has been received. Public notification of this hearing is contained in Attachment A.
Alternative Actions:
In addition to the recommended action, the Planning Commission could consider the
following with respect to the project:
A1. Continue discussion for analysis of additional options with agreement from the
applicant
Conclusion
The proposed multi-media production use is consistent with the current vision for the
LMSD area and the likely future vision for this area. This hearing is part of the initial
round of hearings to determine whether to process a Development Agreement
application.
The Planning Commission`s recommendations regarding potential public benefits and
appropriateness of this proposal will assist the City Council's decision whether to direct
staff to initiate the Development Agreement negotiation and review process.
Prepared by: Bruce Leach, Associate Planner
Paul Foley, Principal Planner.
Attachments
D. Public Notification & Comment Material (includes published notice, and
correspondence).
E. Applicant's Proposal Summary & Conceptual Plans
F:\CityPlanning\Share\PC\STRPT\07\2834 Colorado Studio DA Discussion.doc
17
MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
WEDNESDAY, December 12,2007 CITYCOUNCIL CHAMBERS
7:00 P.M. ROOM 213, CITY HALL
CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:11 p.m.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3. ROLL CALL: Present: Julie Lopez Dad
Gleam Davis
Jay P. Johnson
Hank Koning, FAIA
Terry O'Day, Vice-Chairperson
Gwynne Pugh, AIA, ASCE, Chairperson
Jim Ries
Also Present: Lucy Dyke, Transportation Planning Manager
Kyle Ferstead, Commission Secretary
Eileen Fogarty, Director of Planning & Community
Development
Paul Foley, Principal Planner
Bruce Leach, Associate Planner
Kevin McKeown, City Council Liaison
Barry Rosenbaum, Senior Land Use Attorney
Amanda Schachter, Planning Manager
9-A. Discussion of Concept Plan for an Entertainment Studio Project: 2834
18
parking garage. The parking garage would provide 412 parking spaces
accessed from Stewart Street. The Proiect is proposed as a Development
Agreement with the City. The information gathered during this discussion will be
used to evaluate the feasibility of the proposal and potential alternatives
fPlanner: Bruce Leachl APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: Colorado Creative
Studios, LLC. Continued from November 14, 20071
Planning Director Eileen Fogarty gave background information to the
Commission followed by a staff presentation by Associate Planner Bruce Leach.
Commissioner Dad asked staff about the floor area ratio (FAR) for the project site
and whether the Zoning Ordinance or LUCE standards apply. Mr. Leach
explained the differences and that the below grade area is technically FAR.
Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum explained that a Development Agreement
is enacted by the City Council as a ordinance, which in turn becomes "part of the
Municipal Code, and the provision was not meant to lock-in the Code which
changes over time.
Chair Pugh asked staff about the two buildings being removed from the site and
if one includes the Petite Cafe. Mr. Leach stated the cafe building is not being
removed.
Commissioner Koning asked staff if the process for a Development Agreement is
for Commissioner review, then .City Council review, refinement of plans,
negotiations, environmental review, return to the Commission and then to City
Council for approval of the Development Agreement. Ms. Fogarty stated that
there is also community outreach as well as Architectural Review Board review
and the standard plan check process.
Commissioner Ries asked about the prior housing project proposal for the site.
Ms. Fogarty stated that the proposal had been for artist housing, however
following discussions with City staff, Mr. Walters decided" to pursue a
Development Agreement as presented in the staff report.
Commissioner O'Day commented on the long narrow lot and asked staff how
access to adjacent properties on Colorado Avenue will occur. Mr. Leach stated
those properties will have access from Colorado Avenue.
Commissioner Johnson asked staff if there is any proposal to assist the small
businesses currently on the site. Ms. Fogarty stated this could be part of the
Development Agreement process.
The Applicant's Team consisted of Jack Walter, property owner partner; Mark
Manuel for Lionsgate Entertainment Group; and David Forbes Hibbert, project
architect. The Team made a presentation to the Commission on their proposed
project.
Commissioner Dad asked for the intent of the new structure, whether it would be
apost-production facility or offices. Mr. Walter stated the occupant will be a multi-
19
entertainment business. Mr. Manuel stated the buildings will- be used for post-
production, corporate offices, art work and screening rooms. Commissioner Dad
expressed concern that this project may turn out like the Water Garden instead of
basically post-production. Mr. Walter stated that artist studios may be combined
in the project, but that has not been settled yet.
Commissioner Ries asked Mr. Walter about his concept for artist studios. Mr.
Walter stated he has no plans for artist studios presently.
Commissioner Davis asked Mr. Manuel how many employees he currently has
working in Santa Monica and whether he was anticipating growth. Mr. Manuel
stated that he currently has about 350 employees with approximately 55 being in
post-production and he stated the business is stable.
Commissioner O'Day commented on the above ground use along Colorado
Avenue and asked how landscaping can occur when there is a basement
beneath. Mr. Hibbert stated that it is same situation as across the street, which
also has a parking structure below the at-grade green space. Chair Pugh
commented that large growth trees are possible.
The following members of the public addressed the Commission regarding the
proposal: Jerry Rubin, Catherine Eldridge and Zina Josephs.
Mr. Jack Walter spoke in response to the public comment.
Commissioner O'Day asked staff about the current plans for Stewart Street,
specifically whether streetscaping or other improvements are being proposed.
Mr. Leach stated several plaris are being pursued included required
neighborhood traffic protection by the Lantana site south of Exposition
Boulevard. This work will include curb extensions, sidewalk modifications and
traffic calming adjacent to the freeway. Commissioner O'Day asked if there a
bicycle lane will be introduced. per the Bicycle Master Plan. Mr. Leach stated he
was not aware of such a lane.
Chair Pugh closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Dad expressed her concern with consideration of this proposal
because of its size and the sites adjacency to a residential area. She stated that
she likes the idea of apost-production facility in that location providing it is not
primarily being used as corporate offices. She also stated she has an issue with
the size of the project in an area that is looking to redevelop through the Land
Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) update process. She concluded by saying
that post-production would be an improvement over the current-use.
20
Commissioner Koning commented that he walks in this area at lunch time and it
is very pedestrian-oriented at that hour, although it is not pedestrian-friendly. He
stated it would be nice to have something like a restaurant open on the week-
end. He commented that it is shame there will not be a new street extension as
the new building will face Stewart Street. He recommended the applicant go for
"gold" rather than "silver" Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
(LEED) certification. He also commented on traffic impacts, which need careful
study, and the possibility of needing a new traffic signal as a mitigation measure.
He suggested the developer might fund a bus line until the Expo Rail comes to
town.
Commissioner O'Day expressed the opinion that this is project has exciting
potential and is a signature property in the LMSD. He expressed concern about
connecting the grid between two large properties between Colorado Avenue and
Olympic Boulevard. He suggested that height could be added to the middle of the
building in order to allow for activation of the southern portion of the property. He
stated he would like to see bicycle and pedestrians access to the ,site and
suggested the. site could have electric vehicle access only. He also stated he
would like this project to a LEED showcase and have public art as part of the
community benefit. He expressed support for Commissioner Koning's ideas for a
commercial use such a food service to activate the northern end of the site.
Commissioner O'Day commented that the current Stewart Street streetscape is
dismal and suggested that there be connectivity with bicycle lanes, trees and the
like. He stated that the permeable aspect could be removed and recommended
consideration of the impact of adding another story to the project. He concluded
by asking that an opportunity for shared parking with the neighborhood be
considered.
Commissioner Ries commented that the propose project will create good jobs as
well as maintain a business already in the City. He expressed concern regarding
the number vehicle trips the site will generate and reductions should be sought.
He agreed with the idea of adding bicycles to the site for employee use and was
glad to hear the developer will offer bus passes to employees. He noted that
open space along Colorado Avenue will be a big benefit to the City and he
agrees with the request for permeability and on-site trees. He commented that an
easement on the south property line for urban run-off would be an important
aspect when going for the LEED certification. He recommended the developer
work with the Virginia Avenue Park multi-media center when looking for interns.
Commissioner Ries stated his major concern has. to do with the proposed
rectangular look of the long building.
Commissioner Davis expressed agreement with much of what the other
Commissioners said. She noted that traffic is a major issue for the adjacent
neighborhood and suggested the site might utilize "flex cars" as well as bicycles
and shared parking. She commented on the "Google" model that uses private
21
point-to-point shuttles. She expressed support for the developer's internship
program, which could draw from the local high schools, Santa Monica Collage
and Virginia Avenue Park. Commissioner Davis commented on extended hours
for on-site infant and toddler care. She concluded her remarks by saying she is
excited about the project and hopes it will be mostly post-production and not
corporate offices.
Commissioner Johnson expressed general support for the project and stated the
proposal should move forward in the Development Agreement process. He
commented that there are no regulations regarding relocation of small
businesses and this site has quite a few of them. He asked that consideration be
made for the developer to offer help in relocating the businesses either
monetarily or with procurement of new space. Commissioner Johnson also asked
for sensitivity with regards to adjacent housing toward the Colorado Avenue side
of the project and that the visual impact be softened with trees. His third concern
was for permeability for sidewalks and. other hardscapes as well as for the
inclusion of street furniture. He recommended this would be a good site for the
City's mini-bus to be routed by, perhaps with financing from the developer.
Chair Pugh commented on the change in site orientation from Colorado Avenue
to Stewart Street, which he cited as a benefit for both pedestrians and traffic. He
noted that the proposal is consistent with permitted uses for the Light
Manufacturing and Studio District (LMSD). He commented he would like to see
multiple entries for incubator spaces and to activate the site as a community
resource. Chair Pugh stated he would like to see the public benefits return to
make this a better project with better materials; orientation toward the street; and
that transportation issues be worked out with the neighborhood. He commented
briefly on the need to develop the building design and dissipation stations are
needed under the buildings to store for water for later use.
Commissioner Koning asked if, under a Development .Agreement, the
Commission can ask for things that exceed the General Plan, such as the height
limits or floor area ratio [FAR]. Ms. Fogarty responded that the Zoning Ordnance
can be exceeded, but exceeding the General Plan would .require a Text
Amendment. Commissioner Koning commented that the parking plan states that
there will be a maximum support office of 30%, which may alleviate some of
Commissioner Dad's concerns. He also commented that permeable concrete is
very rough and difficult to clean, so that should be taken into consideration as
well. Commissioner Koning made a motion to forward the recommendations to
City Council.
Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion.
The motion was approved by the following vote:
AYES: Dad, Davis, Johnson, Koning, O'Day, Pugh, Ries.
22
ATTACHMENT B
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION & COMMENT MATERIAL
Electronic version of attachment is not available for review. Document is available for
review at the City Clerk's office and the Libraries.
23
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING
BEFORE THE SANTA MONICA CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Discuss a Development Agreement proposal to construct a new entertainment production
facility.
Address: 2834 Colorado Avenue
APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: Colorado Creative Studios, LLC
A public hearing will be held by the City Council to consider the following request:
Discuss the applicant's Development Agreement proposal to redevelop the existing industrial use with a
four story, 153,000 square foot entertainment production facility over a 412 space subterranean parking
garage. Project alternatives and potential public benefits will also be discussed.
DATEITIME: TUESDAY, MARCH 25, 2008, AT 6:45 p.m.
LOCATION: City Council Chambers, Second Floor, Santa Monica City Hall
1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, California.
HOW TO COMMENT
The City of Santa Monica encourages public comment. You may comment at the City Council public
hearing, or by writing a letter. Written information will be given to the City Council at the meeting.
Address your letters to: City Clerk
Re: Colorado Creative Studios Discussion
1685 Main Street, Room 102
Santa Monica, CA 90401
MORE INFORMATION
If you want more information about this project or wish to review the project file, please contact Special
Projects Administrator Bruce Leach at (310) 458-8341, or by e-mail at bruce.leach@smgov.net. The
Zoning Ordinance is available at the Planning Counter during business hours and on the City's web site
at wwwsanta-monica.org.
The meeting facility is wheelchair accessible. For disability-related accommodations, please contact (310)
458-8341 or (310) 458-8696 TTY at least 72 hours in advance. All written materials are available in
alternate format upon request. Santa Monica Big Blue Bus Lines numbered 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10
serve City Hall.
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65009(b), if this matter is subsequently challenged in
Court, the challenge may be limited to only those issues raised at the public hearing described in this
notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Santa Monica at, or prior to, the public
hearing.
ESPANOL
Esto es una noticia de una audiencia ptablica Para revisar applicaci6nes proponiendo desarrollo en Santa
Monica. Si deseas mks informaci6n, favor de Ilamar a Carmen Gutierrez en Ia Division de Planificaci6n
al numero (310) 458-8341.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
AM DA CHAC~ Fi~
Planning Manager
F:\CityPlanning\Share\COUNCILWOTICES\2008\Colorado Creative Studeo DA.doc
Bruce Leach
From: , Kyle Ferstead
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 7:39 AM
To: Bruce Leach; Paul Foley; Barry Rosenbaum
Subject: FW: Objections to Discussion/Negotiations - PC Item 10-A
FYI
-----Original .Message-----
From: Coalition for a Livable City [mailto:info@smclc.net]
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2007 10:33 PM
To: Julie Dad; Gleam Davis; Kyle Ferstead;Jay Johnson; Hank Koning; Terry O'Day; Gwynne
Pugh; Jim Ries
Cc: Kyle Ferstead; Lamont Ewe11; Eileen Fogarty; Clerk Mailbox
Subject: Re: Objections to Discussion/Negotiations - PC Item 10-A
RE: Nov. 14th Planning Commission meeting agenda item 10A -- 2834 Colorado Ave.
-- a conceptual proposal for aDevelopment Agreement for a 3-story, 115,000 sq
foot entertainment production company with X412 parking spaces accessed from
Stewart/28th to replace an existing 1-story 32,000 squarefoot facility.
> SMCLC and Neighborhood Groups object to discussions re: 2834 Colorado Avenue
until General Plan and related Zoning completed
> November 12, 2007 -
> TO: Santa Monica Planning Commission
> RE: NOTICE OF OBJECTIONS TO 2834 COLORADO AVENUE DEVELOPMENT/DEVELOPMENT
> AGREEMENT (PC Item 10-A, 11/19/07)
> The Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City ("SMCLC")(and the
> undersigned neighborhood groups have reviewed the staff report and
> strongly believe that this project should not be entitled to proceed during
> the LUCE update, let alone be approved, for the following reasons:
> This Colorado Avenue proposed project is inconsistent with. our 1984 General
> Plan and perfectly illustrates why residents in this community have banded
> together to urge the city to adopt a planning moratorium while the General
> Plan is being revised.
> This project is a prime example of a project that should be placed "on hold"
> until the city and residents conclude theirdiscussions about what commercial
> development is appropriate and where and how such development will impact our
> present, growing jobs/housing imbalance, increasing traffic congestion, and
> the quality of life in our city.
> This is why SMCLC and all of the neighborhood groups previously met with the
> city and recently appeared before the Planning Commission to urge the City
> Council to impose a building moratorium on various areas of the city
> experiencing the greatest development pressures. We singled out the LMSD area
> in particular, as needing this protection and this project in the LMSD is
> exactly what residents. did NOT want to see put on any development track until
> a master plan and related. zoning for responsible development of the LMSD
> reflecting residents' views was adopted.
> As proposed, this project's size, scale and potential traffic impacts are
> inconsistent with its neighborhood surroundings as well as our General
> Plan. The proposed project would replace an existing single-story 32,000
> square foot facility with a three-story 115,200 square foot facility.
> Despite this four-fold increase in density and 412 parking spaces, with
1
> ingress and egress proposed solely from Stewart Street, the developer
> surprisingly claims no traffic impacts as a key public benefit. "There will
> be no impact on traffic over existing uses of the site because the work
> schedules are flexible" in the entertainment industry.
> This is California dreaming belied by other entertainment facilities in the
> surrounding area.
> No developer proposing a project of this magnitude in the midst ofour LOCE
> update should receive a "float up" or any type of expedited preliminary.
> applicationapproval from the Planning Commission at this point in time. Nor
> should the developer be dictating an entitlement schedule in place by March
> 2008, with all development permits to be issued by December 2008 when no
> discussion with residents about the scope of the project and its alleged
> public benefits has occurred and only "extremely conceptual drawings" are
> being submitted, which are of little help in understanding the project's true
> impacts. _
> Any developer proposing a project of this size and expedited review should,
> at a minimum, be required to notify and meet with all potentially affected
> residents and businesses in the surrounding area and provide drawings that
> are sufficiently detailed so as to accurately describe the project.
> It is unreasonable and burdensome to make Santa Monica residents come before
> the Planning Commission or the City Council every few weeks until 2009 when
> our new General Plan may finally be adopted, in order to object to every
> proposed development project in the pipeline that would not pass muster
> under the old or the revised General Plan.
>
> Going forward, SMCLC and the neighborhood groups will file written notices
> like this one with the city for inclusion in the public record as to each
> such project that it believes is inconsistent with the old General Plan and
> that likewise would be inconsistent with the new one.
> SMCLC and the neighborhood groups object to discussion and/or approval
> of this project on the grounds that it is .inconsistent with the 1984 General
> Plan, that it would likely not be approved under the General Plan revisions
> of the housing, land-use or circulation elements, and that approving this
> project in this interim period would constitute unplanned; piecemeal
> development by the city of Santa Monica in violation of local and state law.
> SMCLC and the neighborhood groups object to this project because it is
> inconsistent with the goals and principles that residents have articulated
> during the LUCE process as to high-density projects that worsen the
work/housing imbalance, and create additional traffic and circulation problems
in an already highly congested area. This project is at odds with those goals.
> SMCLC and the neighborhood groups further object to this project
> because its proposed size and scale make it subject to a
> development agreement. we believe that all such large-scale projects
> requiring development agreements now or in the future which exceed our
> zoning laws should be submitted to residents for a vote. Our city has
> failed residents too many times in approving development agreements over the
> past 25 years without sufficient or substantial public benefits that would
> justify the greater height, density and uses allowed. Equally egregious,
> our city has not monitored these large-scale projectsfor compliance with
> traffic, circulation parking or other required environmental mitigations.
> Be:ause the city has failed to enforce development agreements as required
> b law, residents are justified in insisting that all such agreements be
> --placed on the ballot for a vote, thereby engendering full discussion and
disclosure of all of the public benefits and burdens.
> Sincerely,
> The Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City (SMCLC)
> Friends of Sunset Park Board of Directors (FOSP)
> Village Trailer Park Neighborhood Homeowners' Association (VTPNHA)
2
> Cc: Lamont Ewell, City Manager
Eileen Fogarty, Planning Director
Maria Stewart, City Clerk
Page 1 of 3
Subj: Letter of objection to Development Agreement - 2834 Colorado Ave.
Date: 12/12/2007 7:17:41 P.M. Pacific Standard Time
From: Zina Josephs
To: Zina Josephs
RE: Nov. 14th Planning Commission meeting agenda item 10A -- 2834 Colorado Ave.
-- a conceptual proposal for a Development Agreement fora 3-story, 115,000 sq
foot entertainment production company with 412 parking spaces accessed from
Stewart/28th to replace an existing 1-story 32,000 square foot facility.
SMCLC and Neighborhood Groups object to discussions re: 2834 Colorado Avenue
until General Plah and related Zoning completed
November 12, 2007
TO: Santa Monica Planning Commission
RE: NOTICE OF OBJECTIONS TO 2834 COLORADO AVENUE
DEVELOPMENT/DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT (PC Item 10-A, 11/14/07)
The Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City ("SMCLC")(and the
undersigned neighborhood groups have reviewed the staff report and
strongly believe that this project should not be entitled to proceed during
the LUCE update, let alone be approved, for the following .reasons:
This Colorado Avenue proposed project is inconsistent with our 1984 General
Plan and perfectly illustrates why residents in this community have banded
together to urge the city to adopt a planning moratorium while the General
Plan is being revised.
This project is a prime example of a project that should be placed "on hold"
until the city and residents conclude their discussions about what commercial
development is appropriate and where and how such development will impact our
present, growing jobs/housing imbalance, increasing traffic congestion, and
the quality of life in our city.
This is why SMCLC and all of the neighborhood groups previously met with the
city and recently appeared before the Planning Commission to urge the City
Council to impose a building moratorium on various areas of the city
experiencing the greatest development pressures. We singled out the LMSD area
in particular, as needing this protection and this project in the LMSD is
exactly what residents did NOT want to see put on any development track until
a master plan and related zoning for responsible development of the LMSD
reflecting residents' views was adopted.
As proposed, this project's size, scale and potential traffic impacts are
inconsistent with its neighborhood surroundings as well as our General
Plan. The proposed project would replace an existing single-story 32,000
square foot facility with athree-story 115,200 square foot facility.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007 AOL: Zina Josephs
Page 2 of 3
Despite this four-fold increase in density and 412 parking spaces, with
ingress and egress proposed solely from Stewart Street, the developer
surprisingly claims no traffic impacts as a key public benefit. "There will
be no impact on traffic over existing uses of the site because the work
schedules are flexible" in the entertainment industry.
This is California dreaming belied by other entertainment facilities in the
surrounding area.
No developer proposing a project of this magnitude in the midst of our LUCE
update should receive a "float up" or any type of expedited preliminary
application approval from the Planning Commission at this point in time. Nor
should the developer be dictating an entitlement schedule in place by March
2008, with all development permits to be issued by December 2008 when no
discussion with residents about the scope of the project and its alleged
public benefits has occurred and only "extremely conceptual drawings" are
being submitted, which are of little help in understanding the project's true
impacts.
Any developer proposing a project of this size and expedited review should,
at a minimum, be required to notify and meet with all potentially affected
residents and businesses in the surrounding area and provide drawings that
are sufficiently detailed so as to accurately describe the project.
It is unreasonable and burdensome to make Santa Monica residents come before
the Planning Commission or the City Council every few weeks until 2009 when
our new General Plan may finally be adopted, in order to object to every
proposed development project in the pipeline that would not pass muster
under the old or the revised General Plan.
Going forward, SMCLC and the neighborhood groups will file written notices
like this one with the city for inclusion in the public record as to each
such project that it believes is inconsistent with the old General Plan and
that likewise would be inconsistent with the new one.
SMCLC and the neighborhood groups object to discussion and/or approval
of this project on the grounds that it is inconsistent with the 1984 General
Plan, that it would likely not be approved under the General Plan revisions
of the housing, land-use or circulation elements, and that approving this
project in this interim period would constitute unplanned, piecemeal
development by the city of Santa Monica in violation of local and state law.
SMCLC and the neighborhood groups object to this project because it is
inconsistent with the goals and principles that residents have articulated
during the LUCE process as to high-density projects that worsen the
work/housing imbalance, and create additional traffic and circulation problems
in an already highly congested area. This project is at odds with those goals.
SMCLC and the neighborhood groups further object to this project
because its proposed size and scale make it subject to a
Wednesday, December 12, 2007 AOL: Zina Josephs
Page 3 of 3
development agreement. We believe that all such large-scale projects
requiring development agreements now or in the future which exceed our
zoning laws should be submitted to residents for a vote. Our city has
failed residents too many times in approving development agreements over the
past 25 years without sufficient or substantial public benefits that would
justify the greater height, density and uses allowed. Equally egregious,
our city has not monitored these large-scale projects for compliance with
traffic, circulation, parking or other required environmental mitigations.
Because the city has failed to enforce development agreements as required
by law, residents are justified in insisting that all such agreements be
placed on the ballot for a vote, thereby engendering full discussion and
disclosure of all of the public benefits and burdens.
Sincerely,
The Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City (SMCLC)
Friends of Sunset Park Board of Directors (FOSP)
Village Trailer Park Neighborhood Homeowriers' Association (VTPNHA)
Cc: Lamont Ewell, City Manager
Eileen Fogarty, Planning Director
Maria Stewart, City Clerk
See AOL's top rated reci es and easy ways to stay in shame for winter
Wednesday, December 12, 2007 AOL: Zina Josephs
Live Seazch Maps /Page 1 of 1
~ Z11 ~-G ~
For the best possible print results, click the printer icon on the Live Search Maps page.
Location result for
2834 Colorado Ave, Santa Monica, CA
to
(Q1R
T'! e
spy.
~Y ii .. - ~ "~ ~~~~
I ~
,~, _;;
~-~`
.: --
cN~ ~ rr'Ig ~°;~ ~~.
<: C}, r. ~
~_
y >3 ~
,3a ""
- ~ \ `. -~ .
~ °s ~{2 f:! ~:. .~
~3Ja11 „~
http://maps.live:com/ 12/12/2007
FRAM :Junv_ M Gri rf in
~g~°.e
,~~~a
FAX NO. :310=829-2963 Aug. 01 2007 02:47PM P8
3 ~
Vlll. SUMMARY AND CONCLi1S1ON5
1 ~ 5 ApA R-I n~ a w•t Co w. ro I~ X _
~ ~,g ~'~' R K i w~ s~4e- e~ S
This study was undertaken to analyze the potential for traffic and parking impacts resulting from
the proposed 2834 Colorado Avenue apartment project lopted on the eastern edge of the City
of Santa Monica. The key findings and conclusions of the study are summarized below,
ant esc ttnn -The existing site currently Corrtains approximately 38,000 square
feet of industrial warehouse on approximately 1.76 acres of land. The proposed project
consists of the demolition of the extsOng structures end the redevelopment of the project
site to accommodate a '145-unit aparUnant complex and a subterranean garSge. The
project would provide a total of 228 parking spaces.
Study Area and FxictinA Traffir. ~dlHnns - Detailed intersacton capacity end operation
analyses were conducted at 17 intarsectlons In the vicinity of the project site for weekday
a.m. end p.m. peak hour conditions, Five of the study locations (Yale Street & Broadway,
Stewart Street 8 Olympic Boulevard,. Centineia Avenue 8 Santa Monica Boulevard,
Csniinela Avenue & Colorado Avenue, and Centtne>a Avenue 8 Nebraska Avenue)
currently operate at LOS E or F during the weekday a.m. and/or p.m. peak hours using the
City of Santa Monica analysis methodology. This level of operation is unacceptable under
City of Santa Monica standards,
~`jimulative Base Traffic Con{jJj[ons Witfiout Protect -Future traffic conditions In the
study area were forecast for the year 2012 based on related projects data provided by
the Clry of Santa Monica using the city's Traf7/x model. Tha cumulative bass analyses
indicated that nine of the 17 study intersections era projected to operate at unacceptable
LOS E or F conditions during one or boot of the peak hours prior to devetopmeM of the
proposed projaot.
mart 'trip (:Pneratton -The proposed project Is expected to generate approxjmately
961 dally trips. 74 morning peak hour trips, and 90 afternoon peak hour trips on
weekdays. When the existing uses on Use projed site are considered,. the net
incremental increase In trips generated by the project is estimated at approximately 771
net new daily trips, 57 net n®w trips during the a.m. peak hour, and 70 net new trips
during the p.m. peak hour.
pl~ject Traffic tmnacts -Based on signtftcance criteria used by the City of Santa Monica;
this level 4f' net trip generation Is projected to result in four significantly impacted
Intersectiorfs near the project site: Yale Street 8 Colorado Avenue, Stewart Street &
Colorado Avenue, Stewart Street 8 Olympk Boulevard, and Centineia Avenue 8
Nebraska Avenue, No significant CMP intersection, freeway. or transit impacts are
anticipated.
42
..'~':
^
~!
:Jute= M Grifrin
FPX N0. :310-829-2963 flog. 01 2007 02:413PM P1
pmteet Trefflo Mitjgation Measures .Mitigation measures were identified to fully mitigate
two of the four Intersections signiflcanUy impacted by the proposed project {Stewart
Street & Colorado Avenue and Centinela Avenue 8 Nebraska Avenue). The
intersection of Centfnefa Avenue 8 Nebraska Avenue, however, falls under the
jurisdiction of the City of Las Angeias, end It. Is therefore consitlered signiflpnt and
unavoidable since implementation of the mitigation measure is not under the conUol of the
City of Santa Monica. No feasible mitigation was IdenClfied for the Intersections of Yale
Street & Colorado Avenue and Stewart Street & Olympic Boulevard, so Impacts at these
locations are also significant and unavoidable.
[~,Ciah haQr~Traffic imnarrs _ eased on significance criteria used by the City of Santa
Monica, the project is projected to create significant Impacts on two neighborhood street
segments: Yala Street north of Colorado Avenue, and Nebraska Avenue west of Franklin
Street. No mitigation measures have been identified that would mitigate these impacts to
a less than significant level, and these impacts are therefore considered significant and
unavoidable.
parkins -City of Santa Monica code requires that the project provide a iota) of 228
parking spaces on site, based on the proposed uses, The project would provide 228
parking spaces, satisfying the code requirement.
Yale Street, north of Colorado Avenue
Stanford Street, north ofCoivradoAvenue
• Nebraska Avensrr between Stewart Sheet b CenNnela Avenue
• Stewart Streef, between Exposition Boulevard. f> Virginia Avenue (collector street)
The existing average daily traffic volumes #or each of the above street segments are shown in
Table 4.5-2.
Tabis 4.5-2 Weekday Neighborhood Traffic Volumes
location Street Existing {2003)
ClassifiwEOn ADT
Princeton Sheet
north of Colorado lxal 073
Harvard Street
north of Colorado Local 1.075
ate 3traet
north o! Colorado Loral 3 382
Stanford SVeet
north of Colorado Lopi Z 149
Nebraska Avenue
west of Franklin Local 4,281
Stewart SVeet
between E~asitlon SNd. & Virginia Ava. Gollettpr 8,618
ATTACHMENT C
PROPOSAL SUMMARY & PLANS
Electronic version of attachment is not available for review. Document is available for
review at the City Clerk's office and the Libraries.
24
COLORADO PARTNERS
Jack Walter, Managing Partner
2'700 Colorado Ave., Suite 200
Santa Monica, CA 90404
(310) 251-02$6
January 7, 2008
Ms. Eileen Fogarty
Director of Planning
City of Santa Monica
Re: 2834 Colorado Avenue
Lionsgate Headquarters
Deat Ms. Fogarty:
The purpose of this letter is to request aFloat-up review with the City Council to consider
a development agreement for anew apost-production facility that will serve as
headquarters for the Lionsgate Entertainment Company.
The General Plans intended uses for the Light Manufacturing and Studio District Zone
makes Lionsgate's operation appropriate and desirable for this location.
Proposed Schedule
Lionsgate's lease expires June 2011. They will need to occupy their new headquarters
facility by April 2011. Criven the time necessary for a project of this type and size to be
completed, the schedule would need to be as follows:
1. Project massing and design agreed upon in Apri12008.
2. Construction documents submitted for building permits in August 2008.
3. Building permits issued in December 2008.
4. Construction begins in January 2009.
5. Building shell and the tenant improvements completed in February 2011.
6. Operations commence at the new location in Apri12011.
2.
Previous projects completed reports for this site:
1. A Draft Environmental Impact Report had been completed and circulated for a
145-unit apartment building in September 2003. The cost of the report was $121,000.
2. A Class 32 Categorical Exemption had been prepared for 50 Artist StudioslLive Work
building in June 2007. The cost of the report was $15,000.
3. Soil core tests have bees preformed showing suitable conditions.
4. Two (2) Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment reports have been completed and
found no visible signs or records of hazazdous substances on the property.
5. The ground water in the area is found at a depth of approximately 45', which poses no
problem for the subterranean parking structure.
6. The property has been reviewed and has no historical value.
7. The property does not have any rent-controlled units.
Followin is the proiect site information:
1. Zoning District: LMSD
2. General Plan: Special Office District
3. Pazcel area: 1.76 acres - 76,800 square feet
4. Parcel dimensions: 120' x 640'
5. Adjacent zoning: South -LMSD
East -LMSD
West -across Stewart Street-LMSD & C-5
North -across Colorado Avenue - R2
6. The property is bordered by one and two-story buildings.
General Plan Com Hance:
General Plan:
1. Post-production
2. 45' high
3. 3-stories
4. 2.0 FAR
Project Benefits
3.
Project:
Post-production
45' high
3-stories (LMSD Zone allows 4-stories)
2.0 FAR
The project will provide a variety of benefits to the residents and community of Santa
Monica, including but not limited to:
1. Open space on the corner of Stewart and Colorado Avenue.
2. New revenue from the project to the Santa Monica School District.
3. Opportunities for high paying jobs for Santa Monica residents.
4. Lighter traffic durine peak traffic hours as compared to the existing use or eneral
office use:
Work schedules are generally flexible in the music, film, and entertairunent business.
Typical of creative companies, employees arrive starting after 9:00 A.M. and throughout
the morning and leave after 6:00 P.M. and throughout the evening, which is after the
morning and evening peak traffic hours.
5. Public transit use:
Lionsgate, like other post-production, film, and music companies employ a high
percentage of young people, who are more apt to caz pool or use the transit systems. Bus
service and the proposed Expo Line stop at Bergamot Station is less than a 5-minute walk
from this building. Lionsgate also offers cash incentives for not using personal
automobiles, coordinates carpooling and hands out free transit passes.
6. The post-production, film, and music industry provides high employment with low
impact on the streets, the environment and surrounding neighborhoods.
4.
7. Lions gate's headquarters will be LEEDS certified, supporting Santa Monica's
reputation as an environmentally conscious green city.
8. Pedestrian orientation:
The new project will be removing a wall at the property line and replacing it with an
architecturally pleasing building, sustainable landscaping and interesting azeas that are
pedestrian friendly.
9. Lionsgate provides social benefits to the community:
a. Finical support to organizations like the OPCC, the Red Cross and Santa Monica
homeless shelters.
b. An internship program that works with the local high schools and Santa Monica
City College.
c. A variety of grass roots community based charities.
10. Lionsgate will be the owners and of their headquarters facility, and will be respectful
of the neighbors and the neighborhood.
Thank you in advance for your consideration.
Jack R. Walter
Managing Partner
Colorado Partners
Project Site Information
• Zoning District:
• General Plan:
• Parcel area:
• Parcel dimensions
• Adjacent zoning
LMSD-
Special Office District
1.76 acres - 76,800 square feet
120'x 640'
South & East -LMSD
West -across Stewart Street - LMS
North -across Colorado Avenue - F
General Plan Compliance
General Plan
• Post-production
• 45' high
• 3-stories
Proiect
Post-production
45' high
3-stories (LMSD Zone allows 4-st
• 2.0 FAR
2.0 FAR
--_
concept as presented to Planning Commission.
°'
d'Ff , jr ~~
a ~ ~
~9 !
.
Q.
r
dd
„~~ ~
*" ~ -,
~ ' ~
~~~ ~- _ ~; ~ ~ h ~ i n
z h G> ~
i°"' "
~ , ~
li
~
~
~
3 $` . ~ ~t ~Zq
~ lZead-
`
~ fi
' ~^"' li
p ~ Rs,,,, ~~ rdaMb
t A a n
A
¢
9r~ ~_
*~ r ~
s~ ~ 0 .^~ 0 0 ~ ;~ ~~ ~ .
t,yo' .P~o~, r,;`
O O O
I~
Q R n 11 II {~
R ~ yY tr
~.L i Can l 'T ~I .
~ ~,,,y .em.i
O 0 0
~' ~"~/
5~~~
T~r4 ~
~~/
-~i
L~~
k~
F3
~~
GZ-.dnG
~,dr g
,:
a. n o a a n a s a a a n
Q~ ~~
n a u b cf u n
.,
`~-=~•~`
,o~
~___
"' !Y. ~~ o
u a tr ° °_ a °_ -~-- ° n q G n a 4 a a a ° a a a rl
~~'
.a.., y~ .r~/: ~
~` a a u n q
a {! tr tr a ° a tr a R
~ 3
~•o ~ ii+ a~1e FtlfSre ~/rc
t
- - ~-~
1
O
°~3~-
y 6XV7s.
D NNp G~/ar't
u
Stewart Street
-1-h41>
,~ ~.
~f
A 4
Nh- ~... II ( p.--~.
Page 1 of 1
~o rv g/~1
~~~/~~
From: Michael Burns [MBurns@lionsgate.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 1:17 PM
To: Clerk Mailbox
Cc: Bruce Leach
Subject: Development Agreement - 2834 Colorado Avenue
As the Vice Chairman of Lionsgate, I am writing to share my thoughts regarding the proposed Development
Agreement for the 2834 Colorado Avenue property.
The renovation in question would serve to further grow Lionsgate but also allow us to remain in an area which we
have considered our home since 1998. We believe we have been excellent citizens of Santa Monica over the
years, always remaining steadfast in our desire to help benefit the community in every way possible.
During our time here we have contributed to a number of non-profit organizations such as the Ocean Park
Community Center, working with Bill Jones and John Maceri. We financially contributed toward the development
of the new shelter on Cloverfield Avenue and to the new facility on Olympic Boulevard, the former even being so
kind as to name a room in our honor.
In addition, we have also worked closely with the Red Cross of Santa Monica and with St. John's Hospital,
coordinating blood drives twice each year to benefit the community. Furthermore, Lionsgate has matched
donations which our employees have made to the Red Cross, a practice which not only promoted the interests
and goals of the Red Cross, but which also earned us the 2006 Spirit of Philanthropy Award for our efforts toward
the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.
Lionsgate has also made a commitment to the Rideshare Program, reimbursing employees for transit costs and
rewarding participants at our Monthly Employee Meetings. The majority of our employees travel east from the
office and many have staggered working hours. We view our position in the area as very encouraging to the
continued efforts to control traffic congestion and air pollution in the community.
Since making Santa Monica our home over ten years ago, we hope that you see we have committed ourselves to
the city and trust that you will enable us to continue living and working here, growing together with the Santa
Monica community.
Thank you.
Michael Burns
2/21 /2008
,~D1J ~ gA
~/~~ag
I"L'J
WORKPLACE HOLLYWOOD
1201 West Fifth Street, Suite T-550
Los Angeles, California 90017
213-250-9921
www.workplacehol lywood.org
February 20, 2008
VIA EMAIL
Honorable Members
Santa Monica City Council
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, California
RE: Proposed Lionsgate Film Headquarters Project
Dear Councilmembers:
I want to urge your support of the proposed building project that will be the future international
headquarters of Lionsgate Films. I cannot overemphasize the importance of maintaining and
strengthening the role of greater Los Angeles as the entertainment industry capital of the world---the
development of this headquarters will contribute to that distinction.
Workplace Hollywood is anon-profit, community-based organization formed by the entertainment
industry to ensure that individuals from historically under-represented communities of color, and
economically disadvantaged communities, in Los Angeles can successfully compete for, and gain access
to, jobs in that industry.
At the same time, WH is engaged in the critical task of workforce development here in greater Los
Angeles, focusing on communities of color and disadvantaged populations who need a shot at breaking
into the economic mainstream. We work with employers like Lionsgate on behalf of our candidates and
interns all the time.
Again, please provide us with the opportunity to introduce more of our neighbors to promising and stable
careers in the entertainment industry by approving Lionsgate's proposal. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Larry Kaplan
Executive Director
cc: Bruce Leach
City of Santa Monica
Page 1 of 1
,4Da Tv £fA
y/~/~~
From: Amanda Krieg [akrieg@lionsgate.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 11:29 AM
To: Clerk Mailbox
Cc: Bruce Leach
Subject: Development Agreement - 2834 Colorado Ave
Hello, my name is Amanda Krieg and I have been interning a Lionsgate since this past October.
Lionsgate has played an instrumental role in not only my career choices, but life choices as well. I came
out to Los Angeles to intern at the company before my senior year of college knowing very little about
the film industry, and the people here took me in and gave me an amazing learning experience. Not
only did I get the chance to really participate in a wide variety of projects, but was able to build valuable
relationships with upper level executives, who actually cared about my future. Most of my decision to
pursue a film and move to LA after graduation can be credited to my experiences and the people at
Lionsgate. Now, over a year later, I'm back at Lionsgate and I can always count on those same
executives, as well as many new ones that I've since gotten the opportunity to work with, to always
notice me in the hallway or lunchroom and ask how I am and what I've been up to. While I've learned a
lot about the industry-how to roll a call, how to run adesk-it is those contacts that I feel will benefit
me the most in the future. That's the kind of company Lionsgate is; I never had to fetch a single cup of
coffee.
2/20/2008
Page 1 of 1
A DD ~ gA
~f~/vx
From: Nancy Coleman [ncoleman@lionsgate.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 11:36 AM
To: Clerk Mailbox
Cc: Bruce Leach
Subject: Development Agreement - 2834 Colorado Avenue
As the Executive Vice President of Human Resources and Administration at Lionsgate, I am writing to share my
thoughts regarding the proposed Development Agreement for the 2834 Colorado Avenue property, the renovation
of which would not only enable us to further grow as a company but allow us to remain in an area which we have
considered our home since 1998. We believe we have been excellent citizens of Santa Monica over the years,
always remaining steadfast in our desire to help benefit the community in every way possible. We have
contributed to a number of non-profit organizations such as the Ocean Park Community Center, working with Bill
Jones and John Maceri. We financially contributed toward the development of the new shelter on Cloverfield
Avenue and to the new facility on Olympic Boulevard, the former even being so kind as to name a room in our
honor. Throughout the years, we have also worked closely with the Red Cross of Santa Monica and with St.
John's Hospital, arranging for blood drives twice each year to benefit the community. Lionsgate has also matched
donations which our employees have made to the Red Cross, a practice which not only promoted the interests
and goals of the Red Cross, but which also earned us the 2006 Spirit of Philanthropy Award for our efforts toward
the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. As a company we are also fully committed to the Rideshare Program,
reimbursing employees for transit costs and rewarding participants at our Monthly Employee Meetings. The
majority of our employees travel east from the office and many have staggered working hours. We view our
position in the area as very encouraging to the continued efforts to control traffic congestion and air pollution in
the community. Since making Santa Monica our home over ten years ago, we hope that you see we have
committed ourselves to the city and trust that you will enable us to continue living and working here, growing
together with the Santa Monica community.
Thank you.
Nancy Coleman
N81tC~/ CiO~e1718n~ LIONSGATE I EVP Human Resources and Fldministrationi w: 316-255-39291 f: 310-255-3940 I e:
ncnleman~lonsgate.com '
2/20/2008
~~D To ~~
~f /~/v S~
To: Santa Monica City Council Members: Mayor Herb Katz, Mayor ProTem
Richard Bloom, Council Member Robert Holbrook, Council Member Pam
O'Connor, Council Member Bobby Shriver, Council Member Kevin McKeown,
Council Member Ken Genser
From: Katharine Muller, City of Santa Monica resident and
Dean of Santa Monica College
Academy of Entertainment & Technology
Re: Colorado Creative Studios Discussion
I am writing to support the proposed Colorado Creative Studios project to be
located at 2834 Colorado Avenue in my capacities as both a Santa Monica
resident and a Santa Monica College administrator.
One of my roles at the College is to serve as Dean of the Santa Monica College
(SMC) Academy of Entertainment & Technology (AET), located on Stewart
Street across from the proposed project. Although it is not the policy of Santa
Monica College (SMC) to provide official support for local development projects,
my support for this project is based on the valuable opportunities for synergy and
partnership between the Academy of Entertainment & Technology and the
Colorado Creative Studios/Lionsgate.
The proposed project will house a large and sophisticated production facility.
Courses in production and post production are among the many courses offered
at the Academy of Entertainment & Technology. The proposed new facility will
expand the current Lionsgate operation, making opportunities for internships and
specialized demonstrations even more accessible for AET students. Thus, this
project as currently proposed would make an ideal neighbor for the Santa Monica
College Academy of Entertainment & Technology.
The Colorado Creative Studios developers have discussed possible traffic
mitigation efforts that take into consideration issues the AET would have. And as
Lionsgate is already a presence in Santa Monica, moving to the proposed new
site would not be adding significant traffic to the Colorado corridor.
As a Sunset Park resident I support economic growth that is clean and brings
well paid employment opportunities to our community, as this project would be
and do.
I urge you to favorably consider the proposed Colorado Creative Studios project.
Page 1 of 1
~~~ ~ S~
y/~/~s'
From: MOTTLER_GLORIA [MOTTLER_GLORIA@smc.eduj
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 6:06 PM
To: Clerk Mailbox
Cc: Bruce Leach
Subject: Letter in support of the Lionsgate Project
Members of the Santa Monica City Council,
This is sent in support of the Lionsgate Project. My name is Gloria Mottler, AET Program
Advisor/Internships at Santa Monica College (SMC), Academy of Entertainment and Technology
(AET). I recently met with Jack Walter and he discussed the Lionsgate project and went over the
plans with me. I
was impressed with how well thought out the project is, this will be a big improvement for the
neighborhood.
The project once completed will create a wonderful synergy between Santa Monica College/AET and
Lionsgate. Katharine Muller, Dean of
External Programs at SMC has had a conversation with Nancy Coleman, Head of Human Resources
for Lionsgate and the response was very
positive in her willingness to work with us to secure internships for our students.
Also, I feel by having Lionsgate Films right across the street it will give the Academy great
exposure to those who come to do business
with Lionsgate.
In closing, I can only restate that I think this is a °Win, Win" for the neighborhood and Santa
Monica College, Academy of Entertainment and Technology.
Best,
Gloria Mottler
AET Program Advisor/Internships
Santa Monica College
Academy of Entertainment & Technology
1660 Stewart St., Santa Monica, CA 90404
310 434-3712 / 310 434-3768 FAX
2/22/2008
~-~-6~
April 8, 2008
To: City Council
From: FOSP Board of Directors
Re: 4/8/08 agenda item 8-A (Development agreement concept plan for 2834 Colorado Ave. -Lionsgate)
In 2004, the Board of Friends of Sunset Park took a position opposing all large development projects
unless traffic impacts on residential neighborhoods could be mifigated. Based on that position, we
opposed the development agreement regarding the Lantana expansion due to the anticipated impact on
Stewart/28th and Cenfinela.
Now, another large project is proposed nearby that may bring additional traffic through Sunset Park via
Stewart/28th, Centinela, and other north-south streets. Assuming that the City Council goes ahead with
the development agreement concept plan for 2834 Colorado Ave., we would like the Council to consider
the following points:
1. Lionsgate seems to be a corporate "good citizen," and it appears that the new project would generate
traffic basically during "off-peak" hours.
2. But the reality is that we, as a community, have to face our unacceptable traffic problems. We have a
responsibility to the community to do so.
3. Therefore, the Lionsgate project must be trip neutral and preferably reduce trips during peak hours.
The project affects Sunset Park because of its location on Stewart/28th.
a. Employees commuting to the south (Venice, Del Rey, Marina del Rey, Playa Vista, etc.) will
use 28`h St. and other north-south streets in Sunset Park to get to and from their homes.
b. Southbound Centinela is extremely congested in the afternoon. The westbound 10 entrance is
north of Pico, and the eastbound 10 entrance is south of Pico.
c. Southbound Bundy, leading to another 10 freeway entrance, is extremely congested, and a
250,000 sq ft medical facility is planned for Bundy and Olympic.
d. It can already take 10 minutes to get from Olympic to Pico on southbound Stewart/28th.
4. FOSP wants to be involved in the negotiations because we think the Special Office District (where
the proposed project is located) has been the nemesis in our growing Sunset Park cut-through traffic
congestion. Any future development agreements in that district have to reduce the problem we, as a
city, created when the Special Office District was set up.
5. Future development agreements, including Lionsgate, need to include measurable standards with
established penalties to enforce the agreements. The penalties cannot be merely a slap on the wrist.
For example, Lionsgate could be required to pay for traffic study now, and then another study in 3
years. If the situation has deteriorated, the company would be required to develop/fund mitigation
measures.
6. We need a traffic methodology that accurately reflects what residents have to deal with on a daily
basis.
7. We are also concerned about the existing small businesses on the property, where in Santa Monica
they will be able to re-locate to, and how they will survive.
Thank you for your consideration.
1
aPR - ~ zocs
From: Aptaker, Bob [Bob.Aptaker@macerich.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2008 2:23 PM
To: Clerk Mailbox
Cc: Travis Page; Jack Walter; Paul Foley
Subject: Lionsgate Project
w,rvv.macsrrich.com
I would like to express Macerich's overall support for Lionsgate's proposal for a new headquarters/production
facility in Santa Monica.
As you might know, Lionsgate is a premier entertainment company already based in Santa Monica, and the
company's desire to remain a vibrant part of the city's business community provides many benefits to the city as a
whole.
These benefits include employment for Santa Monica residents; and the pride of place of an on-site property
owner with a demonstrated commitment to quality, local interests and community involvement. As well,
Lionsgate's role in the entertainment industry underscores Santa Monica's established reputation as a hub for this
high-profile business sector.
We hope you will positively consider Lionsgate's development request with an eye toward keeping this well-
recognized, progressive company in Santa Monica for the long term.
Thank you for the opportunity to express our support.
Bob Aptaker ~ Vice President -Development
...........................
Macerich
401 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 700
Santa Monica, CA 90401
p. 310 .394 .6000 -Reception
p. 310 .899 .6385 -Direct
f. 310 .656 .0041
~~(~ - u ~Gdrd
4/8/2008 ~ ,~
To Whom It May Concern,
APR - $ 2GC&
:,-
4-7-08 _
~iul!`,~ -! T'["I ~: fib
This letter is in support of the proposed Lipnsgate Headquarters redevelopment.
As a business owner in Santa Monica, I feel that this particular lot in Santa Monica is
underutilized in its current state, and would benefit from a redevelopment in that site. Being a
larger corporation, Lionsgate will have a strong traffic management plan in place as a city
requirement to combat traffic congestion, and can network with other companies in their area to
help reduce single occupancy trips. Furthermore, the property is located on the far east side
of Santa Monica, which translates that most Lionsgate employees will not be driving through
Santa Monica proper when coming and going to work. Generally, the creative arts
companies work flexible hours, further helping to reduce peak hour traffic.
Furthermore, companies such as Lionsgate do create revenue for surrounding Santa Monica
businesses. Our hotels currently work with many of the neighboring corporate companies such
as Yahoo and MN to provide lodging needs to their vistiting travelers, which we would also do
for Lionsgate.
Michael Farzam
Ocean Avenue Management, LLC
1525 Ocean Avenue
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Te1:310-849-7991
APR - S 2G~8
® ~° .
APR - ~ 2C08
From: Jesse Bornstein [Jesse@bornarch.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2008 10:52 AM
To: Clerk Mailbox
Subject: Item 8A of 4/8/08 City Council Hearing
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
As a longtime resident of Santa Monica, as a local architect, and with no affiliation with or personal stake in the
matter, I encourage you to endorse in concept this evening's agenda Item 8A. I am generally impressed by the
Planning Commission's 12/12(07 recommendations to the City Council regarding this proposed project and I
encourage the City Council to use the Planning Commission's recommendations as a basis for proceeding with a
Development Agreement. I am confident the City of Santa Monica and the developer will negotiate a mutually
beneficial Development Agreement for the proposed Lionsgate project at 2834 Colorado Avenue.
There are many reasons to support this project. I especially supportive of this project given its proximity to the
future METRO station. I encourage the City Council to consider this project an opportunity to help achieve a
critical mass of ridership and thereby help the future light rail system to be financially viable. I believe the City of
Santa Monica has an opportunity with this proposed project to take the lead in promoting urban density that
supports the larger regional mass transit system we all want to succeed.
As a local architect, I am concerned about one particular recommendation by the Planning Commission. That is
to "Break up the long rectangular look of the building along Stewart Street and provide a sensitive treatment to the
Colorado Avenue fagade". While the recommendation is surely well meaning and certainly appropriate on the
face of it; the physical manifestation of such recommendations are some of the clumsiest, "design by committee"
buildings in the city. No offense intended to the architects or individual commissioners who helped create
pastiches such as the replacement of the Boulangerie on Main Street or the mixed use project at the corner of
Main Street and Marine, but generally speaking when it comes to good architecture, less is more. Having
reviewed the preliminary renderings for the Lionsgate project, I am quite impressed by the tasteful horizontal
massing, broad overhanging eaves and simple palette of finish materials. It is reminiscent of Frank Lloyd Wright's
"Prarie School" style. Once you start requiring change in materials the effect is lost. I strongly suggest that
issues of scale and proportion, massing and finishes, be left to members of the Architectural Review Board to
consider.
Thank you of your consideration,
Jesse Bornstein, AIA
Jesse bornstein architecture
250? 7th Street
Santa \~Ionica, CA 90405-3808
t: (310) 399-6583
f: (310) 399-6584
c: (310) 259-6912
e: Jesse@bornarch.com
w: http://www.bornarch.com
No virus foi;~~d in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.519 /Virus Database: 269.22.9/1365 -Release Date: 4/8/2008 7:30 AM
4/8/2008
APR - & X08
.
,`iPR - ~ 2G~i8
From: ZinaJosephs@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2008 4:24 PM
To: Clerk Mailbox
Subject: FOSP: Council 4/8/08 agenda item 8-A (Lionsgate development agreement)
From: Zina Josephs
To: pam.oconnor@smgov.net, richard.bloom@smgov.net, robert.holbrook@smgov.net,
city@genser.org, bobby.shriver@smgov.net, kevin@mckeown.net, RTKARCti, council@smgov.net,
Lamont.Ewell@smgov.net, Eileen.Fogarty@SMGOV.NET, Bruce.Leach@smgdv.net
CC: Zina Josephs
Sent: 4/8/2008 4:17:48 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time
Subj: FOSP: Council 4/8/08 agenda item 8-A (Lionsgate development agreement)
April 8, 2008
To: City Council
From: FOSP Board of Directors
Re: 4/8/08 agenda item 8-A (Development agreement concept plan for 2834 Colorado Ave. -
Lionsgate)
In 2004, the Board of Friends of Sunset Park took a position opposing all large development projects
unless traffic impacts on residential neighborhoods could be mitigated. Based on that position, we
opposed the development agreement regarding the Lantana expansion due to the anticipated impact
on Stewart/28th and Centinela.
Now, another large project is proposed nearby that may bring additional traffic through Sunset Park via
Stewart/28th, Centinela, and other north-south streets. Assuming that the City Council goes ahead
-with the development agreement concept plan for 2834 Colorado Ave., we would like the Council to
consider the following points:
1. Lionsgate seems to be a corporate "good citizen," and it appears that the new
project would generate traffic basically during "off-peak" hours.
2. But the reality is that we, as a community, have to face our unacceptable traffic problems. We have
a responsibility to the community to do so.
3. Therefore, the Lionsgate project must be trip neutral and preferably reduce trips during peak
hours. The project affects Sunset Park because of its location on Stewart/28th.
a. Employees commuting to the south (Venice, Del Rey, Marina del Rey, Playa Vista, etc.) will use
28th
St. and other north-south streets in Sunset Park to get to and from their homes.
b. Southbound Centinela is extremely congested in the afternoon. The westbound 10 entrance is
north of
Pico, and the eastbound 10 entrance is south of Pico.
c. Southbound Bundy, leading to another 10 freeway entrance, is extremely congested, and a
250,000 sq
ft medical facility is planned for Bundy and Olympic.
d. It can already take 10 minutes to get from Olympic to Pico on southbound Stewart/28th.
aPR - s 2c~a
4/8/2008 -
4. FOSP wants to be involved in the negotiations because we think the Special Office District (where
the proposed project is located) has been the nemesis in our growing Sunset Park cut-through traffic
congestion. Any future development agreements in that district have to reduce the problem we, as a
city, created when the Special Office District was set up.
5. Future development agreements, including Lionsgate, need to include measurable standards with
established penalties to enforce the agreements. The penalties cannot be merely a slap on the wrist.
For example, Lionsgate could be required to pay for traffic study now, and then another study in 3
years. If the situation has deteriorated, the company would be required to develop/fund mitigation
measures.
6. We need a traffic methodology that accurately reflects what residents have to deal with on a daily
basis.
7. We are also concerned about the existing small businesses on the property, where in Santa Monica
they will be able to re-locate to, and how they will survive.
Thank you for your consideration
Planning your summer road trip? Check out AOL Travel Guides.
Planning your summer road trip? Check out AOL Travel Guides.
4/8/2008
March 30, 2008
City Clerk
Re: Colorado Creative Studios Discussion
1685 Main Street, Room 102
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Dear City Clerk:
x_
_ ~~ t€_
n
Cif ~=&~r`'t °~ ~If a: ~8
Before approving the Colorado Creative Studios project, please consider the following:
Wait to approve this project until AFTER the LUCE process is completed. Why spend so
much time, money and effort on the LUCE process if projects such as Colorado Greative
are "pushed through" with total disregard for the results of the LUCE and needs/desires
of the citizens of Santa Monica?
Wait to approve this project until proper traffic studies are done. This project will add
500 vehicles daily to the intersection of Stewart, Yale and Colorado. Another 500
automobiles maybe added to adjacent property if Village Trailer Park is redeveloped.
Can this area handle 1,000 vehicles?
Finally, it is unconscionable to develop remaining parcels of land to commercial only
use. Redo this project to include housing of some sort -workplace, affordable or market
rate. Mixed use the new goal, so where is the housing?
Sincerely,
r ~L ~~~
Gayle .Cooper
Village Trailer Park (resident)
APR - & 2Q~8
APR - s ~ce~