The URL can be used to link to this page

sr-061483-8cC/ED:MT:PS:KW:lw ,.-- Council Mtg: 6/14/83 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: City Staff rlor ~br~E Santa Monica, California g~c JUN 1 4 1993 SUBJECT: Proposed Inn at Santa Monica Development Agreement Summary This staff report reviews the proposed Development Agreement between the City and Roman Properties to permit the addition of 134 rooms to the existing Inn at Santa Monica at 530 Pico Boulevard. The application fora Development Agreement has been pending since September 1982. A Public Hearing before the Planning Commission was held in December 1982. By law, the applicant had the right to a hearing before the City Council 30 days after the Commission hearing, but in response to recommendations by the Commission, the applicant delayed action on the project for six months. A second Planning Commission Public Hearing was held on May 23, 1983 at which the Commission tentatively recommended approval of the 10-story version of the project. The development would occur in the vacant lot adjacent to the existing Hotel in either a six- or ten-story addition. The proposed addition is a permitted use in the R4 Zone, however the height of the six-story alternative would slightly exceed Zoning standards and would substantially exceed Interim Guideline standards. The ten-story alternative would substantially exceed both Zoning and Interim Guideline standards. Other major features of the proposed project would substantially conform to existing standards. The project s=.ill provide adequate parking to meet anticipated demand and while increasing overall traffic volume JUN 1 4 1963 Mayor and City Council -2- June 14, 1983 will result in reduced traffic impacts to the residential areas on Sixth Street and Bay Street. Special features of the Development Agreement, such as a resident employment goal, provision of a shuttle bus, and contributions to the City convention center are expected to be of community-wide benefit. In addition, the project will generate significant net revenues to the City, which could be used for a variety of purposes benefiting the general welfare. An Environmental Impact Report prepared on the project found no significant impacts would occur as a result of the project, but also included numerous mitigation measures which will reduce a variety of potential adverse effects. A recommendation for Council certification of the environmental analysis and approval of the ten-story version of the project is included. Background This report presents a discussion of a proposed Development Agreement between the City of Santa Monica and Roman Properties, a California limited partnership. The Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on the matter on December 13, 1982, and adopted a motion recommending to the City Council that action be delayed for six months pending further progress on the preparation of a new Land Use Element of the General Plan, and preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on the proposed project. Although the applicant had the legal right to request City Council review thirty days after the Planning Commission's Hearing on December 13, 1982, he agreed to the six-month postponement and agreed to reimburse the City for preparation of an EIR. The applicant also offered to provide the Ocean Park Community Mayor and City Council -3- dune 14, 1983 Organization (OPCO) with a $2500 grant to retain an independent parking and traffic consultant to review analysis prepared by the applicant's consultants. OPCO accepted the applicant's offer. After discussions with staff, the applicant also agreed to give. the Planning Commission a second opportunity to review the proposed project and to hold a Public Hearing on it, even though a second review would not be legally required. The staff felt a second Commission review was appropriate given the scope of the project, preparation of additional environmental analysis, and progress on the Land Use Element. On May 23 the Planning Commission held a Public Hearing and made tentative recommendations to the Council for approval of the 10-story version of the project. The Council has already received a copy of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR), and will receive the Final EIR prior to the June 14 Council meeting. Only one set of comments on the draft EIR have been received. These, and a response, are attached as Exhibit E• Existing Land Use Conditions in Vicinity of Proposed Project The proposed project is an expansion to the Inn at Santa Monica, an existing 11-story, 182-room hotel located at 530 Pico Boulevard at the corner of Pico Boulevard and Sixth Street in Santa Monica. The hotel expansion site is a vacant 31,870 square foot ~4-zoned parcel located adjacent to the existing hotel. The site has frontage on Pico Boulevard and Bay Street. Mayor and City Council -4- June 14, 1983 Adjacent to the expansion project site is the Inn at Santa Monica, located on a 54,800 square foot R4-zoned parcel. Both parcels are owned by Roman Properties. South of the existing hotel on the same parcel is an existing 97 unit, 3-story-over-garage apartment building. The units in this building are subject to the City's Rent Control law. The hotel lobby entrance and focal point for arriving and departing - hotel guests is on Sixth Street near Pico Boulevard. The hotel includes a coffee shop, cocktail lounge, a small retail sales area, a kitchen and offices. There is a 4,700 square foot ballroom/meeting room on the top floor of the hotel. On-site parking for both the hotel and apartments is located under the apartment building in two levels. The upper level contains 83 parking spaces for hotel use; vehicular access is from a driveway located on Sixth Street. The lower parking level contains 129 spaces for the apartment units, and, in certain circumstances, hotel use. Across Pico Boulevard from the site is the Santa Monica High School. campus. West of the site on the same side of Pico Boulevard are a single family home, 1 and 2 story apartment buildings, and various 1-2 story commercial buildings. East of the hotel and on the same side of Pico Boulevard is series of 2-story apartment buildings. Immediately across Sixth Street from the existing hotel is a 2-story apartment building. Development on Bay Street in the vicinity of the project consists of a variety of 1-2 story single family homes and apartments. Land uses in the project area are displayed in.Figure 9 from the EIR, which follows in this report. -5- ~®~~~~ ~l~Ul"@ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~® RESIDENT IAL HIGH SCHOOL ~~ ~~~~~~ Mayor and City Council =(- June 14, 1983 Existing Zoning and Interim Guidelines Governing Proposed Project The proposed expansion site, as well as the current hotel site is zoned R4. Under both existing zoning and the Interim Guidelines hotels are a generally permitted use in the R4 zone, with no restrictions on the number of hotel rooms. Current zoning provides for a six story and 65 foot height limit while the Interim Guidelines provide for a basic R4 height limit of four stories and 50 feet. Under both zoning and Interim Guidelines lot coverage is limited to 50 percent. Parking requirements are also identical. For a new hotel there is a requirement for one space for the first 40 rooms and one space for every three rooms thereafter. The parking requirement for associated commercial space is one space for every 250 square feet of gross floor area. .Restaurants and bars"must provide one space for every five seats. Zoning in the project area is shown in Figure 10 from the EIR, which follows in this report. Building setback requirements are the same for the zoning and the Interim Guidelines: basically a 20 foot front setback, 15 foot rear setback, and sideyard setbacks equal to five feet plus the number of stories times the lot width divided by 50. Relationship Between Proposed Project and City's General Plan The existing Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the general area of the site as "high-density residential". The Land Use and Circulation Elements, both adopted in 1958, are presently being revised. Drafts of these Elements have not yet been prepared, although a variety of "issue papers" have been written which focus on various areas and categories of land use in the City. None of these background reports specifically deal with the site of the cq c4 R3 g M2 C4 C4 R3 ~ '' 2__ TF T TCNTr c4 C4 R]--~-F~ M2 ~ rC4 C4 R3 ~ el MZ ~ L~l N•NTr C4 C4 R3 7 M 2 F C4 F M I inpo uNCOI C4 F a M 2 44 1 CC 3 g ~ M i ~ $HV NT" n(>. C3 ~ q< [' 3 _ M 2 E MI [.~ But •.nD< ~U c3 a c3 M I O PALq C. Cj"~ V M 1 C3 ~ C3 i C8 rw ST vcl ~ I d ~p L Q _.. R3 u d u J <~ ('a ~ Rz Rz Rz Ra ~ Re ~ :.. . Ra ~ ry RZ ~ R 2'F . ~ v _~v r.. to M I) ~ ~ R2 a ~~ r oR' R2 ~ ~ R2 R2 t k R2 m Rz ®E VE wLEV ---~.~~4 ~ ~V~G,N~ AN R} R3 R3 tll R R3 II - >~.~orl.e ~ R3 N R3 oAr. V R3 R3 0 "~ u... ~a R, u •.:arnwuo T.uw a~ R3 ~ .... ~ R3 u~ ~ '~ R 3 a U ~ R3 R~ R3 :~ °°~ 4~ a `" < `i cM 2 rJa z R 3 pl CM z CM ~ ~ 1 -~V ~ .M~4 J LY9; C CM 3 ~+ n l~+ n I aVC N ,~ , .... l~li R'''te 3 ~ R 3 Sv" •,r ~.. uflRj3 11 R3-~_ ~'_'~.. ~ ' R3 a ~ CR 2 GM• 1 R 4 R /f'~11 I v 1 ~dlY~ 0 500 1000 1500 ~~~~ Z I ~ S®u~c~; C~fy ®f S~nt~ ®n~ca Mayor and City Council -8- June 14, 1983 proposed project. However, the Issue Paper of most apparent relevance to the project, the "Ocean Front Issue Paper" suggests that hotel development is desirable for several reasons, including enhanced. revenues to the City, increased employment opportunities, and less traffic as compared to certain other uses. Description of Proposed Project. Two alternative expansion buildings have been proposed b1~ the developer. These are discussed below. Schematic drawings illustrating the two alternatives are included in Appendix D. Table 20 from the EIR compares-the basic features of the two alternatives. Six-Story Alternative. Under this proposal, the new hotel building would be a six-story, 68,340 square foot building with 134 guest rooms, a lobby with associated retail concessions, and a cocktail lounge. The new hotel building would have a maximum six floor levels at its Pico Boulevard frontage and would step down in height in the direction of Bay Street from six. to two stories. The building also steps down in height in a westerly direction.. A subterranean garage would be developed under the new addition. Access to this garage would be provided from a new motorcourt area located at the P~,o Boulevard frontage of the new hotel building. Lot coverage would be approximately 550, As part of the development, six existing apartment units adjacent to the vacant lot would be moved off-site and six new apartment units would be developed in the existingj97-uhit apartment building adjacent to the site. -9- TABLE 20 PROPOSED SIX STORY -TEN STORY PROJECT COMPARISON Proposed Six Story Project Proposed Ten Story Project Number of Hotel 134 Same as Six Story Project Guest Rooms A~ldc ed: Number of On-site New: = 164 Same as Six Story Project Par ing Spaces Existing: 212 + 23 (re- rovi e striping/reorganization) = 235 Total (apartment/ho tell = 399 Maximum Building 6 floor levels 10 floor levels eig t: 66.5 feet top of roof from 104.3' top of roof fran average natural grade average natural grade Percentage Lot Covered 55% 46.5% y Proposed Bui ing Square Footage of 68,340 S. F. 72,400 S. F. ropose ui ing• Lobby Location/ New lobby on Pico Boulevard; Same as Six Story Project Ve icu ar Pe es- hotel access limited to new trian Access: lobby area; Median break on Pico Boulevard adjacent to new lobby for hotel W'LY bound vehicul ar traffic; apartment access from 6th Street or Bay Street Incidental Retail/ Coffee Shop: approx. 120 seat Same as Six Story Project estaurant ounge capaci` y~ except Coffee Shop capa- Space: city increased by Restaurant/Lounge: approx. approximately 15 seats 20 seat capacity Retail: roughly 1,000 S. F. New Lobby Bar: approx. 25 seat capacity Development Agreement See Subsection III. B. 5. Same as Six Story Provisions herein Proj ec t Mayor and City Council -10- June 14, 1983 A total of 399 parking spaces including a number of aisle spaces and tandem spaces would be provided in the new garage and existing garage, including 107 spaces reserved for apartment use. The City Code allows aisle and tandem spaces if there is valet parking, which will be included in the project. As mentioned above the focus for arriving and departing hotel guests for the existing hotel is presently at the lobby entrance on Sixth Street near Pico Boulevard. With the hotel expansion, the focus of vehicular arrivals and departures will shift to the new motorcourt area on Pico Boulevard. With the exception of an exit door, the existing lobby entrance on Sixth Street will be closed off. The lobby floor .level of the existing hotel building will be remodeled; the registration area will be decreased in size; the coffee shop will be increased in size from approximately 108 seats to 120 seats; the restaurant and lounge area will be decreased in size from approximately 129 seats to 120 seats and the kitchen and incidental retail concession areas will be enlarged. The new and existing hotel buildings will join at the second through sixth floors. 10-Story Alternative. Discussed here are only those major features different from the 6-story alternative. The 10-story portion of the project would be a maximum of 102 feet high. The nine-story portion would be 92 feet 6 inches high, the 7-story portion would be 73 feet six inches high, the 5-story portion would be 54 feet 6 inches high, the 3-story portion would be 35 feet six inches high, and the 2-story portion would be 22 feet high. Mayor and City Council -11- June 14, 1983 Setbacks are shown in Table 21. As the Table shows, setbacks increase as the height of the building increases. Overall lot coverage would equal approximately 48 percent. Relation of Proposed Project to Zoning and Interim Guidelines Attached is Table 21 from the EIR which compares the six- and ten- story alternatives to the Interim Guidelines. The Interim Guidelines analysis is presented because the Guidelines provide more restrictive standards than the Zoning Code. The maximum height of both alternatives substantially exceed the Interim Guidelines standard. The setbacks generally conform to City standards with the exception of the higher portions of the alternative buildings. The City lot coverage standard is exceeded for the six-story alternative but not the ten-story alternative. Under City standards, the proposed development would either have to be taken as an addition to an existing project, in which case a variance of lot coverage would be necessary; or as a separate development on an adjoining lot, in which case a variance of yard space would be necessary to permit attachment of the two separate structures. It should be noted, however, that a development agreement can supercede normal zoning requirements for height, yard or other variances. TABLE 21 SOWCE: SANTA MONICA PLANNING DEPT, THE SV! GROUP _ INTERIM GUIDELINE R-4 ZONE ANALYSIS, SIX AND TEN STORY PROJECTS USE LOT AREA/OI MENSIONS .BUILDING HEIGHT PERMITTED/REQUIRED BY INTERIM GUIDELINE R-4 ZONE (C ,C,S, 6385)* HOTELS INCLUDING INCIDENTAL BUSINESS, MULTIPLE OWELLI NGS, APARIM ENT, HOTELS, R-1, R-2-R, R-2 AND R-3 USES, ETC, M IN IMU4 5,000 S, F, /M IN IMUN LOT WIDTH 50 fEET/DEPTH 100 FEET 4 STO21E5 AND 50' TO TOP OF ROOF EXCEPT 3 STORIES AND 40' TO TOP OF ROOF FOR PO2T ION OF SIB JECT PROPERTY WITH IN 35' OF CENTERLINE OF ALLEY ADJACENT TO R-3 ZONED FROPERT IES BUILDING SETBACK FRONT: 20' (BAY ST,"8 PICO BLVD,) SIDES: 2 STORIES REQUIRES Q4' 3 STOR IES REQUIRES 11, 6' 4 STCR IES REQUIRES 13,8' 5 STORIES REQUIRES 16,0' 6 STORIES REQUIRES 18,2' 7 STQ'21ES REQUIRES 20,4' • 95TCR1ES REQUIRES 24,8' 10 STORIES REQUIRES 32,0' SIB GARAGE ALONG W'LY PROPERTY LINE 6 STORY PF20JECT: 7, 8'-12,2' 10 STORY FRO JECT: 3.4'-26,0' LOT COVERAGE NOT TO EXG EED 50$ OF LDT AREA; ONE HALF CF LOT NOT COVERED SHALL BE LANDSCAPED; REDUCTION OF LOT COVERAGE TO MAXIMIZE LIGHT AND AIR ENCOURAGED DENSITY NO LIMIT ON HOTEL R0O4 S; _~0 S, F, LOT AREA/DAELLING WIT " PROPOSED SIX STORY PROJECT PROPOSED TEN STORY PROJECT 134 GUEST ROOd HOTEL; ON-SITE REPLAC BdENT OF THE SIX EXISTING RENTAL WITS BEING RELOCATED TO ANOTHER SITE SPME AS FQ2 PROPOSED SIX STORY PROJPoT 31, BAT S, F, PROPERTY LOT WIDTH 110' LOT DEPTH 279' MULTI-STORY BLDG: 2 STGR IES 8 23' 8 4 STCR IES 8 42' FOR PORTION OF PROPOSED BLDG WITHIN 35' ff ALLEY CENTERLINE; 3 STORIES 8 33'; 6 STAR IES 8 66' TO TOP OF ROOF FOR HIGHEST PORTION OF BUILDING FROM: 20' (BAY ST, AND PICO BLVD,); 75" BALCONY ENCROACHdENT SIDES: 2 STORY TH2U 6 STORY PORTION OF BLDG, - 14,5' SUB GARAC~: 4, 0'-14,0' 55$ OF LOT COVERED; ONE HALF ff LOT NDT COVERED IS LANDSCAPED 134 GUEST ROOMS; REPLACE THE 6 RELOCATED RENTAL APARTMENT WITS ON-SITE SAME AS FOR fl20POSED SIX STORY PROJECT MULTI STORY BUILDING: COd PL IES WITH ALLEY CENTERLINE HEIGHT REQUIRBd ENT; 10 STCR IES AND 104,3' TO TOP G ROOF FOR HICHiEST:PORTION Of BUILDING FRONT: PICO BOULEVARD - 30^ I F-' BAY STREET - 36' ~ SIDES: FROd W'LY PROPERTY LINE 2-1.0 STORY PERT ION OF BUILDING = 15'; FROM E'LY PROPERTY LINE: - 2 STORY PORTION OF BLDG, VARIES FROM 10, 3' TO 25' - 3THRU 10 STORY PORTIONS ff BLDG, = 25' SIBGARAGE: 5,0'-15,0' (PORTION OF BUILDING CONNECTS TO EXIST- ING HOTEL TFROUC+i REQUIRED SI OEYARD) 46,5$ DF LOT COVERED; ONE HALF CF LOT NOT COVERED IS LANDSCAPED SAME AS FOR PROPOSED SIX STORY PROJECT NOTE: PER THE SANTA MONICA MW ICIPAL CODE, ADJUSTMENTS/VARIANCES FRO4 ANY OF THE ABOVE R-4 ZONING REGULATIONS MAY BE GRANTED IF ffEM ED JUSTIFIED/APPROPRIATE, * INTERIM GUIDELINE ZONING REQJIRETI ENTS H4 VE BEEN CHOSEN HERE BECAUSE THEY ARE MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN ADOPTED ZONING CODE AND THERffCRE O=FER A "WORST CASE° CONFORdANgE RELATIONSHIP TO PROPOSED 7EN STORY PROJECT, Mayor and City Council -13- June 14, 1983 Parking Analysis The parking situation for this project is complex given the mix of existing and planned uses, different ways of analyzing code requirements, and projected demand characteristics. Currently, there are a total of 212 parking spaces provided for the ..existing uses, with 83 spaces in an upper level reserved for hotel use and 129 spaces in a lower level primarily used by the apartment residents. Only 97 of the apartment spaces are assigned to apartment units; the remaining 32 spaces are sometimes utilized for overflow hotel parking. One way to consider hotel parking is to develop a general ratio of parking spaces to hotel rooms. Currently, there is a ratio of .6 spaces per room (115 hotel spaces to 181 rooms). The proposed project would provide a total of 399 parking spaces, with 103 spaces reserved for apartment use and 296 spaces for hotel use. (The 399 figure represents an increase of 7 spaces from the parking design presented in December 1982; the additional spaces were obtained through various design changes.) With a total of 296 hotel spaces and 316 rooms, this equals a ratio of .9 spaces per room, a significant improvement from the current situation. Because the existing uses would be "grandfathered in", technically, the City Cade would only require a toal of 82 parking spaces for the hotel addition. However, because of marketing requirements and community concern, the applicant will be providing 187 new spaces, or more than double the Code requirement. Even if the existing and new uses are considered as a single project, planned parking exceeds that which would be required by the Code for a totally new building. A total of 355 spaces would be required for a new building, while the proposed project would provide 399 spaces, or 44 more than required by Code. Mayor and City Council -14- June 14, 1983 The demand analysis in the EIR indicates a peak parking demand of 378 spaces, which would occur at 8:00 P.M. when the ball room is in use. This demand figure also assumes that airline contract rooms will amount to 1~ percent of all rooms, significantly .less than was assumed in the original parking study. This change produces a higher and more realistic estimate of parking demand if the facility is operated as a Holiday Inn. Clearly, with a peak demand of 378 spaces, the 399 planned parking supply would be more than adequate and should not result in significant parking impacts to the surrounding neighborhood, especially considering that parking will be free to hotel guests and visitors. Traffic Circulation Analysis An updated circulation study was prepared by Linscott, Law and Greenspan in response to comments on and changes to the project following preparation of the traffic analysis contained in the October 1982 EIA. The new analysis takes into consideration operation of the expanded facility as a Holiday Inn, decreased utilization by airline flight crews, and relocation of the main parking garage entrance from 6th Street' to Pico Boulevard. One of the major concerns of neighbors of the project site has been traffic impacts. The EIR circulation analysis indicates that while- the expansion will result in an increase in overall traffic volumes, because of the. relocation of the parking garage entrance to Pico Boulevard and the placement of a left-turn pocket for westbound traffic (adjacent to the proposed new garage entrance), hotel-related traffic will be effectively removed from 6th Street and Bay Street, the focus of neighbors' concerns. Mayor and City Council --i.5- June 14, 1983 (Residents of the Namor Apartments will continue to use a garage driveway on either 6th Street or Bay Street). Thus, the proposed project results in a traffic volume improvement for 6th Street and Bay Street. The analysis shows that proposed project will increase westbound traffic volumes on Pico Boulevard by two percent, and eastbound volumes by about seven percent, which still result in overall volumes less than capacity. In addition, it should be noted that the proposed 4th Street Freeway on-ramp, if built, will divert a significant proportion of westbound vehicles traveling on Pico west of 4th Street, which currently proceed on Pico Boulevard to Lincoln Boulevard. This proposed new on-ramp would be especially significant in summer months in afternoon periods when beach-related traffic is heavy. Summary of Community Participation This project has had extensive community participation, facilitated by the applicant, the Ocean Park Community Organization, the Planning Commission and City staff. In September through December 1982, two receptions were held and hosted by the applicant at the existing Hotel to discuss the project; a series of neighborhood meetings were also held in various locations by members of the community to discuss the project. On December 13, 1982 the Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on the project. From December 1982 through April 1983 contact between the applicant, the community and the City was maintained. The applicant offered to grant OPCO $2500 to enable OPCO to retain their own traffic consultant to review the analysis and conclusions of studies prepared for the project. OPCO accepted the applicant's offer. A Public Hearing Mayor and City Council -16- June 14, 1983 before the Planning Commission was held on May 23, 1983. As for the previous Public Hearing, over 450 mailed notices were sent to residents and property owners within a designated radius of the proposed project, in addition to the standard legal advertisement in the Evening Outlook. Seventeen persons,including only 3 opposing the project, spoke at the Hearing, following which the Planning Commission conducted preliminary votes to recommend approval of the project. Exhibit B provides the Commission's votes on the project. Special Conditions of Development Agreement The proposed Development Agreement for this project includes various special conditions agreed to by the applicant. These include the following: Parking and Traffic: - The existing median strip between Fourth Street and Sixth Street on Pico Boulevard will be improved with landscaping and a new left turn lane and median alteration on Pico Boulevard westbound adjacent to the new lobby of the project. The purpose of the new left turn pocket is to reduce traffic impacts on the residential neighborhoods near the project. - The developer will provide reasonable repaving and improvement of Bay Street adjacent to the project. - Parking significantly in excess of that required by Code will be provided. - Parking (including valet service) will be free and so posted. - Pico Boulevard will be the only access point to the project except for garbage pickup. Mayor and City Council -17- June 14, 1983 Employment: - City resident employment will be the goal for all new jobs and turnovers. - A hotel job-training program will be operated for the High School and residents. - An outreach program operated by the applicant will promote neighborhood jobs. Aesthetics: -.The Pico Boulevard median will be landscaped. - $50,000 will be available for Architectural Review Board- approved improvements to the existing structure. - $25,000 will be available for the Arts Commission to select art for the hotel's public areas. Transportation: - The hotel must operate a van shuttle service free to the public from the hotel, to the Pier, beach, Main Street, Santa Monica Place and Mall for eight hours per day seven days per week or pay an annual in-lieu fee of $50,000. Mayor and City Council -18- June 14, 1983 Housing: - 365 free room vouchers will be provided annually to the City for distribution as emergency shelter on an as-needed basis. Convention Center Contributions: - The owner has agreed to pay two percent of food and beverage sales allocable to Convention Center guests to the City, conditioned upon various City actions. - Conditioned on various City actions, the owner has agreed to pay five percent of gross room sales allocable to Convention Center guests to the City. Environmental Analysis In response to the Planning Commission's suggestion that an EIR be prepared on the project, staff developed a formal Request For Proposal for preparation of an EIR and distributed it to three local environmental consulting firms. One firm, the SW Group (which prepared the EIA on the project) submitted a proposal which was subsequently accepted by the City. The City contracted with the SW Group to prepare the EIR. The EIR represents a review and expansion of selected analysis contained in the October 1982 EIA. The EIR contains extensive analysis of a variety of topics including noise, land use, population, housing, transportation and circulation, public services, Mayor and City Council -19- June 14, 1983 energy, aesthetics, and fiscal impacts. The EIR finds that while the proposed project will have a variety of impacts, none of these impacts will be significant within the meaning of CEQA. The EIR contains analysis of alternatives to the proposed project, including smaller and larger hotel additions and a multi-family residential project, as well as a no-project alternative. The EIR also includes extensive fiscal impact analysis. This analysis provides a more detailed and precise review of fiscal impacts than that included in the EIA, including a more accurate assignment of costs and revenues to the City as compared to other jurisdictions. Other changes in the fiscal analysis as compared to the EIA analysis are attributable to changed assumptions regarding the proportion of contract rooms, which pay no bed tax. The EIR fiscal analysis shows $344,000 in gross revenues to the City in 1984 due to the expansion project and 1984 annual costs to the City of $34,000, for net increased revenues of $310,000. The EIR also provides estimates of revenues derived from special features of the Development Agreement, which under certain conditions, requires contributions of a percentage of food and beverage sales and a percentage of room sales to be contributed to a City civic center fund. The EIR estimates these revenues would amount to $19,000 by 1986, increasing to $48,000 by 1990. The EIR indicates that the value of off-site improvements is $124,000 and that $110,000 in miscellaneous building permit fees will be collected, Excluding these two items, the EIR indicates that by 1988, the project will have a positive net fiscal impact to the City over $2,272,000, which includes revenues from the bed tax., license fees, property tax, and the Civic Center contributions, with City costs subtracted. The Council will be provided with a copy of the Final EIR, which includes the Draft EIR, comments on it, and responses to comments prior to the June 14 Council meeting. Mayor and City Council -20- June 14, 1983 Review of Required Findings Under Ordinance 1251 The Planning Commission was required to make six findings concerning proposed Development Agreements in making its recommendations to the City Council. A discussion of each of these findings is provided below. 1. Will the project be consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified ih the general plan and any applicable specific plan? Discussion: The project's proposed land use conforms to the legally-in-effect City Land Use Element and both the adopted Zoning Regulations and the Interim Guidelines. There is presently no data available to judge the project's land use consistency with the City's new Land Use Element, as it is currently under preparation. In the absence of the new Land Use Element., the project can only be judged against the existing Land Use Element and Zoning Regulations. Moreover per City Ordinance 1251, the City is not required to make findings that a Development Agreement will not prejudice the ability of the City to adopt its revised Land Use Element (this finding is only required for Interim Development Permit applications). However, if the proposed Agreement is judged against this requirement, the following analysis will result. Per Ordinance. 1251, a proposed development will not prejudice the ability of the City to adopt a revised Land Use Element if the development is in substantial compliance with Resolution 6385, the Interim Guidelines resolution. The relation of the project to the Guidelines is shown on the next page. Mayor and City Council -Z1- June 14, 1983 Permitted Use Lot Area/Dimensions Building Setbacks Lot Coverage Compliance Compliance Substantial compliance 5% noncompliance for 6-story, compliance for 10-story Density Noncompliance (six rental units are to be added to an existing 97-unit building which exceeds current density standards) Building Height Noncompliance (6-story project exceeds Guidelines standard by two stories and 16 feet; 10-story project exceeds by six stories and 54 feet) It is again noted that the City does not have to make findings that a Development Agreement will not prejudice the ability of the City to adopt a revised Land Use Element. 2. will the proposed project be compatible with the uses authorized in the district in which the real property is located? Discussion: The legally-in-effect Land Use Element, adopted Zoning Regulations and Interim Guidelines allow everything from hotels and multiple-family dwellings to single-family homes in the R-4 zone. Existing development in the project area reflects these allowed uses. A project might or might not be compatible with the uses authorized located in the immediate vicinity of the project. In the case of the proposed project there is a mixture of existing uses. The deciding factor for compatibility may be the existing hotel on the project site. 3. Will the proposed project be in conformity with the public necessity, public convenience, general welfare, and good land use practices? Mayor and City Council -22- June 14, 1983 Discussion: As noted, the project will generate a substantial increase in revenue to the City, which can be used to benefit the general welfare. As also noted, the proposed use complies with the current Land Use Element, adopted Zoning Regulations and Interim Guidelines, and is reasonably compatible with the surrounding area. 4. Will the proposed project be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare? Discussion: The project will only add incrementally to the existing demand on Police and Fire services and mitigating measures will be implemented. In addition the project will be required to conform to all applicable health and safety laws. The project will add traffic to the City's street, will increase noise levels, will result in added shadowing and may result in adverse aesthetic impacts. However, the magnitude of these effects is judged to be relatively insignificant by CEQA standards, and the project as a whole clearly benefits the general welfare. 5. Will the proposed project adversely affect the orderly development of the property? Discussion: The project will in-fill the remaining vacant portion of the project site and is a logical extension of the existing on- site hotel. 6. Will the proposed project have a positive fiscal impact on the City? Discussion: As noted, the project will clearly have a beneficial fiscal impact on the City. Mayor and City Council e23® 3une 14, 1983 The City Planning Commission will make recommendations to the City Council regarding the De~~elopment Agreement's relationship to the above six items at a June 13, 1983 meeting. Their findings will be transmitted to the Council in a separate report. The Commission°s preliminary recommendations, shown in Exhibit B, were to approve the 10-story version of the project with various conditions. On June 1, 1983 the Architectural Review Board passed a unanimous motion conceptually approving the 10-story version of the project. A summary of ARB action is provided in Exhibit C. To approve the Agreement, the City Council must certify the environmental analysis and make the finding that the Development Agreement is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan,.. Recommendations It is respectfully recommended that the Citp Council: 1. Conduct a Public Hearing .and introduce the Development Agreement for first reading.. 2. Review the recom°nrerdations'of the Planning Conunission (Exhibit B} and Architectural Rev;.ew Board (E:chibit. C}. 3. Certifp the adequacy of the environmental impact analysis. 4. Consistent with the actions of 'the Planning Commission and Architectural Review Board, approve the ten-story version of the project and make the following findings: a. That the project is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan. 5. Make the mitigation measures contained in the Draft EIR and attached here as Exhibit A ccnd_~~ions of _'_oec'r approval. Mayor and City Council -24- June 14, 1983 6. The Planning Commisison made nine recommendations for additional mitigation measures. Of these, the staff concurs with seven of the comments, which should be made additional conditions of project approval: A. There shall be no exterior signs for the restaurant, ballroom or other retail facilities in the hotel. B. As practical, and. with appropriate City approval, the developer shall provide land for a bus turnout near the intersection of Pico Blvd, and 6th Street, and shall provide a bus shelter at that location. C. Subject to appropriate City approvals, the developer shall improve 6th Street at Pico Blvd. to prevent or discourage hotel-related traffic from using 6th Street. Design options to be considered shall include converting 6th Street between Pico Blvd, and Bay Street to a one-way street, and narrowing 6th Street at Pico Blvd. The Developers obligations under this provision shall not exceed $10,000 in improvements which the City Traffic Engineer has indicated is an adequate amount. D. Anyone may ride the shuttle bus free o£ charge. E. Hotel exits and entrances shall be limited to the main entrance on Pico Blvd., emergency. exits, and service entrances. F. The Pico Blvd. median shall be landscaped at Developer expense between 4th 'Street and Lincoln. Landscaping plans shall be approved by the City. G. The Developer shall provide a Construction .Management Plan to mitigate construction-related impacts for review and approval by the City Manager. Approval of said plan shall not be unreasonably withheld. Mayor and City Council -25- June 14, 1983 7. The staff does not endorse two of the Planning Commission recommendations as follows:. A. Extension of covenants for the life of the project. The 25-year span of the Development Agreement provisions was arrived at through a staff-developer negotiation process based on past agreements, benefits to the City, and costs to the developer. Extension of .the provisions would add significant costs for the developer at a very late time in the approval process. For these reasons, the developer does not agree and the staff does not recommend extension of the agreements. B. NAMOR units for Section 8 program. This provision was included in prior versions of the Development Agreement, however the City Attorney recommended its removal. Prepared by: Mark Tigan, Community and Economic Development Director Paul Silvern, Program and Policy Development Manager Kenyon Webster, Assistant Planner DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT (the "Agreement") is entered into this day of 1983, by and between ROMAN PROPERTIES, a California limited partnership (hereinafter referred to as "Project Owner") and the CITY OF SANTA MONICA, California, a Charter City organized and existing under the laws of the State of California {hereinafter the "City"). RECITALS This Agreement is predicated upon the following facts: A. ,Pursuant to the Charter of the City of Santa Monica, the City has the power to enter into binding development agreements for the development of real property and has duly adopted rules and regulations establishing procedures and requirements for consideration of development agreements; B. 'I7ie City intends to enter into binding development agreements with persons having legal or equitable interests in real property for, the development of such property, pursuant to the City's Charter and the provisions of state law; C. Project Owner has requested the City to consider entering into a development agreement and proceedings have been undertaken in accordance with the City's rules and regulations; and D. .The City Council of the City (hereinafter the "Council") has found that this Development Agreement is consistent with the general plan and any applicable special plans. NOW THEREFORE, the parties agree: 1. Definitions. Tn this Agreement, unless the context otherwise requires: (i) "Banquet" is the banquet described in Paragraph 9 D hereof. (ii) "Bureau" is the Santa Monica Convention and Visitors Bureau. {iii) "Bus" is the mini-bus to be operated by Project Owner and described~in Paragraph 9 H hereof. (iv) "City" is the City of Santa Monica, California. (v) "Civic Center" is the Santa Monica Civic Center, (vi) "Convention Guests" are those Hotel guests whose rooms were reserved by or through the Bureau, or who the City can otherwise reasonably demonstrate (with the reasonable - 2 - assistance of the Project Owner) stayed at the Hotel to attend an .event at the Civic Center. (vii) "First date of full Hotel operation" is the first day that every room in the Project is available for normal business operation. (viii) The "Fund" is the Civic Center Fund or other fund established by the City exclusively to benefit the Civic Center. (ix) "Hotel" includes the existing hotel on the Property (known as the Inn at Santa Monica) and the Project, which is an addition to it. (x) "Project" is the new development contemplated by this Agreement. (xi) "Project Owner" means .the entity or person having a legal or equitable interest in the Property and includes the Project Owner's successors in interest; {xii) "Property" is the real property referred to in Paragraph 3. 2. Exhibits,. The following documents are referred to in this Agreement and are attached hereto and made a part hereof by this reference: - 3 - Exhibit Designation Description A Real Property B Basic Concept Drawings C Scope of Development 3. Description of Real Property Referred to in Paragraph 3 7 7 The real property which is the subject of this Agreement is .described in Exhibit "A" (hereinafter the "Property"). 4. Interest of Project Owner. Project Owner represents that it has a legal interest in the Project and that all other persons holding legal or equitable interest in that portion of the Property to be occupied by the Project. are to be bound by this Agreement. 5. Binding Effect Of Agreement. The burdens of this Agreement bind and the benefits of the Agreement inure to the successors in interest ;to the parties to it, including any successors to any portion of any parties' interest. 6. Relationship Of Parties. It is understood that the contractual relationship between the City and Project Owner is such that the Project Owner is an independent contractor and not the agent of the City. - 4 - %. Description Of Project. Project Owner has prepared and submitted Basic Concept Drawings attached hereto as Exhibit "B" (the "Basic Concept Drawings") and a written description attached hereto as Exhibit "C" (the "Scope of Development") depicting the elevations, site layout, basic design concepts, including maximum height and maximum size for the Project, and locations of ingress and egress to streets. By the adoption of the ordinance authorizing the City to enter into this Agreement, the City has approved the Basic Concept Drawings and Scope of Development. Z`he Project shall be developed as a logical evolution of the Basic Concept Drawings and Scope of Development except as changes may be mutually agreed upon between Project Owner and the City. 8. Uses. Project Owner covenants and agrees for itself, its successors, its assigns, and every successor in interest to the Project and any part thereof, that the Project shall be devoted to hotel and commercial-uses as herein set forth; provided, however, that this covenant as to use is merely a covenant to make the Project available for occupancy for these uses, but is not intended to be nor shall. it be construed to be a covenant to operate any of the improvements which are to be constructed, or in any way affirmatively obligate Project Owner or any assignee to operate the improvements for the purposes designed or any other purpose. Project Owner shall have the sole right and discretion to establish terms and conditions for the :operation and leasing of the Hotel, except as limited herein. - 5 - 9. Covenants of Project Owner. Project Owner covenants and agrees to take~the following actions: A. Pico Median Improvements. On or before the City's issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the Project, Project Owner shall cause reasonable improvements to and landscaping of the median strip on Pico Boulevard, Santa Monica, between Fourth Street and Sixth Street. Such improvements and landscaping shall be those generally required by the City or provided by it for similar areas, as at the date of this Agreement, and shall be constructed in accordance with City requirements. Included in the improvements shall be a left turn lane and median alteration on Pico Boulevard westbound, adjacent to the new lobby of the Project, and an appropriate sign, indicating the hotel entrance, both aimed at eliminating unnecessary traffic on residential streets adjoining the Project. B. Bay Street Improvements. On or before the City's issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the Project, Project Owner shall cause the reasonable repaving and improvement of Bay Street, Santa Monica, from the Sixth Street intersection to the western boundary of the Project. Such repaving and improvement shall be those generally. required by the City or provided by it for similar areas, as at the date of this Agreement, and shall be constructed in accordance with City requirements. - 6 - C. Aesthetic Ymprovements to Existing Hotel. On or before the City's issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the Project, Project Owner shall undertake the aesthetic improvement of the exterior of the existing hotel on the Property, to which the Project shall be an addition. Such improvements shall be approved by the City Architectural Review Board. Project Owner's obligations hereunder shall not exceed $50,000, exclusive of amounts spent by Project Owner on Hotel signs. D. Hiring Priority. From and after the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for the Project, the Project Owner agrees to give first priority to residents of the Ocean Park and Pico Neighborhood communities (collectively, "Neighborhood Residents") and then to other City residents for all Hotel jobs not otherwise filled by then-existing Hotel employees, subject to the requirements of California and U.S. federal laws. Ninety (90} days prior to the anticipated first date of full operation, Project Owner shall contact the Ocean Park Community Organization {"OPCO") and the Pico .Neighborhood Association ("PNA") and cooperate with each organization in holding a neighborhood meeting in each community, in locations selected and provided by or at the request of the respective neighborhood organizations (or, upon request, at the Hotel), to describe anticipated job openings at the Hotel, and to arrange for interviews and/or accept applications for these anticipated positions. On or - 7 - before the date of such meetings, Project Owner. shall advertise such openings .in a manner reasonably calculated by Project Owner to inform and attract Neighborhood Residents; such advertising obligation shall not in the aggregate exceed $5,000 and shall include, where permitted by the owners, posting of flyers at local grocery stores and other central locations. From and after a date sixty (60) days prior to the anticipated full operation of the Hotel, Project Owner shall. solicit and accept applications from any person for those anticipated Hotel positions not then filled by City residents. Project Owner's goal shall be to have City residents (particularly Neighborhood Residents) constitute not less than eighty percent (80$) of the Hotel's employees and to encourage employment of minority, disabled, armed forces veterans and women. On or before each anniversary date of the first date of full Hotel operation, the Project Owner shall indicate to the City the percentage of Hotel employees who are City residents. E. Job Training; From and after the first date of full Hotel operation, Project Owner agrees to expand its training program to include on any given weekday not less than four (4) trainees- who shall be paid not less than prevailing minimum wage during such training period. First priority for such training shall be accorded to Santa Monica High School students and then to other City residents, and then to others. Except as provided herein, the details of such training program shall be determined - 8 by Project Owner in its reasonable discretion upon consultation with the City. Project Owner agrees to use its best efforts to enable at least one of such program participants to receive training in a management position. It is agreed that such training shall continue irrespective of actual or anticipated job openings in those positions which program participants may be trained for; accordingly, Project Owner shall not be obligated to hire any of the program participants after training. F. Shuttle Bus. On or before the first date of full Hotel operation, but in no event later than three (3) months after the City's issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the Project, Project Owner shall operate the Bus, which shall be able to carry not less than fifteen (15) passengers, and be in good operating condition, determined by a comparison with similar vehicles, if any, operated by the Santa Monica Municipal Bus Line and the Southern California Rapid Transit District. There shall be no charge to ride the Bus, which shall pick up and drop off passen- gers along a route which shall include one stop at each of at least the following locations: the Hotel, Santa Monica Pier, a location on the Santa Monica beach front, the Santa Monica Mall and. Main Street, Santa Monica. Precise locations for Bus stops will be determined jointly by Project Owner and the City. The Bus will operate continuously for not less than eight (8) hours per day on a schedule approved by the City. The City at its - 9 - option and cost may upgrade the Bus. The Bus driver shall have the right and power to deny entrance to the Bus or order the exit therefrom of any individual the driver determines (in his reasonable discretion and consistent with applicable law) may endanger the driver himself or any Bus passenger, or whose manner constitutes a public nuisance. If the Project Owner at any time determines that continued operation of the Bus has become impractical, Project Owner shall have the option to terminate Bus service upon six (6) month's prior notice to the City and to pay the sum of $50,000 per year (adjusted annually in proportion to the increase or decrease in an index jointly selected by the City. and the Project Owner, which index reflects the operating costs of public transit in similar areas) to the City for increased Santa Monica Municipal Bus Line service which includes the Hotel. G. Contribution to Santa Monica Civic Centez Entergrise Fund. .This paragraph shall only apply upon the later of (i) the first date of full Hotel operation and {ii) the date that the City demonstrates to Project Owner's reasonable satisfaction that the City has spent an aggregate of $1 million on physical improvements (as opposed to maintenance) to or increased marketing efforts concerning the Civic Center (determined by comparing clearly applicable line items in the the City budget for the 1982-1983 fiscal year to the same line items in - 10 - subsequent City budgets). Such later date, determined pursuant to the preceding sentence, shall be.cleemed the "Trigger Date". On or before December 31 of the calendar year in which the Trigger Date occurs, and on or before December 31 of each successive year during the term hereof, Project Owner agrees to pay to the Fund an amount equal to five (5$) percent of the gross room revenues of the Hotel allocable to the Convention Guests. In addition, Project Owner tt the same time shall also contribute to the Fund an amount equal to two (2g) percent of the gross Hotel food and beverage revenues attributed to Convention Guests pursuant to a formula determined by either Pannell Kerr Forster or Laventhol & Horwath (at Project Owner's election, it being agreeded that City and Project Owner shall together select a replacement consultant should neither of the aforementioned firms be in existence at the time the aforementioned formula is to be determined) based on an industry standard ratio for similar hotels. Such formula shall be binding, and may be updated periodically at either party's request (and at the cost of the requesting party). It,is understood by the parties that the Bureau shall have no obligation hereunder (including to generate data concerning the Convention Guests). In the event that the Bureau elects for any reason not to provide information concerning the number of, Convention Guests, Project Owner {upon written request by the City) shall provide to the City an annual verification of the number of Convention Guests, in a format and - 11 - pursuant to a procedure approved by the City and. reflecting Project Owner's good faith attempt to estimate the number of Convention Guests. Project Owner's obligations hereunder shall be prorated for the first calendar year in which payments under this paragraph are due, in order to apply the applicable percentages only to the applicable revenues arising after the date that the City has evidenced its increased investment, as aforesaid. H. Arts and Crafts. On or before the first date of full Hotel operation, Project Owner shall display in ground floor or other central public areas within or outside of the Hotel works of art or craftsmanship selected by Project Owner and approved by the Santa Monica Arts Commission. Project Owner's obligations hereunder shall not exceed $25,000. I. Hotel Room Vouchers. Starting on or before the first date of full Hotel operation and continuing on each subsequent anniversary date thereof, Project Owner shall provide to the City three hundred and sixty-five (365) vouchers for emergency lodging, each entitling the bearer to one night's lodging (for up to three_related persons per room) at the Hotel, under the terms and conditions specified herein. The vouchers may be presented at the Hotel registration desk between the hours of b p.m. and midnight, and. shall be honored (i) if Hotel rooms (excluding - 12 - suites) are then available (not being otherwise .registered or reserved), (ii) if not more than four other voucher lodgers have already registered for the evening, and (iii) if the Hotel does not determine, in the reasonable discretion of its employees, that the holder of the voucher poses a danger to himself or herself or to other guests or acts in a manner constituting a public nuisance in the context of normal Hotel operation or otherwise acts in countervention of Hotel rules pertaining to all guests. The City shall distribute the vouchers for emergency use by the temporarily homeless for the public benefit and may accrue each year's unused vouchers for use in subsequent years, except that all accrued vouchers outstanding on December 31, 1988 or on December 31, 1993 shall have no further force and effect on and as of those dates.- J. Parking. Parking spaces for the Project are indicated on the Basie Concept Drawings. In addition, the Project Owner agrees to the following: (1) Project :Owner shall prominently post a sign in the • parking area of the Hotel indicating that there will be no charge for Hotel parking for Hotel quests, Hotel employees and users of Hotel facilities; and {2) Project Owner shall prominently Bost a sign in the parking area of the Hotel indicating that the tipping of parking valets is contrary to Hotel policy. - 13 - K. Prevailing Wage Rates. The Project's general contractor {or, in the event none is used; the Project's construction manager) shall be paid at not less than the prevailing rates of wages and employee benefit costs for work of a similar character in Los Angeles County {the "prevailing rates"). The prevailing rates shall be determined by reference to those paid under con- struction industry collective bargaining agreements generally applicable to comparable projects. Further, the Project Owner's contract with the Project general contractor (or construction manager) shall provide that not less than seventy-five percent (75%) of all contracts with subcontractors on the Project shall in turn provide for payments to such subcontractors at not less than the prevailing rates. 10. Effect And Duration Of Covenants. 'i'he covenants provided for in this Agreement shall be binding on the party bound by their terms, and any successor in interest to that party, for the benefit>and in favor of the other party and shall remain in effect until forty (40) years following the date of the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy of the Project, except that the. covenants contained in Paragraph 9 shall remain in effect for the lesser o~ twenty-five (25) years following the date of the issuance of said Certificate of Occupancy, or the economic life of the Project. Notwithstanding the foregoing, - 14 - Project Owner's obligations under subparagraph 9 I shall be of no further force and effect on and after ten (10) years from the date of the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the Project. 11. City's Approval of Project. By the adoption of the ordinance authorizing the City to enter into this Agreement, the City has approved the Basic Concept Drawings and Scope of Development and the uses for the Project as herein provided. Any provisions of the Santa Monica Municipal Code or any other rule or regulation adopted pursuant thereto, including but not limited to the City's zoning ordinances, which is inconsistent with the Project and/or its uses or is otherwise inconsistent with the provisions of this.Agreement, to the extent of such inconsistencies and no further, are hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to permit development of the Project and furtherance of the provisions of this Agreement. Nothing contained in this Agreement is intended to constitute a waiver by the City of its standard, administrative and non-discretionary fees and review procedures. 12. Project Approvals. Project Owner shall obtain and shall be required to obtain only the following City approvals before commencement of construction of the Project: - 15 - A. _ City Permits. Before commencement of construction or development~of any building, structure, or other work of improvement upon the Project,,the Project Owner shall at its own expense, secure or cause to be secured the permits and approvals provided for in subparagraph B, below. The City shall provide all proper assistance to the Project Owner in securing these permits, including the issuance or waiver of such variances or permits as may be required to effectuate the Basic Concept Drawings, the Scope of Development and the site map or sub- division map, and to permit the uses specified by this Agreement. Project Owner shall submit a full and complete application for a building permit covering the Project not later than eighteen (18) months after the date hereof. B. City Approval of Plans, Drawings and Related Documents. Following approval of the exterior architectural treatment of the Project by the-Santa Monica Architectural Review Board ("ARB"), -the Project Owner shall prepare and submit construction drawings .and related documents to the building department of the City."' City approval of these construction drawings and ARB approval of the Project will be promptly granted if documents submitted are developed as a logical evolution of the Basic Concept Drawings and Scope of Development and if such documents conform to the rules and regulations of, respectively, the ARB and the City building department. Any item previously - 16 - approved by the applicable body shall not be subject to subsequent approval. Project Owner .may apply and if so shall receive necessary permits incrementally, if each such permit covers activities which are a logical evolution of the Basic Concept Drawings and Scope of Development. If revisions or corrections may be required by the City or any other official, agency, department or bureau of the City having jurisdiction, the Project Owner and the City shall cooperate in efforts to obtain the waiver of such requirements or to develop a mutually acceptable alternative, but no revision or correction shall be required if ,it would result in a material change, modification, revision or alteration of the Project. For the purposes of this Agreement a material change, modification, revision or alteration is one which does not constitute a logical evolution of the Basic Concept Drawings and Scope of Development. 13. Time for Construction and Completion of Project. A. Beginning of Construction. .Subject to extension pursuant to Paragraph 21 below, Project Owner agrees to begin construction of the Project within 18 months after the issuance of the building permit. In the event Project Owner fails to begin construction within the period herein provided, and unless such failure is caused by the occurrence of one or more of the - 17 - events described in Paragraph 21 below, this Agreement shall be automatically terminated and a hearing on the matter shall not be required; provided, however, that the City and Project Owner may agree to extend the Agreement by mutual written consent. Project Owner at its option may also terminate the Agreement two (2) years after the date hereof, if it is unable to secure financing acceptable to it, upon payment to the City of a termination penalty of $5,000. B. Completion of Project. Project Owner agrees to diligently pursue to completion the construction of the Project and to complete such construction within two (2) years after the day actual construction begins, subject to extension pursuant to Paragraph 21 below. 14. Subdivision Of Property.' The City agrees to approve a parcel map or subdivision map for the Property, as may be appro- priate in accordance with applicable law, to divide the Property into various parcels as determined by Project Owner. Project Owner shall prepare the` Necessary survey and tentative and final map through its engineer at Project Owner's expense. 15. Effect Of Agreement On Land Use Regulations. The rules regulations and official policies governing permitted uses of the Property, the density of the Property, the design, improvement - 18 - and construction standards and specifications applicable to development of~the Project are and shall remain those rules, regulations and official poligies in force as of November 1, 1982, except as otherwise provided herein. 16. Periodic Review In Compliance With Agreement. 7`he City shall review this Agreement at least once every 12 month period from the date this Agreement is executed. During each periodic review by the City, the Project Owner may be required to demon- strate good faith compliance with the terms of the Agreement. 17. Amendment Or Cancellation Of Agreement. This Agreement, and any covenants contained herein, may be amended or cancelled in whole or in part only by mutual consent of the parties and any subsequently adopted ordinance, rule or regulation or any action by the City inconsistent with the provisions of this Agreement, to the extent of such inconsistency and no,further, shall not be binding and is null and void upon the Property, the Project or - - __ Project Owner. 18. Enforcement. Unless amended or cancelled as provided for in Paragraph 17, this Agreement is enforceable by any party to it notwithstanding a,change in the applicable general or specific plan, zoning, subdivision or building regulations adopted by the City which alters or amends the rules, regulations - 19 - or policies governing permitted uses of the land, density, design, improvement and construction standards and specifi- cations. In any litigation concerning this Agreement neither party hereto shall assert as a claim or defense the invalidity of this Agreement.. 19. Subsequent Acts. This•Agreement does riot prevent the City in subsequent actions applicable to the Project from applying those new rules, regulations and policies the applica- bility of which to the Project is set forth in this Agreement. This Agreement does not prevent the City from denying or condi- tionally approving any subsequent development project application on the basis of existing or new rules, regulations and policies, except as modified herein. 20. Notice Of Termination. Upon any termination of this Agreement, the parties hereto shall execute an appropriate notice of termination suitable for recording in the official records of Los Angeles County. 21. Enforced Delay; Extension Of Times Of Performance. In addition-to specific provisions of this Agreement, performance by either party hereunder shall not be deemed to be in default where delays or defaults are due to war; insurrections; strikes; lock- outs; riots; floods; earthquakes; fires; casualties; acts of God; - 20 - acts of the public enemy; epidemics; quarantine restrictions; freight embargoes; lack of transportation; governmental restric- tions or priority (other than that governmental restrictions or priorities of the City shall not excuse the City); unusually severe. weather; inability to secure necessary labor, materials and tools; delays of any contractor, subcontractor or supplier; acts of the other party; acts or failures to act of any public or governmental entity (other than that acts or failures to act of the City shall not excuse the City) or any other causes beyond the control or without the fault of the party claiming an extension of time to perform. An extension of time for any such cause shall be for the period of the enforced delay and shall commence to run from the time of the commencement of the cause, if notice by the party claiming such extension is sent to the other party within thirty {30) days of the commencement of the cause. Times of performance under this Agreement may also be extended in writing by mutual agreement of City and the Project Owner. 22. Attorneys' Fees And Costs. If legal action by either party. is brought because of breach of this Agreement or to enforce a provision of this Agreement, the prevailing party is entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees and court costs. Such fees and costs shall be payable regardless of whether said action is prosecuted to final judgment. - 21 - 23. Iio1d~FIarmless. Project Owner agrees to and shall hold. the City, its officers, agents., employees and representatives harmless from liability for any and all loss, liability, suits, costs and expenses, damages or claims, whatsoever, including reasonable attorneys fees, which may arise from the direct or indirect action of the Project Owner or those of its contractor„ subcontractor, agent, employee or other person acting on its behalf which relate to the Project, except that this sentence shall not apply where such liability or claim shall arise in connection with the actual or alleged negligence of the City, its agencies, or any of those parties' officers, agents, employees, or representatives. Project Owner agrees to and shall defend the City, and its officers, agents, employees and representatives from actions for damages caused or alleged to have been caused by reason of Project Owner's activities in connection with the Project, as limited above. This 'hold harmless agreement applies to all damages and claims for damages suffered or alleged to have been suffered by reason of the operations referred to in this paragraph, regard- less of whether or not the City prepared, supplied, or approved plans or specifications or both for the Project. - 22 - The City agrees to provide a defense for Project Owner (if desired by Project Owner) in any action challenging the legality of this development agreement.: In the event any such action shall successfully challenge the legality of this Agreement, the City agrees to indemnify, hold harmless, and pay all costs, including reasonable attorney's fees, of the Project Owner incurred in connection with any such action, and to enter into a new development agreement or other official approval of the Project by the City with Project Owner immediately after such challenge, incorporating. the terms and provisions of this Agreement, with those modifications required by such successful challenge. 24. Insurance.. Project Owner shall. maintain public liability insura~ice throughout the term of this Agreement in amounts reasonably calculated by .Project Owner to be sufficient for the size of the Project; however, during the course of con- struction such public liability insurance may be supplied by Project Owner's contractor or other agent. The insurance shall extend to the Gity, its elective and appointive boards, commissions, officers, agents, employees and. representatives and - 23 - to Project Owner and each contractor and subcontractor performing work on the Project. Project Owner shall furnish to the City prior to the commencement of gonstruction of the Project satisfactory evidence that such insurance is in force. 25. Subordination; Attornment. The City agrees that the breach of any of the covenants or restrictions contained in this Agreement shall not defeat nor render invalid the lien of any mortgage or deed of trust whioh is a lien upon the Project, or any portion thereof, to which lien(s) the City agrees to sub- ordinate its interest. In addition, the City agrees that it shall execute, acknowledge and deliver, if requested so to do by a responsible financial or lending institution, confirmations and instruments of further assurance and attornment should such responsible financial or lending institution request the City to do so as a condition to the granting of any mortgage or deed of trust financing of the Project for construction of the Project improvements or permanent financing of the Project.. In the event that the City does not,, so act within ten (10) days after a re- quest to act by such responsible financial or lending institu- tion,,.the City irrevocably appoints Project Owner as the City's special attorney-in-fact to execute such documents and deliver the same in the City's game, place and stead. -24- 26. Notices. All written notices and demands of any kind which either party may be required or may desire to serve on the other in connection with the Agreement may be served as an alter- native to personal service by registered or certified mail. Any such notices or demands so served by registered or certified mail shall be deposited in the United States Mail, with postage there- on fully prepaid, addressed to the party so to be served and delivered to the party so to be served if not by personal service, as follows: To Project Owner: Roman Properties c/o The Inn at Santa Monica 530 Fico Boulevard Santa Monica, California 90405 Attn: Mr. Kambiz Babaoff With a copy to: Morgan, Lewis & Bockius 611 West Sixth Street Twenty-third Floor Los Angeles, California 90017 Attn: C. Richard Allen, Esq. To City: City Manager City of Santa Monica 1685 Main Street Santa Monica,. California 90401 With a copy to: City Attorney City of Santa Monica 1685 Main Street Santa Monica, California 90401 Service of any .such notice or demand so made by mail shall be deemed complete on the date of actual delivery as shown by the addressee's registery or certification receipt or at the expiration of the fifth day after the date of mailing, whichever - 25 - is earlier in time. Any party hereto may, from time to time by notice in writing served upon the other parties as aforesaid, designate a different mailing address or a different person to whom all such notices or demands are thereafter to be addressed. 27. Headings. The titles and headings of the various paragraphs hereof are intended solely for convenience of reference and are not intended for any purpose whatsoever to explain, modify or place any construction upon any of the provisions of this Agreement. 28. Assignment. This Agreement shall not be severable ,from Project Owner's interest in the Project. Any transfer of that portion of the Property upon which the Project is situated shall automatically operate to transfer the benefits and burdens of this Agreement. Project Owner may freely sell, transfer, exchange or otherwise dispose of its interest in the Project or the Property without the consent of the City. 29. Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire Agreement between the parties hereto with respect to the subject matter hereof and may not be modified, amended or otherwise changed in any manner except by mutual consent of the parties in accordance with the procedures for adoption of a development agreement. If a part of this Agreement is held to be invalid, -26- the remainder of the Agreement is not modified or rendered invalid. No remedy conferred by a party in this Agreement is intended to be exclusive of any other remedy herein contained, or provided or permitted by law, but each shall be cumulative and shall be in addition to each and every other remedy given hereunder or now or hereafter existing at law or in equity or by statute. No failure or delay by a party to exercise any right it may have by reason of the default of the other party shall operate as a waiver of the default or a modification of this Agreement or shall prevent the exercise of any right by the first party while the other party continues to be so in default. 30. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. 31. Duration of Agreement. This Agreement shall expire on December 1, 2022. After expiration or full satisfaction the parties shall execute an appropriate certificate of termination which shall be recorded in the official records of Los Angeles County. 2? _ 32. Recording of Agreement. The parties hereto shall cause this Agreement to be recorded in the official records of the County of Los Angeles. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been executed by the parties as of-.the day and year first above written. Approved as to form: .. By: By: CITY ATTORNEY FOR THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA Attest: CITY OF SANTA MONICA ROMAN PROPERTIES, a California limited partnership By: By: ATTORNEY FOR PROJECT OWNER - 28 EXHIBIT A LIST OF MANDATORY MITIGATION MEASURES NOISE: 1). Construction ~tivities should be limited to normal daytime Korking Yaurs; 2) A plyMOOd barrier should span the perimeter of the site to reduce grade-level raise impacts from equipnent and. activities; 3) Relocation of the hotel lobby and entry/exit to the parking structure from 6th Street ~ Pico Boulevard will eliminate the existing traffic-generated noise from the residential areas south of the site; 4) Relocating fatal parking beneath the new hotel building will eliminate the existing impact to occupants of the on-site apartment building (except during overfl ow conditions); 5) Subterranean garage exhaust vents should be .placed in areas of least impact; and, 6) The building's mechanical equipner+t should be rooftop mounted and acoustically treated. LAND USE AND ZONING ON PROPERTY: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) The building has been designed tn. decrease in height in the direction of Bay Street, from six to four do three to ttw levels; The building will al so step-doom in height in a +neesterly direction; A subterranean parking garage will be provided under the hew building t~ further reduce height; A new sidewalk and planted parkway, and more than required landscaping will be provided along the perimeter of the site; and, Balconies created by the stepping-down (pyramidal) design should be 1 and sc aped . -1- LIST OF MANDATORY MITIGATION MEASURES LAND USE AND ZONING IN SURROUNDING AREAS: 1) Six rental units will be added in the existing on-site apartrnent building to repl ace the six units rel ocated from the site; 2} The existing hotel's entrance on 6th Street will be relocated in conjunction with the opening of the new building's entrance on Pico Bo uT ev ard; 3) All balconies facing the apartment building- will be situated six feet lower in height than the lowest/first floor of the aparl7nent building. Balcony overhangs will further shield apartrient occupants from view. No other open 1 iving areas or windows will face the apartrnent buildings; 4) The step-down design of the building in both south and west directions creates greater distances bet~en the project and surrounding uses as the building increases in floor levels; 5) The use of 1 andscaped setbacks and bal conies will create a pl easing buffer b etHeen the project and surrounding uses; and , 5) Hotel rel ated traffic will be reduced on Bay and 6th Streets. RELATION TO INTERIM GUIDELINES: 1) A building has'been designed to reduce adverse height effects on adjacent residents; 2} Building height has been shifted to lour height in front of and in the direction of residences and increase height vk~ere the new building will connect to the. existing building; and, 3) Use of a subterranean parking garage and shorter floor-level heights will also reduce overall Might of project. -2- LIST OF MANDATORY MITIGATION MEASURES RELATION TO OTHER PLANNING PROGRAMS: 1) The following provisions of the Development Agreement (discussed in more detail in Subsection-III. B.5 herein) would mitigate project impacts: - Pico Boulevard and Bay Street street improvements; - Aesthetic improvements to exterior of existing hotel; - Employment opportunities for City residents; - Job training progrmn for City residents; - Minority group City resident in-service training fund; - Free shuttl a bus service from tntel to beachfront and other areas; - 20 Section 8 rental. housing units; and, - Possibil ity for 1 invited equity cooperative conversion of existing apartment building. 2) Incremental revenue will be generated by proj~t to City; 3) Project generated increased den and .for goods and services of local merchants; and, 4) Relocation of two three-unit.-apar~nent buildings and addition of six new rental units; ali rents will be affordable. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT: I) The provisions of the Devel opnent Agreement have been formul ated by the City and the Developer for the purpose of mitigating the project's impact on the community; and, 2) The project will have a positive fiscal impact. POPULATION; I) The Developer will give first priority to City residents, advertise at a total cast not to exceed $5,000.00, and hold two (2) public neighborhood meetings to arrange for job interviews and accept appl ications for all available hotel jobs; and, 2) The Developer should make every effort to see that 80 percent of all new hotel employees are residents of the City. -3- LIST OF MANDITORY MITIGATION MEASURES HOUSING: 1) Relocate too on-site three-unit apartment buildings; 2) Add six new rental wits to existing 97-unit apartment building; 3) New, relocated rental wits wil be affordable ip low and moderate income persons; 4) Aim hotel en pioyment toward City residents; 5) Provide 20 Section 8 Housing units in the existing 97-units apartrnent building; 6) A 1 invited equity coop will be proposed tr apartment residents; and, 7) The hotel will provide 365 one-night room vouchers for the homeless. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION: 1) Rel ocation of the combined hotel's entry/exit to Pico Boul evard will effectively remove all btel-related traffic from 6th and Bay Streets; and 2) Improvements to the Pico Boul evard median strip, incl uding landscaping and a new left-turn lane for Nestbound traffic (located adjacent to the proposed driveway/motorcour t) will be made. PARKING: 1) Projc~t will provide 399 on-site parking spaces. Consultant's projected peak parking den and is 378 spaces; Consultant's analysis of required Code parking is 294 spaces; Consultant's analysis of project as anew 316 room hotel and 103 unit apartrnent building is 351 spaces. -4- LIST OF MANDATORY MITIGATION MEASURES FIRE PROTECTION: 1) The existing hotel should b e brought into compliance with applicable provisions of City Ordinance No. 1217 (CCS) in the shortest, reasonable time possible; 2) The project-will be required ~ comply with the fire prevention design features of all applicable Codes, includ ing Ci ty Ordinance No. 1217 (CCS) and the Uniform Building Code (UBC) 1~7, prior to issuance of the Building Permit; and, 3) The proj~t should install the following safety features: - automatic sprinkt er system - sn oke detection system - fire alarm and communication system including onsite cpntrol room - s~cific door and wall fire ratings - emergency 1 fighting system - energer~y evacuation program 4) Revenues derived from the project may contribute to the operation of the Ci ty' s Fire Department. POLICE PROTECTION: 1) west roan doors will be steel frame with tamper proof one Hay viewers and will use Winfield type door locks Hhich will be rekeyed a minimum of once a month as deemed appropriate by hotel management. The guest rooms of the existing hotel building will be retrofitted with the Winfield locks. Guest room patio doors in the .new building will use security locks; care will be #a ken that the patio doors are installed correctly (accidental. improper installation of this type of doors is common); 2) A closed circuit TV monitoring system or other appropriate security device should be installed in the new hotel (e.g. exit doors) of the buildin building to monitor An TV i . key passageways g. y m should be contained in tamper proof enclosures on tors use and, where d in the hotel possible, be of the stationary, non-panning type Hhich has been determined to be the most effective type; 3) Landscaping adjacent to the hotel , particul arty that around the motor courtyard area on Pico Boulevard, should be planted so as to provide minimum possible cover for potential burglars (e.g. thorny and/or lighted and/or open fol iage type vegetation); 4) The three street lights that the developer will install in the public right-of--way along either the project site's Bay Street and Pico Eoulevard frontages as part of the offsite street improvement provisions of the Development Agreement are expected ip assist as a crime deterrent in those areas; -5- LIST OF MANDATORY MITIGATION MEASURES 5) Hotel security personnel should be increased and shop?d remain on-site round the cl ock seven days a Reek; 6) Hotel owner shall investigate joining a Police Cepartrnent-sponsored security working group; 7) The developer will add additional security measures during plan check as required by the Pol ice Departinent; and, 8) The prof ec t ari 1 l generate a sub sca n ti al increase in rev en ue ~ the Ci ty o f alnich a portion may be allocated ~ the Pol ice Departrnent. RECREATION AND PARKS: 1) Revenues derived from the project may contribute to the maintenance of City recreation and park facilities. ENERGY: 1) The building will be designed and .engineered tiJ meet the requirements established in the .California Pdministrative Code, Title 24. Specific attention should be given to Part 6, Article 2, Energy Conservation Standards For New hlonresidential Buildings (Divisions 1-9). Divisions have been written to assure that the permitting agency reviews plans for the building that contaih detailed energy system specifications confirming that the building satisfies the minimum requirements established in the Article (Article 2). Division requirements cover a wide variety of topics such as Energy Budgets, hUndepletable Energy ~urces, Building Envelope, Heating, Ventilating and Air Conditioning (HVAC) Systems and Equipment, Cooling with Outdoor Air, Service Water Heating, El ectrical Di stribution Systems and Lighting; 2) Should use fluorescent lighting rather than less efficient lighting; 3) Shouldselect plumbing fixtures that reduce we ter loss from leakage caused by damaged or faul ty washers; 4) Should use 1 ow-vol ume aster cl osets on toil ets; 5) Should use restricted-flow shower heads; 6) Should use automatic irrigation system to aster landscaping during early morning hours or during the evening; 7) Passive and natural Dating and cool ing energy conservation measures should be incorporated into the final design and development of the project; 8) Should maximize site opportunities with respect to structural ~cess for 1 ocal breezes and- sun; -6- LIST OF MANDATORY MITIGATION MEASURES 9) Should use tinted or non-glare producing solar reflective glass on appropriate exposures; 10) Should use patios, balconies, overhangs and landscaping ~ enhance passive and natural Bating and cool ing opportunities; 11) Swinging doors or windows and sliding glass doors and windows should be treated for air-in filtration; 12) At this time, the project _is being considered for motive molar systems use. However, some active system components are feasible and available for use with conventional projects that can also be retrofitted fnr future active sol ar use. For example, energy insul ations on dcmestic hot water and space heating systems, and in exterior calls, fl oors and ceil ings can be used and would provide for future active solar system retrofit. Similarly, roof structures can be engineered with a live load suitable for future installation of sol ar panel s, and guest rooms water heating systems can be integrated (use the same duct); 13) To the extent feasible, a local labor force should be employed in construct and operate 'the hotel , while construction materials and suppl ies should be purchased locally; and, 14) The hotel shall operate a free shuttle bus able to carry at least 14 passengers to destinations within the City which could reduce automobile vehicl a trips to the various destinations. AESTHETICS: i) The project will come under the careful scrutiny of the City's Architectural Review Board; 2) The building will be multi-leveled (pyramidal-shaped rather than monolithic) , with numerous 1 andscaped bal conies; 3) The building has been designed ip step-b~k away from Bay Street and the southerly property line. Beginning at Bay Street, the 238-foot long building will be taw stories high for the first 25 feet; three and four stories high fnr the next 45 feet; four stories for the next 45 feet; and, six stories for the ranaining 128 feet; 4) The first two floors of the building will setback from Bay Street 20 feet; the third and fourth floors 45 feet; and, the six floor 130 feet; 5) The building will follow the existing topography, increasing in Yeight up the flank of the hill towards 6th Street; 6) The building will step back in height away from the westerly property line (towards the existing hotel): the first floor will be setback 14.5 feet; the second floor 19.5 feet; the third floor 24.5 feet; the fourth floor 29.5 feet; the fi fth floor 34.5 feet; and, the sixth floor 39.5 feet; 7) A11 floor levels of the building located on the south side of the site (closest to the apartment building) will be loner in elevation than its -7- LIST OF MANDATORY MITIGATION MEASURES corresponding floor 1 evel to the north. For ex anpl e, the fourth floor on the south side will be approximately five feet lovrer than the fourth floor on the north side; 8) The building will be setback 21 feet from the existing apartinent building at ground level , and this area shall be landscaped; 9) khere the third and fourth stories are combined for a length of 48 feet, the fourth story will be setback 32 feet farther avay from the apartrnent building than the third story; 10) .The 1 arge, open triangul ar-shaped courtyard/pool area p1 anned for the center of the building will be setback 90 feet from the Nesterly property 1 ine; 11) The project will be 1 andscaped on all sides at ground level , and each "step" will consist of exterior patios or balconies provided with planter boxes or potted pl ants; 12) Public street frontages will be improved with new sidewalks, street trees, street 1 igiits and pavement; 13) The Pico Boulevard frontage will be broken up by the landscaped motorcourt/driveway area, a tko-story lobby entrance way, large windows of the second floor 1 obby w31 kway, 1 andscaped bat conies of the guest rooms, . and the step-down configuration of the building; 14) The building including the roof will be finished with tight neutral colors and materials; 15) Roof-top mechanical equi Anent will be 1 orated away from the apartment pudding, and visually and acoustically screened; 16) The median strip in Pico Boulevard will be landscaped per City Departrnent of General Services regulations; and, LIGHT AND GLARE: 1) Three new City street lights will be provided along Street, with locations deter i d Pico Boulevard and bay m ne by the City Services; Department of C~neral 2) Low-level light output fixtures (fluorescent lamps) all exterior task lighting should b di should be selected, and e rected onto Light should not exceed 1 candlepower at the point o the site and shielded. f beginning at ro e t boundary 1 fines; p p r y 3) ~ No floodlighting should be located on sides of the building facing residences ; Exterior lights along residential boundaries (east, consi st of south and west) should ground-level security i fighting, and landscaping or the ground; be directed towards -8- LIST OF MANDATORY MITIGATION MEASURES 4) The building should be construed of non-reflective material; 5) Design, placanent and screening of sliding glass doors should reduce glare potential; and, . 6) Location of other reflective surfaces avay from direct sunlight should reduce or el iminate their glare-producing potential . SHADE AND SHADOW: 1) The building has been designed in response to the proximity of the apart went building. The angle of the sun's rays hitting the proposed building and casting a shadow on the apartrnent building was the topic of nunerous architectural studies (see Figure 14 for an ex apple of one 'of these studies) ; 2) Subterranean parking levels will reduce overall height of the hotel b ui l ding;- 3) Reduce the height of the portion of the structure situated immediately adjacent in the apartment building. This can-be accomplished by increasing floor area (floor 1 evel s) of the new building 4here it abuts against the existing hotel ,and by reducing an equal anount of floor area/level s in the area of its adjacency (see fiction V, Alternatives to the Proposed Prof ec t) . -g- Exhibit B Planning Commission Preliminary Motions Regarding Proposed Addition to the Inn at Santa Monica May 23, 1983 1. By a 6 yes, 0 no vote, the Planning Commission adopted the following preliminary motion: "The Commission is on record as recommending to the Council that the Inn be allowed to expand and that that has substantial benefits to the City and the neighborhood." 2. By a 6 yes, 0 no vote the Planning Commission adopted the following preliminary motions: A. "All mitigation listed in back of staff report shall be required and that the developer agrees that there will be no signs or specific advertising for the restaurants or other public use facilities in the hotel." B. "That the developer agree to provide the land as practical £or bus turnouts and provide the bus shelters." C. "That subject to the approval of the City's Traffic Engineer that the developer .will improve 6th Street including. the possibility of the option of narrowing the entrance of 6th Street at Pico Boulevard to prohibit right turns and will landscape and narrow 6th Street subject to approval of Traffic Engineer to return it to its residential character." D. "That the Development Agreement will provide that anybody can ride the shuttle transit ;bus." E. "That the concept drawings for .the Development Agreement - shall"include notes.: that there .will be_na_=entrances__or exits other than the main entrance and emergency exits which are so signed and with the exception that there will be a garbage exit door on Bay Street.°' F. "That the median strip will be landscaped from Lincoln to 4th Street subject to the approval of the Traffic Engineer." 3. By a 5 yes, 1 no vote, the Planning Commission adopted the following preliminary motion to recommend "10-story rather that the 6-story because it is better in mitigation for the neighborhood." 4. By a 6 yes, 0 no vote, the Commission adopted the following preliminary motions: A. "That the covenants and conditions extend for the life of the project." B. "That the developer provide and obtain City Manager approval for a construction management plan." Exhibit B -2- 5. By a 5 yes, 1 abstain vote the Planning Commission adopted the following motion: "That the Planning Commission instruct staff to try and reattach the condition that says that 2Q percent of the existing NAMOR units on a turnover basis shall be made available to Section 8 - eligible tenants and that the Planning Commission commends the developer, the neighbors and the City staff for a really fine job." Prepared by: Kenyon Webster Assistant Planner Exhibit C June 1, 1983 Action of Architectural Review Board Paul Silvern, Manager of the Program and Policy Development Division of the City of Santa Monica, presented the background information on the project. Kam Babaoff, owner, and Doug Lowe, project architect were present and answered questions from the Board. Mr. Lowe presented a model and color renderings of the 10-story alternative for the Inn. Mr. Frew moved to conceptually approve the proposed 10-story scheme, including porte-cochere at front entrance. Concerns to be addressed in final review include: 1) the connection between the building where the existing upper-level windows adjoin the addition. 2) the need for tall vertical plantings between the hotel and the apartment building, and 3) the vertical members on the west face. The motion was approved by a 6 yes, 0 no vote. e~ x x H H H b onsta~ ~+o~ s~oc. Campy ae• at eaattp area - fiaeeE plsMr pyacast wvaW eaatyp modMs PICO BLVD. ELEVATION sma~ campy v+. a~uiran hnc. ~/?aaafcovar area SECTION A-A 10-Storm A3.ternative s ~_' .~ ~C• 1® . ~. ~~q V ~. pico boule~.nrd ele~.ation 9 ;'~~] 10-5tpry A]..tern~tive .~ .CZ C C .. ~O .~ m ~s u,y 5~~~~ ~~,~~~ S 3 10-Story Alternative ~1 N •r C .C .~ m ~~ street _~ Q 6th ~ - - -- ~ , - - street ~ •-~-~ _._C . -~-.-.--e ~~ -- ~~ e e _' ~,r^' _ _ ~r v` o ® +. o _ v o _ mgt _~ -- n ~ ~ _ !~• ~ ~ ~, -~ !«-~ ~ ~ ~_ ~___ _ ID r ~ i m __ Oop~ O j merg b ~ _. gaoP ~bppO C ~ (vnM as `~a IlQ ~*~ ~ q p ~ ~~ r--ri-....e-r-~19a+ saeee 5th cart 8 .~ t` .~ ~o ~:a m® ~~ wry ~ 6ti 9rcet 51h cart g .~ d+d "` 01'1 piao Second 12Je1 I~a6 ax _ ®'~' .' - :. _.. eam.r .w w. .~ .~.. 10-Story -_lte?^native _--~--- I. ~~ ~- T K Ivwet' lei garage upper level garage .~ C .~ d C C .® A . T3 m ~~ ~~ 10-Story Alternative Figure 3 SITE PLAN e~, ~,w ~~ •~v ~-aur naj (I ~ ~ 'i ~~ 6-Story Alternative Source: Vit® Cetta and Associates Figure 4 6-Story Alternative ELEVATION FACING FIFTH COURT Source: Vlto Cetta and Associates 6-Story Alternative f=lgure 5 Source: Vfto Cetta . ELEVATION FACING PICO BOULEVARD and Associates .~, h« ~„ •di _. ~ -- ~~~~ 6-Story Alternative Figurs 6 Source: Vito Cetta ELEVATION FACING BAY S`T'REET ~ and Associates ele~u-ion fadrg boy sheeF EXHIBIT E ~~ > ' L S Consultants to 6orernrrental Agenc!es `- 1415 ~ast Seventeenth Siriaet. Santa .Ana. ~alilo.nia 92701 (714; 558-1952 ,'4ay lug, 19Ei3 I,r, Larry Fondation Ocean Park Community Organization 237 Ftill Street Santa Nion.ica, CA 90405 SUBJECT: Evaluation of the Parking and Traffic Study Report for the Inn at Santa Monica %;xr~ansion wear hr. Fondatior.: Transmitted herein are the results of a professional evaluation of t:i2e Par. icing and Traffic Study Repo:ct ;prepared by Linscott, Bald & GreC'nSpan, 1nC.) fO_r the Drot~OSed e';:~<3nSiOn and COn° version of the Inn at Santa ?Monica tc a Holiday Inn franchise, 'Phisevalnat~ion was conducted by the municipal planning and engineering consulting s"irm_ of BERRYMAN S sTi,PHEtISOT7, I,~3C. , Santa Ana, California, fO?' ti'le Ocean Park Colrununzty Orc,; aI1'_`L at lOn (~)PCO) , and 1S nOt rie CF.: ;;Sat:11V reprE'Sefltatlve GY ti:2 Ot ~ ?_221Ci,7S Cr COnE:ernS :JL 't`.he City v ..,~;nta 4IOn].ca. It should be also noted that i:l~.e purpose of this evaluation not to discredit the Parking ar.d Traffic Study Report prepared by Linscct.t, I.aw & Greenspan, Inc. Rather, the attempt is to identify, tnrouyh independent: review and analysis, areas cf concern witia respect to study findings and possible resol~utien> to these concerns. OvEa~VIEFi Tile evaluation process consisted of the follcsving s'~eps 1) revie~r and analyze relevant documentation (i.e., the Parking and Traffic Study Report, developer's site plan, and OPCO carre- spondence); 2) independently revieca the site and the e;:isting t.raffac and roadc~ray cond_tions; 3) meat with arfected neighborhood residentsy 4) identify possible deficiencies in the Parking and Traffic Study Report and determine their significance; and 5) formulate alternative strategies to mitigate potential parking and traffic impacts if necessary, Mr, Larry Fondation flay 18, 198? Papa 2 ~ocua;zents pertaining to the expansion of the Znn at San+.:a f%:onica and conversion to a Holiday Inn Franchise (hereafter referred to as "proposed project") included the original, September 1982, "Parking and 'I'ran"fic Study Report" for the Inn at Santa ri;ona_ca, and a subsequent f,aroh 17, 1983, Parking and Traffic Study Report uodatE. :;oth documents were prepared by Linscott, Law ~ Greenspan, Znc. {hereafter refer°red to as °Consultant`°). The Consultant has indicated that only the update report is of any consequence at this time. Generally, the analytic approach taken by the Consultant was sound, However, critical issues concerning parking demand and supply; ttze design and operational characteristics of left-turn drivetray access to the proposed project fro;n Pico Boulevarci, and peak hour traffic impacts on intersection. capacity and levels of service were not adequately addressed in the update report. :~ general area of concern is that numerous assumptions wE.r~,~ mcadE rec:arding hotel patronage, utilization of facilities, and related i10 t°''...~. aC':. i`7it1°S. t~10St Of tl3e Se a5SL4SRp tlOn~? appear t0 bE jUSi:lf7. x,51 °~... and are .n0 d1SpLltEd i n t1118 c'i7alllatlon. 170we47E?r, COS1Cern rilllfit be raised over the interdependence of these assumptions and their subjectivity, Far example, it is somewtzat arbitrarily assunzEd that airline personnel will constitute 15~ of the hotel's future business. This figure is then used, along with a further assumption that nc narking demaa:d is generated oy tizese airline guests, to suggest that a greater reserve of parking is available, and/or that less parking supply is necessary. A similar series of asszumptions caerE made regarding-the use of the ballroom facilities and its impact on parking dez:~:snd/supply. mother area of some concern focuses on the trip generation rate used to determine the amount of traffic that the proposed project will generate onto the existing street system. Trip generation rates were determined on the bask of the Consultant's field measurements and observations of vehicular traffic Entering and exiting the existing Inn at Santa Monica. Through careful manipulation of these data, a trip generation. rate of 8.52 vehicle trips per room per day was calculated and applied to the proposed projEOt. 'Z'hE results were an estimate of 910 -vehielE trips per day for the existing I:,n at Santa Monioa and a projection of 2,690 vehicle trips anticipated to be generated from the proposed project (an increase of 296x), However, empirical studies by various professional and governmental oresanizations indicate that an appropriate trip generation ratE for hotels is at minimum 10 vehicle trips per room per day. In foot, studies in San Jiego indicate that some resort hotels generate wall in excess of 20 vehicle trips per room per day. Mr, Larry Fordation May 18, 1983 Page 3 The most authoritative reference on trip generation rates is the Institute of Transportatiosi Engineers" (ITE} "Trip Generation: ~~n information Report,'° revised 1979. The average rate quoted for a hotel facility is 10,5 trip ends per room per day. dThe summary rate form from the ZTE report is attached for your pr.~-usal.) Many government agencies, including the G'ounty of Orange and the City of San Diego, use 10 trip ends per room per day far trip generation estimation purposes. mother area of general concern deals 3vith the lack of analysis of peak hour traffic impacts along Pico Boulevard between 4th Street and Lincoln Boulevard and at the ixtersections of Pico Boulevard) 4th Street, Pica Boulevard/6th Street, and Pica BouievardJLinca:tn Ba~.alevard. It is clear that existing levels of service duriaag peak haurs are at best marginal along Pico Boulevards The intersections of Pico BoulevardJ4th Street and Pico Boulevard; Lincoln Boulevard are particularly congested during peak hours. .°~hiie peals operating hourd~ for the hotel may rot necess:erilY coincide with peak hours on the street system, it is most.likely that the additianal 17GJ to 22Cs0 vehicle trip ends per day will have a significant aperatianal (and possibly safety} impact on the existing street system. Thus, at minimum, an intersection capacity analysis should have been performed for each of the afarementianed intersections. The final area of concern foouses an the design and operational characteristics of the driveway access to tise prcposed project. Many questions must be raised regarding the adequacy of on-site queueing (i.e., back-up} of vehicles in the driveway, as:d the stapping sight distance on Pica Boulevard in the westbaund direction given vertical grade of the roadway and the appraximate location and length of the proposed left-turn pocket. T}>e site plan suggests that Left-turn egress from the hotel dri°aeway will not be pers~;fitted. This would force all exiting traffic to turn right and head eastbound on Pioo Boulevard. Pdany quests wis3aing t.o visit the beach areas would undoubtedly tarn right at 6th Street and either continua down to Bay Street (to head westcaard) or attempt a U-turn sameahere on 6th Street (to get back on to Pica Boulevard in the naestbound direction}, Thus, the indication given in the Cansultant°s repart that no hotel_generated traffic would use 6th Street or Bay St:ree'6 is g111t2 misleading. S:r. Larry Fondation T~lay 13, 1933 Page 4 CHTTIC~L ISSL7P.S The foilo:~ring critical issues have been identified regarding questionable assumptions and/or inadequately addressed concerns ?) ire on--site parking provisions (wi:ich include a substantial amount of valet stack parking within parking structure aisles) adequate in ligiat of the possibility that airline personnel patronage estimates are inaccurate (i.e „ overstated ar vehicular traffic is generated by some of these guests)? 2) Given that parking is to be completely prohibited along Pico Boulevard (existing parking along the south side will b:~ eliminated by the proposed project), where would the overflow of vehicles park if demand exceeds supply? W:~rere uaill customers of existing com_marcial development on the south side of Pico Boulevard. park when on-street par}:iny is eliminated? 3) What are the peak hour impacts of project-generated traffic or7 existing capacity and levels of servic;e at the intersections of Pico BctalevardJ4th Street, Pico Boulevard{nth Street and Pico Sou.reva:ed!?,ircoln Boulevard? Do these signals reed to be upgraded or modified to operate more er".ficiently (e.g „ adding left-turn phasing at Pico Boulevardl~th Street)? 'r) Pedestrian traffic, particularly across Pico Boule~~ard, is of major concern in the area due to the proximity cf Santa hicnica High School. The proposed left-turn. poc?cei: opening rray induce mid-block crossings by pedestrians. what safeguards are proposed? 5) r7oes the on-site driveway have adequate storage space for incoming vehicles given the mix of incoming and outgoing buses, taxes, deir.>er'v vehicles, and passnnger car$? a sS) Will the stopping sight distance on Pico Boulevard for westbound traffic be adequate in the area of the proposed left-urn pocket?ls the length of the proposed left turn pocket adequate given projected peak hour demand? 7) How can project-generated traffic be effeotively disoouraged from using 6th Street, bay Street and other residential streets given that, contrary to the Consultant's report, such traffio will indeed use these streets? P1r, Larry Fondation May 13, 1983 Page 5 M?TiG3T?O~I MEASJRES St ].S-nOt tISE' iritent of t~ti5 evaluation to recommend mit~.gation measures on behalf of the proposed project. ,~5any critical issues still need to be addressed, including those identified iri this evaluation. However, it is suggested that several im4?rovem.erits :ere considered in develo~;ing effective mitigation measures. ^hese improvements include the following: 1) Provide additional on-site parking reserve or reduce the number of proposed room additions {thereby generating less demand). 2) Upgrade the existing signals at Pico boulevard/4th Stxeet °,o provide separate left--turn phasing. 3) Restrict left-turn movements at 5th Street b_v constructs??g a continuous median island an Pico Boulevard. This smprovement s1?ould be coupled with the replacement of the existing s;.gnal c~~ith a pedestrian crossing signal or pedestrian bridge, 4) Sy' constructing a continuous median island across oth St-°--• ~~ cet (cv2 Pico Boulevard), the proposed .left-t?:rn pocket opening for the hotel can be waved to a safer location (i.e., easterly of the location presently shown on ti?e site plan) as?d leng'vhened, if deemed appropriate. 5) Provide additional right of we.y (and a ;cider street cross-section) in front of tt2e hotel driveway entrance for improved visibilsty a rid more efficient right."--turn in.,ress and egress via a separate lane. This lane can also serve as a drop-off area. tN CL~J5S2:G It is hoped gnat this professional evaluation of the Cansultant'~° Parkincf and Traffic Study Report for the p?-opased project, has proven useful to ^vPCt7. m'he concerns and critical. issues ideratiy'=led 1?erein snould be brought to the attention of the City, as well as the developer and h.is Consultant. 7f I can be of further service to OPCD, please do not hesitate to cal.?. Very truly yours, HE€iR'l2.1A~d & ST PHENSON, I~?C, JalT:eti H. Kawamura, P.E, G'ice President/Direotor of Transportation Systems JHK:dw erc . ` ? 3&$§~i ~~93"s ~~$3 bYS _~ EIl'd i'" &.~~2'9~d': r-L 'a dC.)a ~ e~~N3 ~ S..:.ma Land Us°iPuilding °Type }.Ote1 lndependeni Varia;3ie---Trips per Rao;{i ! (dom.. Land 1J>8 CCf)f: ._31~ t Average ~ Plumber r1verzgo Cite ci Jrin Maximum Nrinimum Correlation of irdepend<:nt F~aie FteTa ~ ,',ate l Coefficient L~_. Studies j yariahie,•'S`tudy ~ _ _ __ I ~ q^qq~ ~~w~~~~ ~d3~~ 1' ~g ~p L (n~~~ Y~l~t3~l~ ~ ~S~ "w i~t3.~5 ~ ~ ~ 10.E i ~_~f ~ { 0.1 ~ _ ~ s ` ! , I ~~7~ ~ ~ --~ ~_~_ Peak ~ r d.t~. r Enter ~ ~ ~ 0.53 ~ ~ _ i ~ ~ ~ Hour Sei~een Exit ~~ ~ - -7 ~ t~ i of ~ 7 and 9 Taiai 0.85 , ~ 1. 1$ ~ 0 G °i ~~ ~ _ i~ I .1~. C~ ~ fadjaceni ! P.PA. I Enter 0 3o I ~ ~ ~ ~r'" ~ i Street ~7~.iween Exit . 0 37 - ~ ~ - . ~ ~_ ____i i 77 ~ ._,~ 3 Tr~f#ic 4 and S Tota3 . ~ i ~~~ I {~ ~ ~ !_. ~~--i ~~ ~._ ' _L~04_ ( ~ ~ 7 ~~ Peak A.~A. Enter ~ _ I _ ~ ~ _ _ ( ~~ --- j - -- ~---r Nour ~ ~ Exit t I a` ~ To{ tal j 0 ~ ~ ~ I f ~ C~anerator ~ P.P~. I Enter ~ t i 1 I ~~Exii ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~_ ~ ~- ~~~ ( I 1 ~ ~ i ~ To23! 1 ~_____ _ j _..._.._ ~ _~~_ __ ~~ ~__! ~ ! ~ ~_.:: sifiFLs.,°~.'~ ~~ l3iv~m 8Sl3 ~mnC~ i ~. 1 ~ _ f i _$ ~~~ = ~5. & ( l a v. ~ ~ 7~,~. ~_ Z Peak Enter f ~ . ~ ~ . ~ _N.. ~ ~~~~ j ;dour of Exit ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ____ Ganeratcr Toia1 ~ 0.67 i 1.34 0.37 ~ ~_ r ~~w S~nda~ ~~~ia9~: T€ip finds - ~` ~ ~ -__ ~ ~ ~ s~~~ e Peak ~ Enter ~ ~ ~ i 1 Hour o°. Exit E ~ ~ ~~ ~ T ~~ i ~ _ ~ J~ ~.®__ Generator Total O.ol 1.Ob 07.42 i 3 Tg? s ~{{ 1 ++ I ~ ~~ .=~~~ Souros ~durnt~ers lTE Technical Commtitea o"A-o"-Trip Generation P,aies 27ate: ~i5 _._. ~ i_ S _~=~ +~' ~`Z . 'a ~ 3 .;i.t ..r tc t41.} ~t.'i t 1; t1.i c.i'_ Sri. .. ~ i ..~ ~ ..','~r~ c ,.. .. . :J =~:i?vS ~ .:ca`.ti~3I:!Li.~::1.y [}._.. j~r-~t,~rii3;1 ~.x u1 cLc_'~".'c:; I]SC?Ily .i.,1C. ;,BI'1 ~c :1i: Ez~ ;.~d I1L4iS i.i iz })~~/i)i. r«. _ ~v. 2' ___ . h:_l is viii?ll }. `, ~ ~_. j ... od. ~w_ )+ ~c)1tu . __. ~zl v.~~ i:.n at :., _1.~ .: ~1j ~ w J r .:1. ? 7nC ., L i E.,' loci l`.~.~ L.> ~iJt Ui'C~~-} 1.1'. ~1 ~.i .. _; 1~ u li _; ._ a t? r - d~j ~ t~'~u ;1311 i•J ~.._ P i i'i? C a .iJ l!i; - eft VCit C. Ut'..; c_Il :.'; C:~,_t %_:.~ U-'..LP ~;>U'. u: ~.1_~ 1:50'. ~~ C. 1.SLll.: oi0i1 1s: l:.ilE .. ~Or': S. , 1 .": C'. ~__' _c3ci '~, i8_) ..c,v mil' 1; _ t .~ 1.11: ~ :'Ld (;1 t 'v.. L;. ~ _ ~ ~ ~~. ~ a-,~,~ -, ,i. 7.:. ,.. ;ii i_ °:: i:C.. Ll;~ 4 ;1:, 1_i i_f. . .. (: tG >i U`. .~ (;G~' c. ,, ,. ~, ,, ._:_~`L7 c.., j.,07.... 6Tti1 _.. _ .-~+i; O. ilU ryviJC{ 1 ~7; ~ ti-~J~! tfl!L it ~ ~... _~.v ;.... __...~..- 11':11.!: Vie.'. it' Y-e..o 't; I"?~'t- 1.:0 J(.: ;'_ ~,.U :..._ ~.. ~E,_G.:: ~ a-. Vi_, h. !ii r L: i_ \1i=~ JJ'"'VUJ Ij. ,:'; 1, 1` .. , ,. t ~ e f )- , ~ 1 ~ ~~ ~~ _u_ ~~r! ...~L1$i.~r __~.._a. _.._at h' flz1 i1;"a'L• L3d~S~~iT, ~AjPd L~ s;n~F~I~PA;'J, 4~1G., ERIG111lEE~S TRANJ°Ci f~i,'~ilOi~J, Rr1~-SIC,?-ri Kln;V, CI '_LfVGif,i;~l.'°JG '6CCP.=~~iPF,.'~I6,ll~-~~17_G,~n ~'..,. ~1,Cfitlt ~,,,,~_.'",, n~,:,,1 i58 e~1TYie 7, 19fl3 ~~sS Ib??~~~;a7`~SES olo ~'3ae Tnn .~#: ~an~.a Rionica 538 Pico ~>o~~'°e~ra~-d ~~53'~.2 i"101iCcz~ C:.~. 9~~d~J %id.fl~7.~%C6.; ~r~~~il~ ~~:"~~7L7?I'.L':7 ~`i S.k'x~'R.i'i'1<'~.N cat ~3 ~Ta.~L'"L1iu'{)~'a ~.~~m S. L3 L', >"~1'd £~~i .~`, d~L~r~l~ P'90!VIC:d1 ~;;XPs'11`dvr'I~lti'i Year iir, Labaoff~ pit yao;ar recd,~eatr ;ae 1?ave revie=:rec9 the Lerryman & Step:~Person Inc, {BSI) e.alaation da*u.ec7 ?:1ay T8r 1983, of our :arch lII, 19~i3 :'z°affic anu 1~ariting Stb,cly ??e,ort for 'Phe Ynn at Santa i<IQnictz ~'.;:I3t327SiC?nm ~~ e fOl.L OIl ing ~r E'SE?F'itS otl .° YeS~7Pi5L--' tG '~,h£' CSJffc G31t3 and iss.ses raised ~y the SSS letter and focuses on the Seven i°:,taes Uo~ forth flra xi~°s~,a} ~s of Thai: lotz:er„ It ~+OUlt~ ~e I3Q's. E'C3,~ d1fJ;dt~?TTt.'ry tnat tnE' '3iu'.'i 4"47Ctmv'T1tS r~eg E' gC'dic:ra.~i. in >sats re rind posed as cduestiQa~s, R?o analysis of L-he traffio ~aro~eati:~n5 or x.~arking demand figures a,as offeredr For example, t;he? pa*king c~°-n~ly:,iS L9a ~"> t~U~'StlOne ~tr ~Ji,-t no "typi Cal ~' deT:laiii~ rave cr perking s~a^e need eras s,sgges'vede ~~iNliP)Ts 1 dire ar,~'sit~ parking previsions t~~rhich amatant of valet stack parking within ac3ec~uate '? n tight of the ~rossibiTity Da ~.r J,Y`ia ge f?Stiitiate8 i3rE' inal:CUratC' ve}a.icular traffic; is generated ay some o I,S~'S~3iIS ; incluc3ec3 a s~ibstantial parking structure aisles) t'fiat a3ZTiIlE personnel (i,eor OCYerStat£d flY f these guests)? ~'ae estimate of airline pwrsonnel patronage cssecl in the parking forecast eras used on mazket share figures projected in the financial analysis prepared by Laventhol & Hor~~~th. This fact, ll. ~t ... .° .,. SIi EI i i~'P.`~~ 1:~~}.4, CF.L Ir 71t:a: ~,i i. ~,_i;i ,_)U?32'Z ~insc~t,, ~_~~ra ~ ;;r~e3~s~an, 9nc,, cr~yfneer; CalliJ~.ed 6a l'th tCi reSUl$:S al`- aU;C flel(: sarVt=VS gl4 eS taS uL1i G,+','a degree o:` canfidarace in %he ~rkincs demand fig+ares developed i afar recta .. ~1'4F217. t317t ~3r?rk2a7g J.6 t0 ae cam3J .eta i.,y s.`,r bn3. a"S1 teC! alaP. C~ PiCa ~culavarc7 ir:a~isting parking along the sc:~Lath side ~ail1. br• a:l.arailated by the rap~rJsc~d pra~ect,, wrlex'2 4aaul=~ the a~~erf~.ae~ of Arehic?es park if demaalr3 e~caeds saapply? Where wi31 caastorne•t°s of elisting commercial °~'evelapr~len'c on the saaat.h ;,ida of Pico ~aralevard pr?r.'r sah2.1 bit-street par;zircr is eliaaindtasl°? »;~'•S PC3id~ ~ ; Pr elir~:inary cha:^nelizatian plans preg~axeri ~y the prc;j2et architect ia:clicate that one and ~=chaps two car.t~ :>~aces saiii ~_ lest w.~, a ras2zlt of ~,h`w exparasson plc°rn, :last of t`:e corn al"a.?n the es pw.^v]~?C°. L`. Z>_antage is £""ithar rE'd Cures ar Y2S%-r J. Ctr ~.-'Ci LYUL' ~:fl c~.2'1 elsistizag a°"re taydraaatn 2~a overflaty ~laTkiny pro~alPrlr~ are F+.:"rLiL; ;.pelted, 3n ~~cl €dtg c2 L1°'s pace Surplus }.S E:L iL'e%tcC~.., 1tle r f'1t tiVC' H.].'P". r? 'Jf t, ?';e raO;t °`;.bD kld ni~lle9~ S:dCili~.~ (S3 hi C.t3 1ri C'a.i5vi Sig dtl C 14211 F7 iJt iaJ` £'X;t3c.ndada , Ca U~Ji E'd :~Ii%1i 'i.hs? iTl'arile .~ a;^T'??iCW iS3 t'~„"~r~ ai to?C ~1raL F1fJt>Y' rC'~~<i I.2 L"251'".JCCr.J;{tC?i latl Yl ~~y £!, tab 17J~.:y 1rt x~U,=° apii?iG?'., v:"aducP a S1i. llatitlR S?itEre CJ u.maX':d id 1..~. _a v:YaaC'd bn--site ~~I,i°_J~11;, a~Jne.t are tre >~ak hour impacts at prajec _g 2 °- ~• t eneratei. t.ratrz_c ar. a'1;.aStl;ly Cc'a.~aC:t."~y ak3CI levels of S;»~rY:LCL' a`C t~2e inter'scctiOTla of Pico ~a~la~-ardJ~?th :treat, Pica ~3aaalevarr3/Sth .^,traet, and Pica BouSa~vardJ3 iYrcaln voulevard7 ~a mesa signals need tb 6~e Llpgraci?d ar madafied to aper'ate mesa efficiently {e,cre, ac?e:;.rg 1Aft--t:srn chasang at Pico I3oulavardJ~th Stray=t? ~~SPCiSs ; `.?`hese it=terr,ectians were root loalted at in detail, since the betel expansion eras expected to generate a relatively sr~ldll incrementa?. incrazase in peak hoar traffic4 l7uring the Pti peak haLar, t?;e ex~Jandad betel is anticipated to add 16 vehicles to thc:t nram~er which tzow enters the Pica Rocalavarc]J~th Street intersection, Similarly, hof:el-related traffic will add u+~ ~in;,otE, k.:~Vll ~ Gr~aYrisp~n, inU., ErSgine,S~a, afz~131C~~°.:> 'eta t2`i? 'Pi ~'t3 j:3Jl7,if-^V~; L'4~ ~.rix`~1G S~.;a edi;l <`.L t'itk7 ~'~T'f.'e t„ ~1 tcst~~1 t?L 1?l Vek?:i.i.leti i5 c37..r'iil %ilt1C:L~~s`€"4E.'C~ t~ ~£_a dGC~.".L~ L`a~ is}5v Pico ~3ouleuarr31Li37~.olaa Haulevd3-c intars~,;~t:ic7no xhe~n increaeraal idTt:red526g >:*Then Histr.ka~ted to the var.iouS tY2zslix?ci i31OV£'T:S f'YSGSy t1b2 not G:i e[.:t C'L3 '`f3 ~,r OCill C'E' d S7 v3tiCedk71C' Cllaf7a~ , ii trai:F3v^ Sc~.ri7i%§? 12~,e~,. rl'il L' YJati?:'i ?; 1. rS ,L %'2t?C~ ~a~' ;i E?~:~Yr~a ytn a- l~~L`.°i_U?'n ip.. hrlSiS7g t tide s-i t:a ~iOllc.''T 1Z(:1i~~'l,Sl s..'°r?Y.Le2t lnSeerS2r°t Wt:.i71 i"i:s5 Y:;?vi3 reCt)."..,;n1;v:'C~1 t~° tk:2 C1'`` i~^ ;7 ~er~ .~ y. ~'x.~ 2ed, hawv.crs is ~aS::~. an '. `S 7.S tinK~ t~t3 ~: :L .'.~ u011f3 !.t1, C)Y7S 1'7h 7.Ci'1 }'J1 ~. i. k7z? i711~'z2i;tvC7 to ci SSIci~1 a'.7~e%rfye 'L?v t_'3r'. f:C~'C P..L t~",SP~~~.5~:~10nw uGia~.P--k'1' d Tk ~~CjiL''i'G=_'idR tT?L2~I::p ~ai ticulG rls cCS'=ASS P7. i; Cl 3~"S ti llit^--. "•.733'~.a ~. _w~ ;?" ?i3:~~s ~.'.a1'SCa.r?1 irl 'Y'd?n d~"E.'sl ~±t&' to tS1 ~: t7+'J'~il^lty aY ;.s3~7~u ~ea,1~.;`ri ig31 ;~chaal, 'i'he ~iro~et? 12t~i;.aY~~7 r~aclcet ox;~.37i.,c may i,]iittm's`i Sellf'.t'-k7 .i. s3~~i C2'OSSinc~t>i ~lY r%t.?`'!;"~.6tr.9. dY7S, ~'It3 <t :: 5~3~~C~. Ur"1 ?"'C~S ct '' ~1 ®~.~a seCi'? s'3~~i'z~?kk,~,E ri' e(' y.~,i s^., wjeCl` ci:°°C;. Yii t2Ct k1dS C.k E?vL'.~iO~E'~ it 43 „';?'. 11171 Yld ry ?2;2:.1 :~.. i:d :7 u~+ n iitg~C hi3I7'!v 1. ?.,.', ct a.l a:a Y:~.).dn 57;71C'k'S w^v i1.'~„%i g7,C aL'iE3 C:e ?31 J~,!~+?Y3 d~:;erl T.c~j C~ali~l E`sre'nCE? :^ar~~Yn ~€~'IIene,a rTi~'ll;: r7 G~ii _~. C~ 7ildit £' :p~tl-la s.aC}: t'Fv:i51;. ~~, o 'yi ca ~3o;~levar-i~ L_v k7ic,?a School «'tu:ients c3iificult t;~ aco,~pl.ish, ~:s an altel~ndtive~ 'the City 'l`r~;i=~i~W ;~nginei~r r'ia S71 C{d3eSa'". v+;.~ tk'i s'lt 'L12 27QY°$:hid £'u ter ~ ~ Si::f? Y'}{~ 1 :i. <~;a ~a'~~. E?vci L~•,'.i z3E,' ~aa'a2=.~G7' Y't3th°Z' tsldn C~Ut'.k:3~.G-°~3~i?Cr~ tk1^c SIl2t,~l~lne „~~L'Sr:il 1n :19~ L`f'r°Y17."i~l.v;? ?~7ai1 ~. f~ S)c~. yJi ''c~d?ri2C.!'y 51P3 {:e 3t F9 L3?.11 t~ aii;ib~%i~y C31.c3P.T2A1i7.. c~ti Gn iiPnG eliminate basing 1:fY~turr~s ~~tween twa median fences, C;<liA;s',IVT ~ 5 I3oeS the on°site c?riveo~au~y have a~ec~ta.ate S4~orage sg~ace fa;: ?rzco,~i:7g v2hic:IeS given the mix ar" inz~alr2ing r7d a~7tyoing b2se~==> i:axis, yelieery sr2hicles, cant] ;~asserger cars? kl~:HiY;PkY~ u e Hot 215 are 2ssent~dlly la;~ vollame at`,tiL>ifii€ls, ih2re iS SL?~i ' C.7 e'."1 s. up°JdCf' to s~"?rark regiStk?rlYlg g:1 P.StS 137 th e. ri "L'vT3lJSC'. d~ e3ritr2;:'dy, Arriving k~utiseY will dleo b? dccammac3ateea ir, tk?2 final zi25ign, For 2Yre?ats ~Ther2 there are a slu.:b2r of arrivals :tin ? :hurt ti;~2 (i,e,3 d bancitYet; we erect that the <ttenr7;-,.37t J,_; 77SC a'6':, i., ill ZLt vTt;~ Y'is.3:]{;, ili{:., i_91 {Jilt:'?f"`_ sic: 7'I:.L T?CJ S1H'C °.:`P:2S bli.2.l. ~e ?:1 ~.'t. €: F':3 13dfl3Ci "1_i2 ?.:L1:1.S i.i c.ii3.+`; 5=1.1 i!+JiPt ~J7?"iculfya Vel:s~f°3es +:;ot2ycl be d:J.~-ect>>c3 cn?~tJUC:,;~2 the c:r7.~r;•1~~,~ w ~I ". ;?~Z3 `L;?+° f?"::iY 1+G?s k=71'i t;: ?'e fi:['.1V2f t"3 P?fi C?a SSe3 CJ L'r;~ :.'C;277_fl dJ.:3.y1'3i U:.P7 4?~: La'~.2?C~333's; ;; '~2t }z'e' OGL-'Z.a 1i11 a7T"i3~.~E?e: d'Ctei1C31T'i'C Sinai lY'; ~a 1Sg?'J A.. i?C7 J;?i1 S. ~. E'-' S'f3J1.:'. d7 'L"7 £: °;.S 1.Sy c hS.DY ~2. Ci ",'?:i t.(3 Gtd t: };HCiL-1.2 iJ C77 yC ~'"?.."J 'P]?. ~. ~. itl!? Si.O",3~3.II+~J S'i C.,1t ~a C73 S'Czl..d7C€? i)Pl ~'`?CO Tc3C'.?~E'ti~ZC~ Yt~Y i`x'fiill©1.1.is C~ ~Y t`. `rT3C i32 ~E~.°. Cu l1l1 t°.n 1. i'1 ~". 11 r^^. d3: E'. i7'F Lil+;? T~+a f9r OSf'Ca 7.eTi°'i.'.lii.. Ti ~aci.;Yt? ss t3°iG ~.era~th e= ti'3e ~.r.c~:.:~vet] 3e~t-turn "c;~:c:et ~?~ief~uat.® csuve;2 ~rc;jectecl ~;~ak %cur fler.9ane2? '?'z?e S2"~z-?.w ~'t~ !e;t ~,"..._i't3.Y~? ~. c1Zi? 'CCS:C °vT::Si.L:~<J l'1Y7 <a Y'7.:3C) .(3CJU~.eiT 1.ZC {:"<3i:t 1.C a'~;Z':1 Y'.S .iRn:v 'i.i?t_' ri£'}) t?t3' L'J. {'y L'1eJE?Si~t7 ~:•: 7..i 1'. :(Je Cl f~:-: 3.rP.eta iU ;Ji ©Cr.i t~e x_ _ S L°JT vCe `u'L2 ~.'L-~. "., 1. fW'a3i iC LCCC:(l;E2Cf13 `L €? c?:;r 2C t:.•C'I ~5`s5: i~:r.Cy `:~'77.') _., E:;S'?e C`(".psi %C Cis:? w:i ~e%a-`.' ~~!) ~Z:'~'t:1; ~.Ci1c; +-.1 ita cl viz "'>;=:J i:. i°Ysi Y3 ~.°.7. {: j5 r.... 2r,t w"a7.il ~e ces~:ec, io the ~~;~?ti€aTar:,t:il~r+. c,~: tI'+e {"iiy Z'r~~:_i~: ~'r3~uPeet', ..*m.C2`J jJ?:?C`~ ~3 ~; 7'~: ~~. isO~f.". i' i7 ?S ?. ~.SC J2e: tl eIY1~Llu''a~ ;:~ ..s.~lYi G' el yS ii'E?4"8r. SCI.12Lw.3 S3a :7 ;3.t 2~i e7_~i1.7. ;°lc"1ZV %3nr?.2~137:i G•'` 'i t'?r.. T?'S t, ~. j:.::s 5. ik t_'I'.C3 L{:'.;3 i:L2at 1i ~ Ve'1 ;.v"1 t? t=."s-_'~'G ~O i?~ F°2:'G t'pGii?<~ OJ`.. J~ {;: _.. i?"«272u7. L.?:J I? ~C>'"'i.:t+J rl J: tt'1 P. .~. e.t.'L.'°rt.1 Z'11 ?2T3 ¢: '. r; 1.".v Jvile e^;I°2;i1~;i L?3" iinr_> r'i~ jiJ4Usl ii tYr71 S.C ~. clfi2~ tl3%:'.?'zi I'TOti: i~ lie SLiz '=2C?E:2 i~ S'y6~3i?i.3"it) S1 Cj }'p'i: ft?, S'~3S2 i; t? `(` e ii `7 £'237. ~„ r e C1 c?CI =~V ~1 i 31 L~ ;=IeS: Z)C7 t,F i'.~ :~. ~:. ~xJ il'1 i E: :; 'r,J2:s 2iOLiZ a _ ~'C>si~~f'; 1 I3~id ~~n ~roject~c~eaav~;3te:ir.~~?ffzc ~•~ e#:ie=~ive~y c~iscf,3~rar.ef3 fr®Pn ~;s~°nc~ ,~;~h :~Lree~~ uMy St~ee~ ar3~ ©~.i3er ~°P:;i~e2?t:ia1 ,t~-ee"~s a:~~,~en c17a~, cc~n~ra~-v to ;:13e C9r2sultant's re~'scr,-tv~ SIaC.i1 f_~`:!"rv'1~:J ;d.2~.! 3.s"3r~~e`.C~1 LlSe 'irlleSe vf.:i ivs't: `a" sZ?eZG nl:~ r3 i'ti)3 ~.°. Y' C;C tl?:il'aC1Ci `a 4^i 11SC17 C;1T1 }72 ti:a ~C3 tC e*:[£'C:'i'.l gxhl.~ ~re~.i.r2d~ r3e~c~°rew~iet3 traffic frT~:n u~irg Gall Stre~:+:~ Srn< ti, W; 12CLe7i 3CCeS6°°efjie5S .~.=~c`i„e:il 'S;li~i C'iceP fi£'Saf?T. £".'.'d3 Idx t:.1101.1'~ Cje?3 .1"?Ci°.7CC'. a3.s'x Gt23 Yi?"C'n+e, ,: iL'SC~tl%I C?1 C~ t131S GCi;ll;tlc?"i t. ;,14>ll,2. Cl 57E' 17! i'}?e P~.72[1.~ L, 1_sn<=;,~si, L,~v r;A C;reerrs~an, lnc., Engir3eers C?'_' 'u"=7~ ~Vr~f .-+4. .r f-'a57. CSC'. Tl%~;: ~, T7 Ci i`. ~d'~ Wl~~~ ~~1i~1:6~"_3?C flCCe?a5 °.; i1 U%.t, ~~.` i£'A'i. 3J,;,7 u1?T'S i~i~ ii?.~:Cl .e:ICP 5i1GVc^TR E?IA.e Y£~aTT:'L L"`C7t~~?;~ Oi" "i:'t; T.'t?ti:~;^ =`7°•,'a2Cc3~ C'.~'?v £];le a. ;~'i1 $: S.U3? Sd .'>.i. ~. %L't_3:S ?"~ F] Cj?~~il'%:.: i"l ~•'_ Ci~r } +-5 L-"~ i LLZ SST ~,`~ ;~~~~r ?ta CC~CT~~~'~teio:',i r.=~h a„rr~ ~"r ~i ~ ~ 7st,er;L~.<.~. c Ur n lni~v L : ~~a;~1 °~v:1~+`~y ~Y'+xL`'~'L,~ C5"~?msx'~~.CJYlu it" t.~`i£' }SC?Wf?.3 Si'lOlll_. C! Y20+... i7:".'. c"i?"Sr. -?C?:.C:~, d ~7 L~ ~;3 `5?7 €' Ci?A'1'.' e. i3r5 {~G'8S ~d7C' COtiu~271".:. O:'1 £~~C?T37.21L': 5~. ~+h j; +."7. S'Cii. rl:: i.'.) w?° '~ ~'F t 5 i 4.. 3'1 L: f'. .a.._:3 t7 si'lG f.~l s'. liL. (fib{? 1`. S'l £_ ~.._ i `k ? ri', .~°', '>nrJ 3: ~i 3 ' +~ ~ av_%i Tl 3, 1~ f',n7. - i- . Ce7 E! I' Pl~i''e ;;'1=_~' 61 `•ac?j L.~q 7.~£S.1 c"?-31 C~ :d ~:? 2 '~li;~i. l!Sbf+C~ _.JZ ~:tI YP.'+' fY1;~w 'i..J `~£' i"1 t~5i E`5 iJ "v £?.il yT?iL°'ciuc'U' 'LC t32 C3~ !.1L'~'YA~I" S2?"+7.1 C:? c`iT2'ej. SLviT? ~ S~t3Ciy it? {5?:L": ~!.;Jf'u?'~tj~. 1.3vP:as 6:GlsS`ll:i rcl~l0;7 t3 U' Yti!c3?: vtE XF?L~UiT' i., ~Z' '%3°Ye: :AYE' v~%:?7" C~e1P. St 1~d':up ~},3. d?r~.SF? ri'£'.L 'L'C:~ vG C:i3 ~..~. TRc tj 7, g'E„{,,i:?l'a ~ G S? ti E;l'C i~~ ~'a 8 ~'•^~33 5