Loading...
sr-032211-8bCity Council Meeting: March 22, 2011 Agenda Item: g-' g To: Mayor and City Council From: Eileen Fogarty, Director of Planning and Community Development Subject: Development Agreement float-up for a new mixed-use project at 1681 26~n Street (former Papermate site) by Hines. Recommended Action Staff recommends that the City Council: Discuss the Applicant's Development Agreement proposal and provide direction regarding its potential community benefits and appropriateness for the redevelopment of the site; Direct staff to initiate the Development Agreement negotiation and review process; and Discuss proposal in the larger context of the LUCE and draft principles and plan underway for the Bergamot and Mixed Use Creative Area Plan and provide direction to staff on recommended priority issues, as identified in the conclusion of this report. Executive Summary The applicant, Hines, is proposing that the City consider a Development Agreement to permit amixed-use creative office, neighborhood commercial, and residential project totaling approximately 960,000 square feet within five buildings. This project is one of the most significant land use decisions the City will make, particularly in the implementation of Bergamot Transit Village, considering the magnitude of the project and the opportunity for influencing the entire District. The Community has been clear that Bergamot Transit Village should feel, look and function like a "village." The Village must provide a feeling of safety and security, a sense of community and ownership, the concept of neighbor supporting neighbor and the ability for family, friends and acquaintances to come together in a comfortable, vital vibrant place. The evolving industrial lands are one of the few remaining areas where the City has the opportunity to shape speculative development pressure into a positive outcome. Policies included in the adopted LUCE for the Bergamot Transit Village District that capsulize the community's vision for the area include: Encourage a diverse mix of creative arts/entertainment uses and employment opportunities balanced with a variety of residential types and local-serving uses to establish a 17 hour/day, 7day/week active neighborhood. • Provide active recreatidn, gathering .places and open space in the°form of new parks, plazas and ground level landscaped open spaces. • Design buildings with. a variety of heights, and architectural building elements and shapes to create visual interest. Walls should have meaningful combinations of materials and three-dimensional articulation to engage the eye. • Scale buildings to the pedestrian to create an enhanced sidewalk shopping or walking environment. Include enhance materials and detailing on ground floor facades along pedestrian ways. • Locate building entrances and primary facades facing and adjacent to perimeter streets or new vehicle/pedestrian streets to encourage an interesting streetscape with a variety of places for people to gather. Figure 7: LUCE concepts for8ergamot Transit Village Extend m AI'a=" Pedesh:an SVay The Transif ~:a~nstrezt Village Cure Peassr,a~e 4va~ inn i Plz:a ~p g • ~~o*raet 0 0 Fumree'4i 13xtd tl ~FUmrz M+xeti- 1 ~ 1 Y 6eve~Rment - +Deveto ment T;'_.: ~ r , iP, r+ t, s F ~ P 11 t T t I~ 1 1[ t t t ..-~t~-'1 i t t't u.: t t t t r i~ i i t { i l I I d I l i l _sc :--f I I-,--. ~ '{ I( I f I I l ( ~ q .~pw. - Resideofiel :} ~~~ a;z~.. ~ Reiatmnai y~ ~ COfiix '~# ~ peaf,ve ~ y ~~ Rzs dx*t ai ~~ i Y~~ n SI 3~~Ri„~ ~~ „y~~ e .. s zTi- ~ Common A`r u ~ k~esjdent of ~ ~,~ ~/~ ~ ..--'~ _7 Playa ". x ~ ~ ~' T.."" [ a ~_I y. a _ t ~~ ~ '~ _ Reg~onai Eika/Pad Path *,~? y a _ = .. n __. y "a' m .~ s Ee a - EiPQBeigamdt +i ~ ii i3_rtry'+ 5txeon a e ~ 4~ . SERGAh10T dR' CEh"ER 2 Figure 2: Proposed Project Concepts ~, ,~ ~_ .~ Y- ~~' ~~3~.~~. Writ c_xr:a. ~,'~ The subject property is located in the Bergamot Transit Village land use designation and with a proposed maximum building height of 81 feet, is a Tier 3 project that requires additional community benefits pursuant to Chapter 2.1 of the Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE). The project concept was initiated while the City's new Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) was still under development and review. The applicant has responded to early principles developed for the Bergamot Transit Village area in LUCE by breaking the development on the 7:2 acre site into five buildings, providing ground level open space, and adding a street, drive access, and pathways through the site. Additionally, the project includes the types of uses envisioned in LUCE for the Bergamot Transit Village area, it is adjacent to the future Expo light rail station, and proposes a strong Transportation Demand Management program. Staff is working with the applicant on a slightly- modified street network to provide more efficient traffic management, more directly serve the Expo light rail station, and provide connectivity to the remainder of the Village to the north. While the proposed project presents an exciting opportunity to implement the vision for Bergamot Transit Village there are areas that need serious attention to adhere to LUCE policies and the Bergamot Transit Village vision, including: Creating the Foundation for an Active Village o Co-located office and residential uses to create activity 17 hour/day, 7 day/week; o Design and use of the ground floor for a dynamic, inviting, retail-dominated pedestrian environment to create the Village character; o Building entrances oriented to streets and main pedestrian pathways; • Creating an Active Community Environment o Placement and design of open space to accommodate spontaneous and programmed activities; o Retail around open space to create an active environment; and .residential and office overlooking the open space to extend the hours of active use; Human-Scale Design o Articulated buildings that have appropriate height and flexibility at the base to include a variety of retail types and storefront; o Building facades that step back consistent with the intent of the LUCE and create multiple rhythms through window patterns, architectural materials, offsets in the plane of the facade plane and variation in heights to achieve an interesting skyline; o Block sizes created with new streets and pathways that are consistent with the Santa Monica grid with (or the appearance of) multiple buildings on each block to be consistent with the Santa Monica scale and a "human-scaled" village; o Architecture and planning that considers. all sides of the building addressing the entire 360-degree relationship of the project to the surrounding area; and • Interconnected- Circulation Location of street and pedestrian connections across the project site such that they create the opportunity to introduce the city grid of streets and paths within the Bergamot Transit Village, support efficient traffic management and enhance all modes of transportation, and support an entry into Bergamot Arts Center from Olympic Boulevard. During the past year and a half, staff, the community, and Planning Commission have given the applicant clear direction that the project lacks meaningful relationships to the surroundings and more importantly, fails to foster an environment where the social aspects of a "village" can occur. Specifically, there is concern that the campus-like setting of the project, location and types of pedestrian connections and open space will not create the sense of openness and walkable environment necessary for creating a Transit Village. The regularly spaced windows, dimensional and modular qualities of the building facades, continuous standardized sign bands, and most of all regular, flat unarticulated facades convey a sense of uniformity and control that is incongruent with the Bergamot Transit Village vision to realize an environment formed by housing over commercial, street and sidewalk experiences, unique and distinctive three-dimensional storefronts, and articulated buildings. The proposal separates housing and jobs, which does not create the 17 hourlday, 7 day/week activity necessary to create a village. The building orientation and segregation of residential and non-residential uses suggests a mixed-use campus rather than a 21st Century redefinition of a village, which is the intent and challenge established by the LUCE. Some of the modifications to the concept plans since the Planning Commission float-up have responded to specific concerns raised. Overall, the project still does not meet community expectations as envisioned in the LUCE and expressed at community meetings for the project and Bergamot Transit Village Area Plan. At this time, staff seeks direction from the City Council to guide negotiation points and necessary revisions to the proposed project. Discussion This report provides a comprehensive assessment of the proposed project's concept plans and is organized into the following sections: LUCE Vision: Four Strategies fior Creating the Bergamot Transit Village ..:.............:.::................:................................................. E A. Input from Planning Commission and Community .................................................................................................... 11 II. Project Description ..................................:..................:....................................... 13 III. Project Evaluation: Compliance with LUCE and Strategies for Creating Bergamot Transit Village........:.........: ...................................................................... ..............:..:...... 15 A. Pedestrian-Oriented Neighborhood - Mixed-Use and Active Ground Floor ..................................... ........................ 17 B. Center of Community Life -Open Space .............................. ......:................. 19 C. Human Scale Buildings -Scale, Rhythm, Articulation, Skyline Variation, Orientation, and Four-sided Blocks .......................................................... ........................ 21 D. Interconnected Circulation -City-preferred Circulation Concepts, Street Dimensions, Site Access, Olympic Boulevard Parking .............................. ........................ 26 IV. Transportation Demand Management .......:.......................:........ ........................ 32 V. Community Benefits ................................................................... .....................:.. 33 VI. General Plan Consistency .......................................................... ........................34 VII. Environmental Analysis (CEQA) ......................................................................... 36 VIII. Financial Impact and Budget Actions ................................................................. 36 IX. Summary of Recommendations for Priority Issues ................................................................................................................. 36 s LUCE VISION: FOUR STRATEGIES FOR CREATING THE BERGAMOT TRANSIT VILLAGE The LUCE vision for the Bergamot Transit Village is to create a unique transit oriented "Village" centered on the new Expo Station at Olympic Boulevard and 26`h Street. The urban transit village has awell-connected mix of residential, creative office, and local- serving retail uses on smaller blocks established by new roads, pedestrian and bicycle paths that break up the superblocks and foster atight-knit sustainable neighborhood. The core of the Bergamot Transit Village is catalyzed by the new Expd light rail station, the Bergamot Arts Center, and the adjacent proposed projects. Villages are composed of both physical space (bricks and mortar) and social activity (human interaction). Villages cannot exist without both elements. The Village must provide a feeling of safety and security, a sense of community and ownership, the concept of neighbor supporting neighbor and the ability for family, friends and acquaintances to come together in a comfortable, vital and vibrant people-oriented place. The community has been clear about the village character for Bergamot Transit Village throughout the LUCE and ensuing Bergamot Area Plan process to include: • A mix of uses that create day and night time activities • A safe "eyes on the street" environment • Active and passive outdoor spaces • A quality work live environment • A forum for programmed and spontaneous activities • Asocial center and neighborhood focus • A sense of community pride and ownership -this is "my" neighborhood These are consistent with and supportive of the community's Placemaking Principles established during the LUCE process; whereby, the City does not review and approve buildings as objects unto themselves, but rather looks to buildings to create community places. The preparation of the Bergamot Transit Village Area Plan has been initiated. The Area Plan represents the first phase of LUCE implementation for the area. Four strategies have been identified for the implementation of Bergamot Transit Village: 6 1. APedestrian-Oriented Neighborhood 2. A Center of Community Life and Activity 3. Human-Scale Design 4. An Accessible, Interconnected Neighborhood 1. APedestrian-Oriented Neighborhood The vision for the Bergamot Transit Village is to create a high quality, mixed-use, creative arts/residential neighborhood centered around the Bergamot Arts Center and future Tight rail station. The area will feature an enhanced pedestrian, open space, vehicular, and transit environment with a focus on continuing the success of the Bergamot Station Arts Center and creating access to new housing opportunities, community facilities, convenience services and shopping, and shared parking. supports activity during the day, evening, and weekend. The design of a building's ground floor level or the "base" of the building coupled with the design of the adjacent sidewalks and open spaces is key to developing a comfortable, enticing walking environment. The building base anchors the building and provides a human scale. Typically, the most successful walkable environments have activities- on two sides of a street or public space. Therefore, it is important to incorporate features into the project that create a walkable environment, including: • Talt enough base to accommodate the variety of storefront configurations and designs; ® Visual interest at the ground level created through: o Frequent building entrances facing streets and open space o Rhythm and continuity of storefronts with show windows or views into stores, thereby limiting blank walls; and ® Wide, comfortable sidewalks with enhanced paving, shade trees and landscape, well-designed and strategically-placed street furniture, bike racks, and pedestrian lighting. The mix and location of uses Figure 3: Features of a walkable environment Figure 4: Creating visual interest requires rhythm and continuity at the ground level 2. A Center of Community Life and Activity Public spaces should be integrated into the Village to accommodate daytime workers and residents, nighttime visitors, and weekend visitors strolling over from surrounding neighborhoods. The public facilities will attract people to support the Village's retail and service providers. A variety of open space activities/ accommodations, can provide: Defined public/quasi-public places or features that serve as focal points where people can meet or congregate Places that are flexible so that people can create the activities Places for programmed activity or organized events to bring the community together, and to attract visitors to the Village or celebrate Village life s • Places for spontaneous activities Spaces for recreation • Places for individuals or small groups to work or meet • Places that accommodate multi-generational use 3. Human-Scale Design Creation of the rich fabric. of an urban village depends on buildings that balance issues of orientation, scale, texture, articulation, materials, height, rhythm- and light in a variety of ways. Each building should achieve human-scaled design from both a close range -where texture and ground-level experience are primary -and from a more distant view in which skyline variety, articulation, height and modulation are more noticeable. Elements must be balanced on all sides of the buildings and provide connections and entries that promote a vibrant street life. Building mass and scale are frequeritly discussed in the context of compatibility with adjacent buildings, the local neighborhood character, or the larger citywide identity. To achieve compatibility, a number of architectural strategies can be employed to reduce the perceived size and volume of new buildings including stepbacks and setbacks, building plane modulation, variation in height and architectural projections/indentations. In a larger project, these strategies can be used to create the perception of multiple or smaller buildings within one structure. Taken together, these architectural techniques can significantly reduce how an individual perceives building mass. Similarly, building materials play an important role in how a building is perceived at human scale. A variety of window sizes and heights can break up the monotony of a building's fenestration, and create an interesting sequence of void. and visually accessible spaces. Well-considered changes in materials -metal, brick, wood, stucco, 9 glass, and concrete -result in a finer grain, more detailed building that reads as a series of building segments rather than a single structure.. Finally, changes in the wall plane and floor heights allow for building forms that are :fluid, dynamic, and yield interesting shade patterns that accentuate the quality of the pedestrian experience at ground level: 4. An Accessible, Interconnected-Neighborhood The future Bergamot Transit Village should be connected to the Bergamot Arts Center, Expo light rail station, Mixed-Use Creative District, and surrounding neighborhoods. The LUCE envisions the introduction of the typical Santa Monica street grid into the former industrial super blocks with intersections spaced as close as 300 feet and more frequent pedestrian pathways to provide interconnectivity and choices to facilitate pedestrian connectivity and convenience for vehicular circulation. The grid will set the foundation for a Village center and create new connections such as north-south linkages to Pennsylvania Avenue to the north, and east-west connections to Nebraska Avenue and the Mixed-Use Creative district. Through afine-grained grid of landscaped. streets, the area can become more walkable and a destination for the surrounding neighborhood. New connections must be wide enough for pedestrian amenities and landscaping and be designed as inviting public open space. By creating consolidated public or quasi-public shared parking, there is an opportunity to redevelop the existing on-grade parking lots into a grid of vehicle and pedestrian 10 streets, open spaces, and new development designed to accommodate the :Village pattern. Shared parking should be centrally located with direct; .safe and pedestrian- friendly connections to major destinations. Extending the new grid of streets to Olympic Boulevard is key to establishing a viable Bergamot Transit Village and Bergamot Arts Center. The intersection of the .grid with Olympic Boulevard will provide direct pedestrian access to the Expo Station and the Bergamot Arts Center. In addition to a signal and crosswalk on Olympic, the City has been encouraging the Expo Construction Authority to pursue a track crossing at this location to allow pedestrians and cyclists direct access to Bergamot Arts Center at the east end of the station, and create a better presence for the Arts Center on Olympic Boulevard. Olympic Boulevard should transition to an urban parkway as opposed to a highway character ensuring that new development faces the street, establishing a positive pedestrian environment and accommodating on-street parking on the north side to support the retail stores and protect the pedestrian environment. A. INPUT RECEIVED FROM COMMUNITY AND PLANNING COMMISSION Proposed Project Community Meeting A community meeting to review the concept plans was held by staff on December 15, 2009 (see Attachment B for summary). The overarching concern was the scale of the project and cumulative effect of proposed development in the area, including proposed projects in West Los Angeles, particularly on congestion. However, there were also positive responses to breaking up the project site, in emphasizing that the project must have an active ground floor that is open and inviting to pedestrians, and in proposed trip reduction measures. Some suggestions were also made regarding additional community benefits that the project could provide including an on-site community garden, sustainable building design, and recreational amenities such as tennis courts. Significant concerns were expressed regarding the scale of the project and the ability to ensure that it does not become a continuation of surrounding office complex 11 developments. There was a desire'to keep the project open and inviting to the community, particularly the surrounding neighborhoods, by activating the ground floor spaces with retail and service uses and providing significant ground floor gathering places that may be used for recreation or cultural events. Several people also commented that the project should provide large canopy trees. Planning Commission Float-Up Discussion An earlier version of the concept plans were reviewed and discussed at the Planning Cammission float-up meeting on January 27, 2010 (see Attachment A for summary). While the Planning Commission was generally in agreement that redevelopment of the subject properly is an .exciting opportunity, the Commission also was clear that redevelopment of the site needs to represent the principles and vision of Bergamot Transit Village and associated details developed through an Area Plan process because it will become a standard bearer for the remainder of the district. At the time of the float- up discussion; the LUCE was still in draft form and the Commission had differing opinions oh whether the project should comply with the height proposed in the Draft LUCE (i.e. 75') or greater height to achieve floor-to-floor heights that increase daylight transmission. Increasing building floor-to-floor heights was ultimately addressed in the adopted LUCE. The Commission was supportive of the idea of breaking up the site into smaller blocks and the mix of uses on the project site. However, the Commission also expressed concern regarding the following issues: • The proposed project's campus-like setting with monolithic buildings, uninviting open space, and lack of attention to creating a walkable environment did not yet feel like a village; • The proposed location and types of pedestrian connections on the site did not create a sense of openness, particularly the east-west "central spine' that appeared to be a pathway between building lobbies with no discernible beginning or sense of destination; • The proposed vehicle connections would not be perceived as public spaces without the provision of on-street parking; and • Need for bold and eclectic building design that could start to reflect an arts character. 12 Bergambt Area Plan Community Workshop Preparation of the Bergamot Area Plan is underway and the first community workshop.. was held on February 17, 2011. The workshop attracted over 150 community members who engaged in a discussion about what characteristics would make a transit village that feels like a part of Santa Monica. Participants also talked about priorities for connections, community benefits and uses that would make the area a success. 'The overarching themes that emerged from the workshop were continued support for human-scale buildings, a mix of uses, and creation of a new village linked to Bergamot Arts Center, community gathering and open spaces, and fine-grained connections within the area and across. Olympic Boulevard. Specific ideas shared by many participants included: • Create a neighborhood that looks and feels like it developed organically • Encourage local businesses rather than chain retail • Provide inviting public open spaces and gathering places both small and large (e.g. public market, plazas, places to sit and talk) • Create a range of market rate, affordable and workforce housing • Introduce uses that activate the ground level and create vibrancy in the evening, like restaurants, outdoor dining, movie theaters and performance spaces • Put jobs and housing close together and provide shared parking to reduce driving • Create many new streets and pathways and provide wide sidewalks, trees and on-street parking • Connect to Bergamot Arts Center, and address the connection across Olympic to the Expo Station • Acknowledge that Bergamot Arts Center is the artistic heart of the area and establishes the community character • Incorporate creative arts into all facets of the community -housing for artists, creative and performance space, and create a permanent home for the Santa Monica Art Museum This input provides preliminary guidance in how the project can respond to concerns raised by staff, the community, and the Planning Commission. II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant proposes that the City consider a Development Agreement to allow: • Approximately 566,573 square feet of creative arts office space (approximately 59% of floor area); 13 • Approximately 83,000 square feet of ground floor neighborhood-serving commercial space (approximately 9% of floor area); • Approximately. 344 units of housing (approximately 32% floor area) -breakdown between housing types not yet determined; • Aground-floor public plaza; • A single bicycle and vehicular access road that will bisect the 1,200-foot long, 7.2 acre project site; • Service road along the north property line; • Two north-south pedestrian connections through the site; and • A subterranean parking garage of approximately 1,800 parking spaces. Figure 5: Aerial View of Proposed Project Site and Proposed Site Plan Proposed Project -~sG ~` The proposed project is organized by five main buildings that are comparable in size to the approximate size and shape of Santa Monica residential and commercial blocks. The buildings are generally 75-81' tall with the exception of one residential building, which is 55' tall. In all instances, the buildings have minimal articulation or stepbacks on the Olympic Boulevard frontage with widths ranging from 130 to 300 feet on Olympic Boulevard and depths of up to 280 feet (north-south). The creative arts office uses are proposed to be located in the three westernmost buildings on the site with residential 14 uses in the two easternmost buildings. Ground floor neighborhood-serving retail and service uses would be located throughout the project. Anew north-south street would bisect the project and pedestrian paths would be located to the east and west of the street. The .request for 1,800 parking spaces is based on the applicant's parking and traffic assessment and is less than the 3,000 spaces required by Code. III. PROJECT EVALUATION A comprehensive evaluation of the applicant's conceptual design examined urban form, pedestrian accommodations and enhancements, circulation; location and type of uses, and public open space. The evaluation is presented in four parts: • Compliance with LUCE: Strategies for Creating Bergamot Transit Village A. Mixed Use and Active Ground Level: APedestrian-Oriented Neighborhood B. Open Space: A Center of Community Life and Activity C. Buildings: Human-Scale and Animated D. Circulation: An Accessible and Interconnected Neighborhood • Transportation Demand Management Program • Community Benefits • General Plan Consistency As the project moves from this conceptual design phase into schematic design and design development, continued review will be on-going. Compliance with LUCE: Strategies for Creating Bergamot Transit Village The proposed project incorporates most of the basic components that the LUCE identifies for Bergamot Transit Village - a mix of uses close to the 60% non-residential and 40% residential floor area target for Bergamot Transit Village in the LUCE, connections creating breaks in the superblock, public ground floor open space, and a comprehensive trip reduction program. In terms of design, the proposed project has progressed from earlier iterations of the concept plans by breaking up the scale of the entire project site and two larger buildings into five buildings and "blocks". However, these components must be supported by continued design efforts to foster the physical character and social activity of the Transit Village. While some of the finer details are to be determined through an Area Plan process, the sum of the General Plan goals and 15 policies suggest a more modulated, sidewalk- and street-oriented environment with a greater array of building forms, type, and skyline variety than that which is proposed. The Transit Village Core I ~~ j `.1 { i_ ajT '~~ ~-- ~` 1 -0 !.i- 6ryip5v-e~tYav ve4:v:e=v;er i d~33 i~ i P .~ N, ~, t ~ r ;;si~.c q '.. i J w~ q ~ 0.x.,sn a As shown in the review of project concepts for compliance with LUCE policies (Attachment E), the proposed project falls short of a number of policies, design guidelines, and direction outlined in the LUCE. The concept plans convey a campus approach and do not anticipate any other development to the north within the Bergamot Transit Village or east towards the Mixed Use Creative District, as proscribed in the LUCE. Four strategies for creating Bergamot Transit Village form the basis. for how the proposed project can evolve into a walkable and connected "village" district. Proposed Project Y ~ r" ' 'i ` i 1ti~l 111!llli"' ~ I ~* ~ Y- e~ . i}-- i I^~t ~ A Y~~ sm.cn ecRCaaa- lal Wfi2e LUCE concepts for Bergamot Transit Village HaaEnniey ,~ a, t t i .~ ~t 1 ean.,am i7'i t!!II ,,tip p.` A t 16 A: Creating the Village: Mixed Use and Active Ground Level - A Pedestrian- Oriented Neighborhood MIX OF USES ARE SEGREGATED As can be seen in the LUCE concepts for the Transit Village compared with the applicant's proposal, there is considerable difference in the distribution of uses across the .overall site. The project proposes 100% creative office uses above the first floor in the three westernmost buildings and 100% residential uses in the two easternmost buildings. The proposed plaza/large public open space is located between two office buildings. To achieve the active extended hour environment envisioned in the LUCE, it is imperative to have residential.. uses adjacent to the open space. The workers provide daytime activity and the residents provide the nighttime and weekend activity. Both provide clientele for the retail and restaurant. The intent is to avoid the "vacant" evening and weekend atmosphere that one finds in the financial districts of major cities. The project's segregation of uses across the project site inhibits the ability to create a true mixed-use environment. Staff recommends that the applicant place residential uses next to the largest open space. INSUFFICIENT GROUND FLOOR HEIGHT FOR VARIETY OF RETAIL The three buildings on the western portion of the site are proposed with a maximum height of 81' each, yet have a uniform ground level floor-to-floor height of 15' resulting in an effective ceiling height of 12-13'. This low ceiling height will not accommodate the variety of retail uses necessary for a healthy neighborhood commercial area. Additionally, the drawings appear to indicate a repetitive, undifferentiated retail environment. Ground floor-to-floor heights should typically be 18' to 20' for local stores and greater than 20' for larger stores. During .the LUCE hearings, the Planning 17 Figure 6: Placing residential next to the open space creates greater opportunity fora 17/7 environment Commission and City Council spent considerable time discussing the need for ground floor heights .that were higher than the minimum 15'. The LUCE allows a Tier 1 base of up to 39 feet in the Bergamot Transit Village land use designation and a maximum of 81' at Tier 3 with conditions. This increased base and maximum building height was premised upon a first floor height of 18' with 10.5' residential floors (increased to 13.5' for commercial floors). The greater heights in Bergamot Transit Village were intended to accommodate different types of retail and ari appropriate building base. The additional height was approved with the understanding that-the taller floor-to-floor heights (and by extension fewer stories) were necessary for a flexible, aesthetically pleasing work live environment. The applicant's building sections show that no building has a ground level floor-to-floor height greater than the absolute minimum of 15'. Commercial floors are 13' with 40' long -spans and large floor plates and residential floor-to-floor heights are 10'. These floor-to-floor heights are not consistent with the intent of the LUCE. Figure 7: Ground floor disproportionate to upper floors The north far~ade ground floor of Building 1 is recessed 2.5' to 5' behind the primary building far~ade and the height of the created "loggia" appears to be approximately 12- 13'. Of greater concern is the south facade of Building 1 as the ground floor wall is set back 30.5' from the columns and 33' from the face of the upper floors above for the 280' length of the building. This recess creates a very large, dark covered space with low ceilings that is inconsistent with creating an active base. 18 B. Creating the Village: Open Space-A Center of Community Life and Activity UNINVITING, UNACTIVATED OPEN SPACE An active open space is integral to creating ahuman-scale, mixed-use village. The pedestrian paths and open spaces are self-contained and isolated from adjacent uses, existing and future buildings, and experiences that lie beyond the boundaries of the subject site. The projects largest open space is an one-half acre plaza on the western side of the project, where the greatest amount of activity would. be anticipated. However, the space is surrounded by buildings disproportionately larger; containing only office uses that typically discourage active public use. The larger buildings coupled with a non-active use affect the ability of the space to appear open and inviting. Also, as proposed, the buildings facing the plaza feature unarticulated far~ades, with the exception of the circular element. While the building design is discussed elsewhere, the impact of the reflection from the flat reflective surfaces on the plaza should- be addressed. The open space has been tentatively programmed for some active recreational uses (e.g. volleyball and badminton court) and also provides for outdoor dining. As designed, the space lacks purpose and has a weak relationship with adjacent buildings, which will 19 Figure 8: Proposed ground floor open space shade the plaza and adjacent pedestrian connections. In discussions with the Community and Cultural Services Department, it appears that the largest on-site open space would not be sufficient to accommodate the type `of activities the community would want to see in a public park. In order to meet the challenge of creating space that is inviting and will be used by the public, the open space needs to be large enough to accommodate active recreation and more formalized events, such as a public market, and also encourage spontaneous activity and be a meeting place for people of all ages. Figure 9: Largest gathering place surrounded bynon-active evening uses The central "spine" that runs east to west through the project is identified as open space but is actually a mostly covered walkway connecting internalized building lobbies. Locating multiple entries and lobbies on streets and north-south pedestrian ways would- eliminate the need for internalized circulation and provide a stronger relationship between buildings and public space. PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS LACK OPENNESS While there are other open spaces proposed throughout the site, namely, the two north- south pedestrian connections and a playground on the eastern portion of the site, they lack connectivity to each other. Greater emphasis should be given to the east-west pedestrian connections, along Olympic Boulevard and the Nebraska Avenue extension, by locating the space and resources allocated to the interior spine to the pedestrian "public realm". The scale of buildings lining the north-south pedestrian connections lack stepbacks and articulation in building form. This creates a "canyon effect" that diminishes the quality of the pedestrian environment. zo Figure 70: The "canyon effect" between buildings impacts qualify of the open space C. Creating the Village: Buildings -Human-Scale and Animated BUILDINGS DO NOT MAINTAIN SCALE OF THE CITY The allocation of a building's mass is key to a buildings appearance. The LUCE policies call for buildings that address the street in apedestrian-friendly way and above the identified streetwall incorporate stepbacks that reduce the apparent height of the buildings, reduce the impact of shadows, and open the pedestrian realm to increase access to the sky. Large unbroken building masses of inward-oriented, large-scaled, building campus complexes are strongly discouraged. The applicant has segmented the site into city-sized blocks, but whereas, in the balance of the city the same sized city block is composed of several 50' x 150' parcels or lots and accommodates 4 to 6 distinct buildings, the applicant's proposal has only one building occupying each block with little articulation of the mass of the proposed large rectangular buildings. The proposed building massing does not respond to the LUCE's building stepback, variation in height, and interesting skyline provisions. The result is large, glass-clad, rectangular buildings that are not consistent with Santa Monica's desired fine-grained fabric. Figure 11: Comparison between typical City grid and proposed project development parcel STREET . ,., ...756' • Composed of iso' Typlcai cttyniocx 4 separate buildings instead of one • Alley that is 2fr a.LEV open to the sky iso STREET 21 :omposed of me single wilding around Floor pedestrian pace is ~cked under wilding The City recognizes that market and economic forces tend toward larger floor plates; however, the applicant would benefit from strategies that configure the building mass into smaller, more varied elements to help achieve the intended urban Transit Village character and maintain the scale of the city, visual interest and the sense of "hand crafted" original buildings desired by the community. As presented by the applicant the buildings are "universal" in character and do not convey unique regional characteristics. 22 Figures 72: Buildings 2 and 3 have no orientation to the sides or the rear. Similar-size blocks in the Downtown are composed of 3-4 individual building masses or appear as a series of rhythms. BUILDINGS: LACK OF BUILDING FACADE ARTICULATION TO CREATE SCALE AND VISUAL INTEREST The proposed office buildings are primarily sheathed with single-plane expanses of glass and have little articulation or change in wall plane. The residential buildings achieve some articulation almost exclusively through creating negative space by recessing balconies into the building plane. No elements appear to project out of the wall plane in any building. This condition results in uninteresting, flat fagades with repetitive indentations. It is the well-balanced variety of building massing and textures of light and shadow that aggregated will add to the richness and create the "fabric" of the Bergamot Transit Village built environment. Staff has made the following recommendations to the applicant to achieve some modulation of the building facades: • Breaking each building into a series of vertical bays with a rhythm of voids and solids that could help to define a unique facade for each building • Utilizing the Santa Monica building step back policies to reduce the apparent building mass • Adding elements to the facade that would create scale • Varying the building wall planes • Reducing the repetitive, single-note elements in the facade • Introducing multiple rhythms into the facade Figure 13: Buildings 4 and 5 (residential).. Buildings are composed of long horizontal blocks with minimal articulation and multiple repetitive elements Rliln LLS 23 BUILDINGS: LACK OF CHANGE IN HEIGHT AND SKYLINE VARIATION The LUCE calls. for variation in roof heights in individual buildings with the average height of a building in the Bergamot Transit Village district to be 10' lower than the maximum height. LUCE policies also require buildings to create an interesting skyline. Figure 14: Buildings 2 and 3 are nearly identical in form Figure 15: With the exception of the circular element (attached at Floors 2-5), Building 1 is a flat, unarticulated facade An interesting-and varied roofline is important to maintaining the scale of the city. Reducing the size of some of the large floor plates and varying a building's roofline through: variation in height, cornices, architectural projections, and the creation of smaller structures or facades within the larger far~ade reduces the apparent scale and mass while adding variety and visual interest. Figure 16: Building articulation strategies 24 The applicant's building proposal is predominantly composed. of flat roofs without cornices or other architectural elements to create iriterest where the building terminates at the sky; further, there appears to be little attempt to meet the intent of the LUCE average building height requirement or create an interesting skyline. Figure 17: Distinctive tops with variation in skyline BUILDINGS: DO NOT EMBRACE PRINCIPLE OF FOUR-SIDED BLOCKS Buildings along typical city blocks traditionally face buildings on the opposite side of the street: The project proposal is composed of five buildings that "face" onto Olympic Boulevard. Across the street the existing Bergamot Arts Center buildings are turned inward away from Olympic.- Figure 18: Buildings should respond to each other across streets which have also created new "corners" o~.. . . y= s, ~_ 25 The applicant's plan addresses the Olympic Boulevard frontage by incorporating some stepbacks and facade modulation; however, .the sides and.rear of the building have no orientation to adjacent buildings or properties to the north. The appearance is that the proposed development has a front facing Olympic Boulevard and a "back" facing the balance of the future Bergamot Transit Village to the north. As a result, the project does not function as the integral center piece of the Bergamot Transit Village as conceived in the LUCE. Improvements to the north elevation should start at the ground level with the extension of Nebraska Avenue between 26th and Stewart Streets. While the primary purpose of the Nebraska Avenue extension can be for garage access and service vehicles, it should also function as a walkable street. The north facade of each building should embody quality design in the ground and upper floors and include pedestrian orientation, facade articulation and elements to achieve human scale to ensure functional and visual connection to the future Bergamot Transit Village to the north. The applicant's plan should respond to the opportunity provided by the Nebraska Avenue extension in terms of connectivity to properties to the north and a key connection between the Bergamot Transit Village and Mixed Use Creative Districts. D. Creating the Village: Circulation - DOES NOT CAPITALIZE ON OPPORTUNITY TO EXTEND STREET FROM BERGAMOT ART CENTER TO PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE The proposed project is located immediately adjacent to the Expo station which is an ideal setting for the proposed mix of creative arts, residential, and retail uses. The 26 Figure 19: The Nebraska Avenue side is an approximately 1300'-long flat elevation applicant has endorsed the concept of connections through the site, and is proposing three vehicle and two pedestrian connections through the project site. The three vehicle connections are provided at: Location 2 to serve the western commercial uses, Location 4 to serve the residential uses, and Location 5 along the north side of the site from 26th Street to Stewart Street connecting to Nebraska Avenue. The two pedestrian pathways are provided at Locations 1 and 3. The proposed vehicle turn movements are shown in red in Figure 20, with the only new fully signalized intersection being provided at Location 2. Figure 20: Applicant proposed western road location Proposed Project with applicant proposed western road location 500' from Circuitous 26th Street ped crossing signal A crossing at Location 2 does not connect to existing and future openings beyond the project boundaries. To the north, it misses the potential for connections northward to Pennsylvania Avenue and to the south, the road leads to the back side of a Bergamot gallery building. These are key connections for the development of the transit village, and to encourage use of the Expo Light Rail for existing and future residents and employees. The applicant's proposed Location 2 is approximately 500' from the existing 26th Street signal resulting in a superblock that is not consistent with LUCE nor is it as efficient for signal operations. The City has suggested that the applicant move the roadway west to Location 1 to align with a future northbound connection and to clear the western edge of the gallery building, as shown in Figure 21. 27 Figure 21: City-preferred western road location Proposed Project with City-preferred western mad location --. ? PEnnsylp8ntd ~s a ...~ .., „{ r- ~~~.: a C-rte=~` i r-. s* $-. ~ f ~ ,. .,w ~~- 8..rt ~ntatA t~Caniar ~,' 350' from Direct ed ~ 26th Sfreet p signal crossing E^'. ~ The City-preferred location of the western road location is based on a number of technical and urban design factors: ® Location 1 street allows for a signal distance similar to that found in the Downtown (approximately 300-350') and creates appropriate signal timing and ,queuing to provide efficient vehicle, pedestrian, and cyclist movement both on Olympic Boulevard and crossing the boulevard. • Location 1 has been thoroughly evaluated including preliminary modeling, and analysis confirmed that the City-preferred road location accommodates all traffic volumes and trip distribution, and is important from a traffic management standpoint. • Provides for a signalized pedestrian and bicycle entrance across the tracks into Bergamot Arts Center at the east end of the station. • Combines pedestrian and vehicle movements in one direct Olympic Boulevard crossing so that pedestrians exiting the station will be less likely to jaywalk Follows LUCE principles to introduce the city street. grid to the Bergamot Transit Village • Location 1 provides the potential for connections to properties north of the project site and to Pennsylvania. The applicant-proposed location had been aligned with an earlier design for the Expo Station shown in the Expo Final EIR (with a single center platform and ramps on both ends). On July 13, 2010, the City Council gave direction to staff to pursue dual side za platforms at the. station, which would create direct linkages to the Bergamot Arts Center. The dual side platforms would provide an eastern stairwell as a second point of entry. figure 22 shows hdw Locafion 1 would provide more direct access with either the side or center platform design. Figure 22: Conceptual configuration with a single center platform or dual side platforms. STREET DIMENSIONS Staff has discussed with the applicant the following requirements for street and pedestrian way locations and dimensions. The applicant has provided space for these. connections but further refinement is needed as to location and width. As shown in Table 1, the city requirements exceed the applicant's proposed width of approximately 198' of Olympic Boulevard frontage devoted to pedestrian and vehicle connections. Table 7: Preferred street dimensions. Connection No. Sidewalk Parking Travel Preferred Project Lane Width Pro osal #1 Street 14' 8' 12' 68' 52' #2 Ped Connection -- -- -- 40' 64' `#3 Ped Connection -- -- -- 40' 54' '#4 Street 12' 8' 1 Y 62' 28' #5 Street (Nebraska , Potential to ' ' ' Avenue Extension) 12 add in future 11 35 30 'Note that Connections #3 and #4 could also switch such that #3 is a Street and #4 is a Pedestrian Connection 29 The applicant's proposal for the street on the eastern end of the site (Location. 4) is for a 28'-wide driveway. Staff believes that this dimension is deficient in establishing a City. grid. The street location is flexible as any extension to the north is currently blocked by existing development.. The eastern street will accommodate fewer pedestrians, therefore staff recommends a 62' wide street, which provides for 12' sidewalks, 8' parking lanes, and 11' travel lanes. Figure 23: Example sidewalk widths on Santa Monica Boulevard NEBRASKA AVENUE EXTENSION (PROJECT NORTH SIDE) IS DEFICIENT The applicant has proposed a service road parallel to the north property line, effectively designating the Olympic Boulevard side of the buildings and site as the "front" side and the north side as the "rear". The Nebraska Avenue extension between 26~h Street and Stewart Street is a critical link between the Trarisit Village and the Mixed-Use Creative District to the east. The alley design does not support the pedestrian activity and connectivity desired, providing only 30' of roadway with no sidewalks, trees, or pedestrian comfort. As proposed, this street design does not anticipate nor facilitate the future redevelopment of properties to the north. The opportunity to create a complete street should not be bypassed even if it is achieved in phases with the participation of multiple property owners. In order to turn the alley into a functional half street, the street should be reconfigured to accommodate pedestrians. Staff recommends a 35'-wide 30 street right-of-way .that can accommodate a 12' sidewalk, 11' travel lanes; and a 1' buffer at the north property line. Future development to the north would provide the opportunity for on-street parking and a landscaped sidewalk. SITE ACCESS Review of the concept plans revealed that the orientation of ramps to access the subterranean parking garage from the applicant's proposed vehicle connections creates conflicting turning movements. While the plans are conceptual, .the location and orientation of ramps has ramifications for building design and is tied to the location of the project's streets. In general; the ramps should be located perpendicular to the access road to ensure safe ingress and egress from the subterranean garage. Staff will continue to work with the applicant on this issue. OLYMPIC BOULEVARD STREET PARKING To create apedestrian-friendly environment, Olympic Boulevard should include an on- street parking lane that provides a buffer between pedestrians and vehicle traffic. A review of existing westbound traffic volumes on Olympic Boulevard indicates both travel lanes must be retained, therefore, on-street parking along the north side of Olympic Boulevard should be accommodated by reconfiguring .the travel lanes on Olympic Boulevard and moving the curb location north. On-street parking would signal a change of character along the boulevard while providing a buffer for a minimum 10- to 12-foot sidewalk located on the City's right-of-way and the subject property. 31 IV. Transportation Demand Management Program A primary goal of the Transit Village is to also establish vehicle trip reduction strategies through aggressive transportation demand management {TDM) measures, addressing the jobs to housing ratio by placing jobs close to the Expo station, requiring a minimum percentage of the project's floor area to be devoted to housing, and placing daily needs and services within walking distance of housing. A successful trip reduction strategy requires a favourable land use pattern, a circulation network that. provides many options to reach destinations, and programs that influence travel behavior through a variety of incentives. By accentuating the necessity of establishing connectivity throughout the area through the construction of new streets and pedestrian and bicycle paths, access to high frequency transit will improve. Associated with connectivity is the opportunity to create a quality streetscape framed by buildings that contain ground floor pedestrian- oriented uses, creating ahuman-scaled environment at the street level. The project will, at a minimum provide TDM measures that will address the project's future traffic impacts and encourage alternative forms of transportation to and from the project. The applicant's proposed TDM program is attached to this report and addresses measures for both commercial and residential components of the project (see Attachment G). Some of the highlights include: • Commitment to reduce project-generated traffic in the PM peak hour to a minimum of 50% of ITE rates with a target of 67% • Standard measures such as: transportation information center, TDM website information, and employee transportation coordinator • Improvement to immediately adjacent bus stop • Reconfiguration of parking after project occupancy to allow partial unbundling and shared parking • Carpool and vanpool program • Parking cash out and parking pricing • Subsidized transit passes • Flexible or compressed work schedule The applicant has responded favourably by proposing a comprehensive TDM program that reflects many of staffs early discussions with the applicant and also comments made by the community and Planning Commission. In addition to the strong TDM 32 program, it should be noted that the City's TDM ordinance also requires that the large employers achieve an average vehicle ridership {AVR)1 of 1.5 within one year, This is monitored through an annual employee travel survey.. Staff recommends that the non- residential part (employees) of the project achieve an AVR in the evening peak period of 1.75 within three to five years. As negotiations proceed, staff will continue working with .the applicant to structure the TDM program to address the LUCE goal of No Net New PM Peak Period Trips. The scale of the TDM measures may also reduce the amount parking needed. The applicant has submitted a parking and traffic report identifying .parking needs on the site in addition to information for consideration in the preparation of the project's traffic analysis. The applicant's-report is included as part of Attachment G, however, as the traffic analysis for the project is still underway, staffs peer review of the report is not yet complete. V. Community Benefits The LUCE requires that the proposed development agreement provide additional community benefits because it is a Tier 3 project. Benefits discussed to date with the applicant have focused on: • New green connecting streets. for vehicles, pedestrians, and cyclists • Space for creative arts uses (e.g. museum, gallery, affordable artist workspace) • Ground floor public gathering space for cultural and arts programming • Ground level green open space for community recreation (e.g. public park) • Affordable housing commensurate with Tier 3 • Workforce housing at approximately 120% of AMI • Proportional contribution to Expo Station improvements • Childcare facility for infant/toddlers to serve immediate area Ih response, the applicant currently proposes the following community benefits (see Attachment G): • A 15-foot sidewalk around the entire perimeter of the site ~ The total number of employees who report to or leave the worksite or anotherjob-related activity during the peak periods divided by the number of vehicles driven by these employees over that five-day period. The AVR calculation requires that the five-day period must represent the five days during which the majority of employees are scheduled to arrive at the worksite. The hours and days chosen must be consecutive. The averaging period cannot contain a holiday and shall represent a normal situation so that a projection of the average vehicle ridership during the year is obtained. (SMMC 9.16.030) 33 • A marked walking trail (including posted measurements) in, through, and around the site • Funding of a mid-block signalized crossing between 26th Street and Stewart on Olympic allowing for crossing to and from the light rail station across Olympic • Four new vertical north-south pathways (including 1 vehicular) for pedestrian and bicycle circulation around and through the site • Plazas and open space to be implemented for both public and occupant use • Oh-site affordable housing. • Workforce housing with priority for those working in the city with given job types (e.g. first responders, teachers, nurses) and those working in close proximity to the site • Concealing of existing electrical substation • Undergrounding existing phone and power lines • Improvements to bus stop closest to project site (shelter and transit information) At this early conceptual stage of the process, the applicant and staff have yet to engage in detailed discussions regarding the project's community benefits. However, in addition to those benefits proposed by the applicant, Planning staff will identify additional priorities, based on direction from City Council, and anticipates continuing to have discussions with staff from other departments (e.g. Community and Cultural Services, Public Works) with respect to open space, creative and cultural arts venues, childcare facilities, and necessary infrastructure. VI. General Plan Consistency The subject property is located within the Bergamot Transit Village land use designation and as a Tier 3 project, requires additional community benefits and may only be approved by Development Agreement. The project has been reviewed for compliance with the LUCE goals and policies (see Attachment E). The applicant has proposed a maximum height of 81 feet (6 stories) for the commercial buildings and a maximum height of 55-75' (5-7 stories) for the residential buildings. The LUCE establishes a maximum allowable height of 75' and 3.5 FAR, however, up to 81' can be requested if there is a corresponding decrease in FAR for the height above 75'. Since the project proposes a 6% increase in height over 75', a 6% reduction from the maximum allowable FAR is adjusted to 3.29. Further, up to 5' .may be added to the 34 ground floor height above 13.5' and not be counted towards the overall building height. In essence, an up to 86'-high building would be counted as 81'. The intent of the additional height at the ground floor was to encourage higher volume ground floor spaces that could be used for .creative and cultural uses. such as exhibitions, performances, or art displays. Therefore, project's proposed maximum height of 81 feet and 3.08 FAR complies with the outside parameters of the LUCE. The development parameters for the Bergamot Transit Village designation also require significant variation in rooflines and building form with specific standards to be established in the Bergamot Transit Village Area Plan. In support of the concept of building mass variation, the average building height shall be at least 10' less than the maximum requested height. In the case of the proposed project,. the average building height should be at most 71'. As most of the project appears to be at height of 75-81', it would appear that the project may not comply with the intent of this parameters. Staff has been clear with the applicant regarding the need to propose a project concept that is not only consistent with the stated goals and policies but also meets the vision and strategic approach for the District. Building articulation, skyline variation, and distribution of building mass, and the allocation of uses to create amixed-use village continue to be areas that have not been adequately addressed. There are also a range a issues associated with strategies for creating a Transit Village discussed earlier in this report that the proposed project must address in order to meet the intent of the LUCE and Bergamot Area Plan. Alternative Actions In addition to the recommended action, the City Council could consider the following with respect to the proposed project: • Continue discussion for analysis of different options with agreement from the applicant. 35 Environmental Analysis CEQA review is not required for the purpose of a preliminary discussion of the feasibility of a potential project and the appropriateness and potential community benefits of a Development Agreement for the site (State CEQA Guidelines Section .15262). Environmental. analysis is already underway and will be completed prior to any formal hearings on the Development Agreement. Financial Impact and Budget Actions Staff costs for the Development Agreement process are paid from a deposit by the applicant upon submittal of an application. Staff- time spent working on the Development Agreement is tracked on a spreadsheet attached to the City's permit tracking system and if exceeded, an additional deposit will be required by the applicant. There is a wide range of community benefits that the developer could be required to provide pursuant to the Development Agreement negotiations. At this juncture in the process, the project remains a concept that may be significantly changed with input from the City Council and therefore, it would be premature for staff to engage the services of an economic consultant to analyze the fiscal impact and community benefit contributions of the proposed Development Agreement. If negotiations proceed, the associated fiscal impact will be determined prior to the Development Agreement returning for City Council consideration. Summary of Recommendations for Priority Issues The proposed project incorporates basic components of Bergamot Transit Village including a mix of creative office, residential, and retail uses, connections through the project site, a strong TDM proposal, and an appropriate preliminary community benefits proposal. However, the proposed project fails to tie the components together to create the Transit Village envisioned by the community and must address the following issues: • Apedestrian-oriented environment that supports the social activity of a village o Provide a finer grain of residential and commercial mixed-uses across the project site and at the major open space to create a 17 hour/day. 7 day/week environment in linked proximity to the transit stop -Either place residential 36 mixed=uses at the location of the open space or alternate residential and commercial structures to create more integrated mix of uses; Provide sufficient ground level floor-to-floor height of minimum 18' -Provide a variety of ground floor heights to accommodate small and large retail uses; o Provide apedestrian-oriented maior open space with active uses at edges - Reconfigure the major open space to make it more active and related to surrounding structures; Human-scale buildings o Building scale and block size: Provide a greater range of building sizes and expressions -Provide additional buildings on each "block" to include both small and large buildings and introduce additional massing modulation and a variety of expressions to realize. a more urban feel and to mitigate the campus feel of the proposal by better approximating the massing and bulk character seen throughout the City in mixed-use, pedestrian-oriented areas (e.g. Downtown); o Building rhythm: De-emphasize use of flat facades and planar expanses to define the facade of buildings -Differentiate building planes by breaking each building into a series of vertical bays with a continuity of storefronts on the ground level; o Building articulation: Emphasize use of architecture with clearly expressed bases, middles, and tops -Design buildings with a clear sense of base, middle, and top. Ensure that the base is detailed and varied to create pedestrian interest; o Skyline variation: Provide more roofline variation and points of architectural emphasis - Create a more interesting roof line across the extent of the project and create locations of architectural emphasis at corners and pathways to draw people into and through the site; o Four-sided blocks: Buildings must respond to creation of new block "corners" by considering all building sides -Design modulated buildings with varied setbacks and stepbacks to face each other across the vehicle and pedestrian streets and ensure entrances are facing the street or public place; • An interconnected and walkable circulation network o Reconsider the location of the project's westernmost road -Shift the major ingress and egress road for the project to align with future roadway extension to Pennsylvania as well as the east entrance of a relocated Expo station platform; 37 o Meet minimum street and sidewalk auidelines - Provide a grid of streets through the project site that meets City standards and can accommodate landscaping and wide sidewalks; o Provide a walkable Nebraska Avenue- extension between 26th and Stewart Streets -Redesign the service road to the north of the site to provide sidewalks and accommodate a future full street; o Provide functional access to parkinq garage - Re-orient entrances to parking garages such that they are perpendicular to project streets; • Transportation Demand Management o Non-residential component of project should achieve AVR of 1.75 within three to five years, Prepared by: Jing Yeo, Special Projects Manager Director, Planning & Comm Development Forwarded to Council: o" ~ ,, (~~ Rod Gould City Manager Attachments A. Planning Commission Minutes, January 27, 2010 B. Community Meeting Summary, December 15, 2009 C. Neighborhood Context D. History of Project Discussions E. Review of Project Concept for compliance with LUCE policies F. Public Notification G. Applicant's Proposal -Plans, Proposed TDM program, Proposed Community Benefits, Parking and Traffic Report, Fiscal Impact Analysis 38 Approved: ATTACHMENT A PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 27, 2010 39 City of Santa Monica" WEDNESDAY, January 27, 2010 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:00 P.M. ROOM 213, CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:12 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Pugh led the Pledge of Allegiance. 3. ROLL CALL: Present: Jay P. Johnson [arrived at 7:53 p.m.] Hank Koning, FAIA, Chairperson Gerda Newbold Jason Parry Gwynne Pugh,FAIA, ASCE Jim Ries Ted Winterer Also Present: Kyle Ferstead, Commission Secretary Eileen Fogarty, Director of Planning /PCD David Martin, Deputy Director of PCD Kevin McKeown, City Council Liaison Barry Rosenbaum, Senior Land Use Attorney Jing Yeo; AICP, Special Projects Manager 4. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT: Ms. Fogarty gave the Director's Report. Ms. Fogarty announced the forthcoming Commission meeting as follows: February 3 (Development Agreement Float-Up), February 10 (Study Session on Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Land Use and Circulation Element), and February 17, 2010 (development review). 5. DISCUSSION: 5-A. project concept consisting of creative arts office space ground floor neighborhood-serving commercial space and a mixture of affordable, workforce, and market rate housing totaling up to 40% of the project's total floor area; ground-floor public open space intended for use as a community aatherina and 40 Although not required, .the Commission gave the following ex pane communication disclosures: • Commissioner Newbold disclosed she met with the developer on January 12, 2010, .and discussed the proposed Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program for the site and workforce housing units. • Commissioner Parry disclosed he initially met with the developer in November 2009 for approximately one hour and discussed the proposed project; and he also disclosed receipt of a-mail correspondence for residents. • Commissioner Pugh disclosed he met with the developer last year (date not recalled) and met with City Attorney regarding possible conflict of .interest as his business in within a 500-radius of the project site. • Commissioner Ries disclosed he also met with the developer in late November 2009 and discussed the proposed project. • Commissioner Winterer disclosed he met with the architects at Gensler's office on January 13, 2010 and discussed the same things as the other Commissioners. • Chair Koning disclosed he spoke with the developer twice in July and November, 2009, sharing his concerns about the proposal and met with a representative of the project on January 27, 2010, briefly talking about this project and the Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE). Planning Director Eileen Fogarty gave an introduction to the proposed project. Ms. Jing Yeo gave the staff report. Commissioner Pugh commented that both the Water Garden and Yahoo Center project had Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs, then asked if there are "real-life" statistics for these programs.. Ms. Fogarty stated that the Water Garden TDM is quite successful with a 50% reduction in single occupancy vehicle trips as is the TDM for RAND. Commissioner Pugh asked about the 1/300 parking requirement for office use in relation to TDM programs. Ms. Fogarty stated there is a program to dis-incentivize single occupancy trips. Chair Koning asked if the 50% reduction is in overall trips per the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) guidelines. Ms. Fogarty answered in the affirmative. Commissioner Ries asked Ms. Fogarty how long environmental impact reports (EIR) can take to prepare if the typical. EIR take approximately one year. Ms. Fogarty stated that many EIRs take longer than one year. Commissioner Ries 41 asked about the transit infrastructure and expansion to include the area hospitals .Ms: Yeo stated that there is a possibility of having a shuttle route from the Light Rail station to the local hospitals. Commissioner Ries commented that the proposed 17th Street Light Rail station would be close to .both the hospitals and the college. Chair Koning asked how wide the scope of public benefits could be and if they could include increased bus service. Ms: Fogarty stated that this issue can be included in the discussion. - Commissioner Newbold commented that this is her first "float-up" experience and asked Ms. Fogarty to explain the process. Ms. Fogarty explained that a developer approaches the City with a proposal and initial drawing and staff reviews the proposal and offers comment. prior to Planning Commission's first review, then the Commission makes a recommendation to City Council on whether to proceed with the Development Agreement process or not. Following a "float-up" before the City Council, if there is a positive response, the developer submits an application. She stated there is no promise of approval at this point and the developer begins to modify the proposal per the comments from the City Council, community and staff. There are likely additional community meetings to be held, depending on the proposal, and negotiations on public benefits are held with staff. Ms. Fogarty stated that the environmental process has begun and the project returns to the Commission and Gity Council for final approval. Commissioner Winterer asked Ms. Fogarty what other options could be utilized by developer for this site. Ms. Fogarty stated that under the current interim ordinance, properties of a certain size can only be developed through the Development Agreement process, however the developer could double the size of the current building without a Development Agreement through adaptive re- use of the building.. Commissioner Johnson commented on the process and staff's recommendation in the staff report which does not correspond with building heights proposed in the draft Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE). He asked what happens if the project is reduced in size, specifically whether it returns to the Commission as a new "float-up." Ms. Fogarty stated that the proposed project has a height average of 65-feet. She also stated that it is hoped that the developer would chose to accept the direction from the Commission and City Council. Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum stated that the Development Agreement "float-up" process allows for the developer to base their decision on whether to move forward on the comments from the Commission, City. Council and community. He stated that a Development Agreement is a contract between the developer and the City. Commissioner Johnson commented that basically the floor area ratio (FAR) and other issues cannot be changed at this time. Ms. Fogarty agreed and stated that the comments from the Commission are forwarded to the City Council for their consideration and the developer may decide whether to move forward, 42 modify their: proposal and not or ask to returri to the'Commissign for another hearing.. Commissioner Johnson asked if the developer could build .something else by-right. Ms. Fogarty stated the developer could do an adaptive re-use of the existing building. Chair Koning asked the Commission if they are inclined to reduce the .presentation time for the developer as there are over fifteen requests to speak. The Commission was not so inclined. When asked about reducing the speaking time for the public, the Commission was also not inclined to reduce the time. The developer's representative, Colin Shepherd, Senior Vice President of Hines, presented his proposal to the Commission. Commissioner Johnson commented on the existing square footage, the proposed project and how it relates to the future EXPO Light Rail line. Mr. Shepherd stated that the project is designed with EXPO in mind and the project will include vans for vanpools, pool vehicles for emergencies and preferred parking for carpoolers. He further stated that all residents and tenants will be offered area-wide transit passes free for the first month, with transit passes being subsidized thereafter. Commissioner Johnson asked for the total square footage proposed for the project. Mr. Shepherd stated that 310,OOOsf is proposed and 206,OOOsf is existing. Chair Koning asked for the number of proposed residential units. Mr. Shepherd stated that the number is not set, however 300-330 units are possible. Commissioner Johnson commented on a proposed large project in West Los Angeles (8undy Village) and its potential impact on traffic in the vicinity. Mr. Shepherd stated his commitment to reduce vehicles trips by two-thirds using some of the methods previously cited. Commissioner Ries asked if the proposed TDM program will require that employees pay for parking. Mr. Shepherd stated this has not been agreed to yet, however he stated he is prepared to ask the Commission to direct him to build less parking than required,. 1.5 spaces for residential instead of 1.7 spaces. He stated he will work with prospective tenants that do not need excess parking spaces. Commissioner Ries asked, Mr. Shepherd about Hines' experience building residential space. Mr. Shepherd stated that Hines has built a great deal of residential, but not in California. He commented that 1200 residences were just finished in China. Commissioner Ries asked why more residential units were not planned for this site. Mr. Shepherd stated there is an issue with financing for mixed-use projects and it is believed that the current proposal will pencil out. He commented that the Pico Neighborhood Association (PNA) has asked fora "jobs program" during the construction phase, which is intended to be part of the agreement. 43 Commissioner Winterer asked about using adjacent parking as part of the TDM. Mr. Shepherd stated that it is a long walk to the residential streets and many of those street have preferential .parking, so parking on-site is preferred. Commissioner Winterer asked how the TDM will be monitored. Mr. Shepherd stated he is proposing , as part of the Development Agreement, to provide to the City $10,000 every other year for an independent study of traffic and parking. Commissioner Winterer expressed concern that the proposed project will not be restricted to creative/entertainment uses. Mr. Shepherd stated that providing the definition for creative arts is broad enough to allow changes in the business and entertainment fields he should have no trouble complying. He encouraged the Commission to think about not being too specific with definitions in the LUCE as it could limit the future success. of this project. Commissioner Pugh commented on his interest in the open space for larger projects and how this contributes to the face of the City. He asked Mr. Shepherd how these spaces will be established, as in easements (non-revocable) and totally open to the public. Mr. Shepherd- stated that this aspect of the project is not fully developed, although .the intention is for central connectivity and that these spaces will be open to the public. Commissioner Pugh cautioned that when public space is open, some uses may be objectionable. Mr. Shepherd stated that the proposed walkways are intended to allow access to the public open spaces, such as the plaza or amphitheater, in the development. He suggested that schools may be invited to provide creative entertainments for tenants and residents on Thursday and Friday afternoons. Commissioner Pugh asked Mr. Shepherd if he would be interested in providing shared-parking for the Bergamot transit station. Mr. Shepherd responded that he was not interested in that idea at present. Commissioner Newbold asked if shared parking would be possible on week-ends for rail line users. Mr. Shepherd stated that week days would be an issue and reminded the Commission he is asking for a parking reduction. Commissioner Newbold asked about the proposed heights for residential buildings. Mr. Shepherd stated that the project ranges from five stories to the west to seven stories on the eastern edge and explained the sustainable aspects which will benefit from the additional height. Commissioner Newbold asked if there is any potential for putting in a street on the northside of the project. Mr. Shepherd stated that currently there is a fire truck access road, however a new street would require the redevelopment of the adjacent properties to the north. Commissioner Newbold commented that there were no renderings for the north face of the property. Mr. Shepherd stated that the project has been fully designed, however the road will be used for deliveries. Commissioner Parry commented that he has some housing questions he will hold until later and would first ask for clarification on the parking numbers. He asked if he understood correctly that the proposal is for 579,000sf of office space to be parked at 2/1000 rather than the Code requirement. Mr. Shepherd 44 answered in the affirmative.. Commissioner Parry asked about the TDM objectives and what strategies .will be used if the TDM cannot be met. Mr. Shepherd stated he will work with staff on the EIR, that an initial. program will be .agreed upon and placed in the Development Agreement, including additional remedies to be used to achieve the desired goal. Commissioner Johnson commented on the proposed transit station at 26`h Street and Olympic Boulevard which will generate more pedestrian traffic .and the proposed corner setback for the new development. Mr. Shepherd stated that the setback on his site is quite generous. Commissioner Johnson questioned the usability of the plaza, whether it should be at the corner, and cited the unusable sidewalk around the Water Garden development. Mr. Shepherd stated that in the original designs the concepts included the LUCE vision to bring buildings to the sidewalk, however based on discussions with staff, three plaza areas have been added and. the Olympic Boulevard corner has been opened up and setback almost 45-feet (7.2 acres). Chair Koning asked Mr. Shepherd for his timetable for the project. Mr. Shepherd stated the project will move forward with or without the Light Rail and the project is envisioned to be built in two or three phases with the below grade parking garage first, then the residential and office space. Commissioner Winterer asked Mr. Shepherd how the tenants will feel about the Light Rail construction. Mr. Shepherd expressed hope future tenants will look forward to the Light Rail's completion. Commissioner Winterer asked about the parking and whether it is based on pro-formas or what is really wanted for the project. Mr. Shepherd responded that reduced parking means reduced revenue. Commissioner Winterer asked about Hines' ability to target the housing for specific renter groups, such as workforce housing. Mr. Shepherd stated that Hines believes that since the company is privately funded, the units can be targeted. His legal staff will verify this during the Development Agreement process. He expressed the hope to create a system of preference to house those who currently work in the City but cannot afford to live here, such a police and fire personnel as well as nurses and teachers, by using a point system. He stated that a neighborhood group has asked for preference for those who grew up in Santa Monica, perhaps by zip code, and asked for the. Commission's input on this. This concluded the questions from the Commission to the developer. The Commission took a break from 9:24 p.m. to 9:34 p.m. Chair Koning reconvened the meeting and asked the Commission whether they are inclined to reduce the public speaking time from three to two minutes each. The Commission was not inclined to reduce the public speaking time. 45 The following members of the public addressed the Commission regarding the proposed project: Dc Daniel Galamba; Liz Kane, Maria Perez, Zina Josephs (also spoke for David Latham), Joanne Curtis, Jeanne Laurie, Diana Gordon for SMCLC (also spoke for Victor Fresco, David Lappen, Maryanne Solomon, Mary Marlow [OPA], and Maynard Ostrow), Paul Rosenstein, Brent Edgecumbe, Catherine Eldridge, David Engleberg, Bill DuFour, Jenny Flores, Art Casillas, Hillel Kellerman, Gregg Heacock, and Ruth Sarnoff. Mr: Shepherd spoke in response to the public comment Commissioner Johnson asked Mr. Shepherd to comment on the soil contamination on_ the site. Mr. Shepherd explained that soil contamination has been detected from the prior use, Papermate, and the parent company, Gillette, is performing a remediation process to remove the toxins. Commissioner Johnson asked if the contamination has spread across Olympic Boulevard. Mr. Shepherd stated he only knows about the Papermate site. Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum stated that the City is in on-going negotiations with Gillette over the ground water clean-up and there is a Settlement Agreement. Commissioner Parry commented that this is his first "float-up" hearing and begged everyone's indulgence if his questions are not appropriate. He asked Mr: Shepherd for the LEED target he is seeking. Mr. Shepherd responded that the proposal is not that fully developed at this time. Commissioner Parry asked about the proposed median break on Olympic Boulevard and what happens if such a break is not possible. Mr. Shepherd stated that his discussions with the Transportation Management Division (TMD) indicated such median break would work and behefit traffic calming on Olympic Boulevard. He stated that the break would also benefit future transit riders who need to cross Olympic Boulevard beyond 26`h Street. Lastly, Mr. Shepherd stated that should this break not be possible, it would affect the EIR traffic mitigation measures. Ms. Yeo noted that much of the circulation plan has not been fully reviewed by TMD staff. Mr. Shepherd added that TMD is also looking at adding on-street parking along Olympic Boulevard to slow traffic. Commissioner Parry asked for the proposed number of housing units. Mr. Shepherd stated he does not have fixed numbers yet, however the current expectation is-for a mix of approximately 330 units with 1000sf/unit and 10% very low income, 20% low income and the workforce housing units. He stated the mix will be determined by the constraints placed in the Development Agreement. Commissioner Parry asked if ownership housing is proposed for this site. Mr. Shepherd responded that ideally the mix would include rental and ownership units. Commissioner Parry asked if using the on-site option for the affordable housing program is based on the size of the parcel being developed and if that effects the requirement for on-site affordable housing. Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum explained that under AHPP, the amount of the obligation is dependent upon the size of the project with 10%-20% affordable rental units being required, however if the units are a mixture of rental and ownership, different calculations are used. [Ms. Yeo noted that the difference 46 in the amount of the fee is different for rental and ownership project.] Ms. Fogarty commented that the LUCE prefers on-site affordable housing for larger projects. Mr. Shepherd commented that the community.outreach meetings asked for on- site affordable housing units as a public benefit. Commissioner Parry asked if Hines has experience developing projects with an arts theme. Mr: Shepherd answered in the affirmative, cited the Lantana site and Revolution Studios project as well as theJMAX headquarters. Commissioner Pugh expressed concern about the jobs/housing balance, citing occupancy loads for the .proposal project (450-500 residents and 1600 jobs). Mr. Shepherd stated that it would be hard to balance the site due to significant constraints. Commissioner Pugh asked if reversing the percentages had been considered. Mr. Shepherd re-explained the project concept. Commissioner Winterer expressed agreement with Commissioner Pugh regarding the jobs/housing balance and asked Mr. Shepherd if he would be willing to consider waiting on this project until Planning has a chance to review the whole area comprehensively. Mr. Shepherd stated such a review can be done during the EIR review period and asked that the project be forwarded as far as that process. He also stated that his site is the only one not bordering of adjacent residential sites. Chair Koning asked staff how the EIR determines alternatives for a project. Senior Land Use- Attorney Rosenbaum stated that under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) alternatives are taken as part of mitigation measures or reduction of impacts while still meeting the goals of the project. Ms. Fogarty stated that there is no limit on the number of alternatives that may be presented as long as they lead to the reduction of some significant impacts. Commissioner Ries stated he has two areas of concern, first being the jobs/housing balance in relation to this proposal, which proposes 500,000 square feet of commercial space. Mr. Shepherd responded that the objective of the jobs/housing balance is to minimize the impact of vehicle trips and the proposed project has been designed to add no new net .trips from the commercial component. He suggested that the Commission could insist that the first phase of development be the residential- component. He stated that the proposal, which Hines is committed to, tries to implement the objectives in the draft LUCE to have no new net trips from the commercial component. .Commissioner Ries commented on the strategic approach for this area of the City, citing the following: "at the core of the district is the creation of a district-wide parking authority to consolidate existing on-grade parking and future parking needs with a efficient parking structures." He commented on the needs to have this in place and asked Mr. Shepherd to comment. Mr. Shepherd stated that the district-wide parking notion, how it is financed and paid for, is a very hard concept and he has never. seen it actually work. Commissioner Ries commented on the potential to reduce the parking needs in the general area and having a centralized system 47 with a TDM coordinator. Mr. Shepherd responded that excess parking in the area should be studied. Mr. Chris Harding commented on recent approvals by the Commission which require participation in a TMA, which have-not come into being yet. Mr. Shepherd added that their traffic study includes Hines willingness to participate in and work with a regional coordinator. Commissioner Newbold commented that if the argument is that commercial users use transit more, what is the risk that the transit rail does not come to Santa. Monica. Ms. Fogarty stated there is always a risk, however the Light Rail is expected to arrive in Santa Monica in 2015 or soori thereafter. She stated the issue is that when a project goes through environmental analysis, a great deal of reduction can be achieved without inclusion of the Light Rail. She further stated that Mr. Shepherd is correct about the Light Rail being considered as a reduction in jobs over housing. Commissioner Johnson asked if there is any baseline of effectiveness for Lantaha's TDM program. Ms. Fogarty stated she does not have the figures for Lantana with her, but she does know that the Water Garden has seen a 50% reduction in vehicles trips under their TDM program. Chair Koning asked Mr. Shepherd about school mitigation fees for the project. Mr. Shepherd stated he does not know what the amount will be, however it will be specified in the Development Agreement. Chair Koning closed the public hearing. He stated that the purpose of this hearing is to make a recommendation that will be forwarded to City Council for consideration. Commissioner Ries asked if the proposal still moves on the City Council if the Commission does not recommend it to move forward. Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum stated that this is an informal discussion and whatever the recommendation, the City Council will have afloat-up session that includes the Commission's comments. City Council Liaison McKeown stated that the Development Agreement process is quasi-legislative and the project cannot be stopped, but the Commission can make a strong recommendation to the City Council Chair Koning commented that there are several other pending Development Agreements in the general area, including the Colorado Creative Studios and Roberts Center projects on Colorado Avenue. Commissioner Pugh commented that it would be useful to understand the housing components and commercial square footage proposed for these sites as well as the potential jobs being generated. Commissioner Winterer commented that what has been presented so far is very vague and a more sophisticated review is needed. Commissioner Johnson noted that there are many more job opportunities in Santa Monica but not enough affordable housing for workers. He also stated that this proposal is the largest one the Commission has seen thus far. Commissioner 48 Johnson suggested it would be best if the developer worked on the issues raised by the Commission and returned prior to City Council review. He outlined the following issues: • The developer. contribute. funds for the district TDM/mitigation fund and phasing analysis; • The project heights be reduced to a maximum of 65-feet per the draft Land Use and Circulation Element [LUCEj; • That the project be 35% office space, 10% retail space and the balance square footage in residential; • That the project should comply with the draft LUCE in all other aspects (urban design, housing, etc.) • That phasing analysis, proper scheduling of the project, include the Olympic/Bundy site in West Los Angeles; • That the location of the plaza/amphitheater be reconsidered as it is not inviting to the community; • Increase community benefits, including crossing Olympic Boulevard from the Light Rail station, contribute to street furniture, a crosswalk to include imbedded yellow flashing lights in the street, bus stops, a community meeting room and... • The colors for the project reflect beach colors, not grey industrial colors. Commissioner Newbold made the following comments: • Likes the following about the project: o On-site affordable and workforce housing o Way in which site is broken up o Widening Olympic Boulevard sidewalk • Height and massing a concern and should comply with Draft LUCE • Concerned that plaza, as proposed, will be a dead space • Impressed the developer is willing. to commit to traffic reduction targets that are. independent of Light Rail. Commissioner Parry commented that he see the site as a great opportunity. He offered the following list of comments and concerns: • Likes the art concept; • Provides more neighborhood services than other projects in area; • Good mix of uses; • More housing is needed (workforce/low income); • Supports staffs recommendation to move the plaza toward the corner; • Concerned about pedestrian paths breaking up site; • Lack of on-street parking; and • Supports aggressive TDM program proposal Commissioner Pugh agreed with the comments made. He added the following: • Need to look at jobslhousing balance for the district overall, although it makes sense to have jobs close to transit. 49 • Should allow appropriate height to create good buildings with adequate floor to ceiling heights (fifteen-foot ground floor) • Requested six foot additional height (i.e. 81-inches) is imperceptible but artificially reducing height to 75-feet will be noticeable, resulting in unusable buildings. • Explore. agreements that will make open space truly open to the public. in. terms of access. • Proposed corner. plaza needs to be tied to some sort of street activity or be programmed in order to be successful • Applicant's commitment to trip reduction is good • Traffic analysis should compare trips from when Papermate factor was fully operational to the proposed project. Commissioner Ries offered the following comments and concerns:. • Questions regarding jobs/housing balance -initial reaction is preference for more housing. • Phasing: housing should go first, office use should not be operational until the EXPO line is operational. • Formation of centralized TDM program is the core of the Bergamot Transit Village and Mixed Use Creative District, so this needs to be formed with the first project that occurs • Parking reduction makes sense • Community Benefits o Should look at open space in terms of roof top gardens o Community garden would be great - if not on-site then perhaps financial contribution or purchase of vacant lots off-site in Pico Neighborhood o Financial contribution to long-term Development Agreement monitoring o Jobs training for Pico Neighborhood youth o Housing Units should have first priority for people already living or working in Santa Monica • Project needs to comply with Draft LUCE development parameters • Explore on-street parking on Olympic Boulevard, but not comfortable with reducing number of travel lanes. Commissioner Winterer made the following comments: • Redevelopment of site is preferred compare to existing building • Project should comply with heights in Draft LUCE • Project is too large and imposing and does not feel like a "village" yet • Questions of jobs/housing balance o Larger issue of how did this imbalance occur? Why was so much commercial development allowed in the past and what can be learned so we can address the issue in the future? • Need to study the district as a whole and study parks and open space needs comprehensively • Amphitheater is in inappropriate location due to proximity to service alley so • Community Benefits: o Expand Stewart Park or financial contribution towards improvements • Have not studied entirety of issues to be comfortable recommending moving forward. Chair Koning wrapped up the discussion with the following comments: • Exciting opportunity for the site and great location! • Derisity is not a bad thing in terms of sustainability on a local and regional level • Community Benefits: o Not accepting that physical. improvements such as the plaza or central walkway are true community benefits -they should be considered project amenities that are expected to be provided o Benefit could be in the form of additional trees on the perimeter o Instead of physical improvements, preference for significant in-lieu fees and contributions to programs and capital improvements • Like breaking up the site into smaller components but pedestrian walkways are a concern because they appear to terminate at nothing o Exception is east-west alley that could be used by pedestrians • Plaza on corner could be exciting but needs something to activate it o Concern that it will be a dead space like the First Federal Plaza or the Wilshire Boulevard/26h Street former Home Saving building • Project needs to have on-street parking in order to work (e.g. Yahoo Center) • Agrees with Commissioner Pugh that the extra height is necessary for a good building, however more discussion is needed because heights proposed in the Draft LUCE were also developed through community process • Conflicted regarding jobs/housing balance because if commercial is proposed, this transit accessible location is the place to have it • Would recommend non-muted colors • EIR needs to study an option that has more housing • Take recommendations to City Council and do not return to the Commission because there is a significant amount of work the Commission has to accomplish for the foreseeable future. 6. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 12:15 a.m. on Thursday, January 28, 2010. APPROVED: August 18, 2010 51 ATTACHMENT B COMMUNITY MEETING SUMMARY DECEMBER 15, 2009 52 ar CITY OF SANTA MONICA PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CIIM of Santa Monica MErv1ORA-~tDUM Date: December 16; 2009 To: File From: Jing Yeo, Special Projects Manager Subject: Summary of December 15, 2009 Community Meeting 1681 26'" Street (former Papermate site) Development Agreement Concept Staff Present: Eileen Fogarty Jing Yeo Paul Foley, Steve Traeger Travis Page Roxanne Tanemori Sam Morrissey Annette Colfax ATTENDANCE: 72 people Applicant Present: Colin Shepherd Doug Metzler Jeff Weiss Kim Karie Cheryl Richardson Chris Harding Overall Summary This was awell-attended community meeting with attendance from representatives of several neighborhood groups, the arts community, and business interests in the area. The overarching concern was the cumulative effect, particularly on congestion, of proposed development in the area, in addition to the Bundy Village project proposed in West Los Angeles. Comments received were primarily to express concern regarding the scale of the project and doubts as to whether the trip reduction strategies could be effective, given the overall volume of anticipated development in the area. However, there was also positive response to breaking up the project into blocks more comparable to the size of the existing City grid, in emphasizing that the project must have an active ground floor that is open and inviting to pedestrians, arid in proposed trip reduction measures. Some suggestions were also given regarding additional community benefits that the project could provide including an on-site community garden, sustainable building design, and recreational amenities such as tennis courts. 53 Summary of Comments Community Benefits • Hines has been a good neighbor (e.g. Lantana, Stewart Park). The City has learned a lot from other large projects in area in terms of community benefits and trip reduction. This emphasis on community benefits is important and should continue. • Community benefit suggestions o Hire local residents -construction -other guarantees that local community continues to benefit from project o Useable open space such as community gardens or other similar uses o Provide community benefits to mitigate increased demand for City services associated with the project o Tennis courts o Area needs and deserves creative arts programming and amenities • Concerned that benefits of project will be overshadowed by the use of resources from the life of the project (fire, police, street maintenance resources, etc.) -can the project provide for additional tax-based services. ® If breaking up super blocks is a priority and implementation of TDMs is a priority - large scale projects are needed to fund these CBs identified as LUCE objectives. Traffic • While there was support for integrating land use with light rail, concerns were raised about the density of the project and the effectiveness of trip reduction strategies. • Concerns were expressed about potential traffic impacts, especially through-traffic in the .residential areas north of Colorado Avenue, during the PM peak hours, and the effect on neighborhood property values. • More information requested: o How many people are using/have used site o How many vehicles will be located/parked at site o How many daily car trips will be added, even with TDM o Why the large scale of the project is necessary • How does the project decrease traffic by increasing employment of Santa Monica residents? • How are the project's trip reduction measures integrated with the Bundy Village project? • Although it is claimed that the traffic will be reduced by 50%, what is the base number of trips. In addition, current traffic is horrendous for surrounding neighborhoods due to Lantana and the College. • How will pedestrian circulation function to and from the project site at peak times (the beginning of the day, at lunch, and after work)? Given that the light rail will be bringing in users to the site, careful consideration should be made to the capacity of the spaces as the project is refined. Pedestrian flow is important and consideration should be given to possibly incorporating underground access to the rail station. Building Mass/Scale/HeighUDesign • Landcaping o Need more open space and landscaping, such as trees, at the property lines and not on public property. o Like open space on the east and west corners. • With average height of 71 feet, what is the highest point, how broad is it and why is the height necessary? It sounds like a high rise village. • Square footage and height proposed is too large. 54 • Concern about combination of this project and density and height of development near Colorado & Stewart. General • Establishing goals in LUCE are important. • Need for coordinated planning for other projects in area. • Hines should "trade" the proposed housing with the Verizon site (where Expo light rail maintenance yards are proposed). • How will the school system accommodate the increase in the number of residential units in the area? • TDM measures, open space, improved pedestrian and auto circulation, and housing are all good. Want more information on building heights, overall mass and scale of the project. • Project looks like a better version of a few developments in the cities of Alexandria and Arlington, Virginia. Development in those cities have been very successful and have developed vibrant communities in one of the most historic cities in the U.S. Those developments have been enabled by the Metro system. • What is the "creative arts" component? What does it consist of? • Concern regarding impact of the project on public services (e.g. police, fire, maintenance). Mailing/Notification • Residents north of the project site need to be better notified. • Need greater than 500' notification for large projects. The notices should be distributed citywide. Written Comments Design Comments • South side of the project should look and feel more open for the Pico Neighborhood on the south side of Olympic Boulevard. There is a lot of wall area along Olympic that is not friendly for residents. Project does not currently look inviting and feels like the Water Garden. • Open the project to the neighborhood by activating the ground floor. • How will you calculate the environmental paving by your buildings. The drawings have a lot of glass & little space for water permeation. Traffic Comments • Will some parking be available for special events at the site? • Vehicle access is currently shown on Olympic Boulevard -please consider the access and potential impacts on existing boulevards. Other Comments • Will there be a police or fire station at this site? • Were there special tax exemptions given by the City? • How much retail and business rental space is added to the cities supply (personal concern given the current economic climate)? • Connect the project to the Expo station via a pedestrian bridge over Olympic Boulevard. 55 ATTACHMENT C NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT 56 1681 26th Street (Former. Papermate Site) Neighborhood Context The subject property is in an area with a mix of light industrial and office complex uses. Further from the immediate area are single- and multi-family residential neighborhoods to the north; east, and south. The Bergamot Station Arts Center is also located across the street from the project site along with the future Expo Light Rail station: The scale of the surrounding area is generally low to ,the north, south, and east with buildings between one to three stories. The one exception is the MTV Networks building, which is five stories. To the west of the project site are the Water Garden, Yahoo Center, and Arboretum projects which, at six to seven stories, are significantly higher than the general scale of the area. A key neighbourhood feature of the project would be to introduce daily needs and convenience services within walking distance of existing neighbourhoods and locating residential units suitable to employees that may work in the proposed creative arts offices is intended to reduce the vehicle trips generated by the project. A remnant of the area's historic industrial use is large block size, in some cases the equivalent of entire city blocks. The size of these blocks along with substandard or non- existent sidewalks present a challenge to transforming the area into a walkable, urban transit village. The area's adjacency to the city limits and the I-10 freeway, which border the growing West Los Angeles community, coupled with a historic imbalance towards regional office uses and the lack of an environment that allows residents and commuters to reach destinations without driving have contributed to traffic congestion. A dearth of community facilities that are integral to improving quality of life in the area, such as parks, childcare services, and recreation facilities compound the challenge to creating a neighborhood environment. Furthermore, the area in which the subject property is situated -has experienced significant development pressure in recent years. As new projects are introduced, a responsibility to shape and influence future redevelopment is a primary reason why 5~ ~'i-- '3 U v sustainable and context sensitive building and site design is a guiding principle for the project. Fortunately, the subject propefij's large size provides opportunity to require substantial building stepbacks, roofline variation across the site, sufficient light and air between buildings; and significant ground floor open space amenities. Also key to meeting the challenge of transforming the area into an urban transit village is the Expo Light Rail, a regional transit service linking Santa Monica to Culver City and Downtown Los Angeles: It is expected to be completed in 2015 with an anticipated 62,000 system-wide riders per day. There are three stations in Santa Monica with the easternmost Expo Light Rail station iri Santa Monica located directly south of the subject property at Olympic Boulevard and 26th Street. The Expo Bike Path, that will be located beside .the rail tracks, will provide an additional travel option for regional commuters as well as residents and recreational users. Santa Monica Expo Light Rail Stations Sife ~„~` `~~` .„. q .~ ! ~ y# x ti .. xd k° t. 3 ''.. d '~ ~' ~ p.- o 1 ~~ ? ~ x: 1M v o d~ ~, ui ~ ~ ~ ~~ a cif >' .r"=" _ ~~ ~ ~.. 1 .... .+ 58 ATTACHMENT D HISTORY OF PROJECT DISCUSSIONS 59 1681 26th Street (Former Papermate Site) History of Project Discussions Previous Discussion Points In earlier meetings with the applicant, staff emphasized community priorities identified in the LUCE placemaking and industrial lands workshops. These included compatibility of new construction with the scale and character of the surrounding neighborhood, services within walking distance of most neighborhoods, more .open space opportunities, and increased pedestrian and bicycle connectivity by continuing the street grid. In light of the identified community priorities, the strategic approach for the Bergamot Transit Village designation included six core principles that guided staffs initial discussions with the applicant: 1) Support the creation of walkable neighborhoods through the creation of wider sidewalks and human-scale city blocks. 2) Create connectivity through the creation of pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicle networks ensuring ease of access within and through properties. 3) Capitalize on every opportunity to create more green open space. 4) Increase accessibility to high-frequency transit for residents and major employers such as the hospitals and College. 5) A complete community that supports trip reduction by providing a range of housing types and affordability within walking distance of .services and employment; and convenient access to social gathering places and recreational amenities. 6) Support for the creative arts. In response, the applicant developed principles that have guided the project concept: Trip Reduction and Traffic Management On-site Affordable and Workforce Housing Walkable plazas and bicycle access throughout project Mixed-use development with community-serving retail and services close to transit a Sustainable Design Community gathering and green open spaces In further meetings with the applicant staff underscored several discussion points with the applicant including: 60 ~-~= How the project can provide meaningful community benefits that provide the basis fora "complete community". • The development of ah aggressive trip reduction strategy that relies on providing a complementary mix of land uses alohg with incentive programs aimed to influence travel behavior. The scale of the "blocks" and building sizes must be in scale with the existing surrounding residential neighborhood and the citywide commercial grid, notwithstanding the scale of large office complexes ih the immediate vicinity of the project site. o Designing human-scale buildings that place the majority of the upper level building mass away from the edges of the project. o Variation in roofline and massing of the project to provide visual relief. Ensuring that the project remains open and inviting by promoting access to light and .air and building stepbacks. In addition, openness at the ground level could be achieved through active uses and providing multiple pedestrian pathways through the project site with an emphasis on widening the sidewalk on Olympic Boulevard. o Discussions also focused on the Olympic Boulevard and 26th Street corner where there is an opportunity to create a corner plaza with an active ground floor use instead of closed-off office space. The mix of uses should maintain a ratio of approximately 60% creative arts and 40% neighborhood-serving uses and housing. ® The provision of ground floor open space that will be useful to the community and could potentially be used for cultural or arts programming. o The project should also provide aground floor green open space that would be an amenity for the residents of the project. • Support for transit infrastructure by way of amenities that will accommodate the neighborhood, light rail station users, and other commuters. Conceptual Site Plan as reviewed at Planning Commission float-up f~, New green connecting streets and pedestrian paths °° €i~ffJ 1~13~IIi~ifshi~iEiii i Iiii~~E~ ill~t ~ i }iqx iiiii{~(9 ('ilii7,L~~~~~ili viii ~iEt'-iitli4l Flit ~iu~fi s fFkE(:iliilil3. ~- -~ Public _ ~ ; ~~ ~ Green opeq ~ ~ `~~ i Plaza ~ ~~ x ~~ - "!! p ~ ~,_ ~; ,--~ t3lock„Size comparable,to resident al ~ ~~ °"~" gaosting city grid i _ ~ ~ ,side? ~ a = P ~~ q ~~~~ w ~ h~ ~ i P min t er°-~^~ , ,, ~~, ;~ comer ~ ^ ° ~ ~ r ., ~~~ o~,µvax.;~ Affordable, ~~ ~ ~ - ;= Workforce, and Creative Arts =Neighborhood Market Rate Space -serving uses Residential 61 ATTACHMENT E REVIEW OF PROJECT COMPLIANCE WITH LUCE POLICIES Will be made available at City Council meeting on Tuesday, March 22, 2011. 62 3- aa- I I ATTACHMENT E REVIEW OF PROJECT COMPLIANCE WITH LUCE POLICIES Will be made available at City Council meeting on Tuesday, March 22, 2011 62 1681 26th Street (Former Papermate Site) Review of Project Compliance with LUCE Policies A ~ .;,,,'BERGAMD'~TRANSIT VILIAGE GOA LSANIxPD1C11E 51CH~iPZER"3£~ ~ ~- .; ~ _ ~ ____.~ .~;.._~~,Lt7CE~0ALOLICt~,' .... :... . . . ...~..~pG ~._ . ~~CDMPI.Y?.'~ ~ ...-.:m.:r...._ISStI£S- 'mss ~.....'+:,:~..... r: D20.3 Provide active recreation, gathering 2.6-34 Needs Project provides large plaza at places and passive open space in the form of Revision western end and smaller green space new parks, plazas and ground level on eastern end. "Central spine' is not landscaped open spates. truly open space as it moves in and out of buildings. Detail of complete street treatments needs to be developed. D20.6 Locate active retail-serving uses at 2.6-34 Not Project provides ground floor retail the ground floor of buildings where Successfully however, it does not provide design identified pedestrian activity is highest, such features and an environment as near the light rail station, along active conducive to pedestrian activity. pedestrian routes and around new open spaces. 20.8 Design buildings to be compatible with 2.6-34 Nc Project does not extend the creative the existing industrial and creative arts arts character ofthe District. character of the District with a variety of Buildings step back for a small portion heightr, and architectural buildingelements of the fa4ade on Olympic Boulevard and shapes to create visual interest. Create while the remainder of the building meaningful combinations of materials and has a flat roofline. Building incorporate three-dimensional articulation articulation has been treated to create shadow patterns. primarily through Changes in texture and material instead of addressing the building form. Three-dimensional articulation and visual interest would require that the applicantarticulate buildings within each "block' instead of treating each "block" as a single building mass. D20.9 Scale buildings to the pedestrian to 2.6-34 No Buildings are monolithic, have create an enhanced sidewalk shopping or undefined base, and are not walking environment. Include enhanced pedestrian-scaled. Uniform 15' materials and detailing on ground floor ground floor heights are not fa4ades along pedestrian ways. consistent with up to 18' ground floor height s discussedduring LUCE hearings. These increased ground floor heights were intended to provide more viable retail spaces and were basis for overall buildingheight. 63 ",-= BESiGAM07 TRANSITI /ILC{1Gf.GOA CS AND PAC£IIE S (£HAPTE$ 2 6) ~, .: :+_`, _..~. 3~i7CEGOAt(POLT£Y, ..: ::_ .. .. _.~PG # _... _=:_COMPLYk.-L , _ :.:... __ISSUES" ,;,.-,, .' D20.11 Locate building entrances and 2.635 -In some Building entrancesface streets and primary fayades facing and adjacent to locations pedestrian connections but primary perimeter streets or new vehicle/pedestrian entrance faces interior "spine" and streets to encourage an interesting and primary faSade is Olympic Boulevard. varied streetscape with places for people to Entries need to address building gather. exterior and multiple sides. Ea4ades facing street or pedestrian connection do not encourage an interesting or varied streetscape. D20.12 Encourage well-designed small- and 2.6-36 Needs Project provides a number of outdoor medium-sized outdoor spaces. - Revision spaces butthesespaces are not oriented towards the areas of greatest pedestrian activity. Moving some of the residential components closer to the largest open space will help to activate the space. Central spine is not truly open space and " complete street design needs to be developed. D21.3 Encourage opportunities to integrate 2.6-36 No The project's uses are for creative arts arts programming into new and redeveloped office spate but no arts programming parcels within the Bergamot Transit Village. has yet been proposed by the applicant. GOAL D22: Enhance circulation and transportation in the Bergamot Transit Village with pedestrian, vehicular and transit improvements. D22.1 Establish an interconnected grid of 2.6-35 Somewhat The project creates a grid but vehicle/pedestrian streets and bitycle paths proposed vehicular and pedestrian to facilitate circulation including connections are not consistent with opportunities to extend the street grid into desire to create convenient and safe the Mixed-Use Creative District to the east access for pedestrians. Proposed and to Olympic Boulevard. Design the western street location does not length, width and shape of blocks to provide provide optimal traffic signal location convenient and safe circulation and access or most direct access for pedestrians for pedestrians and vehicles, recognizing the between project and Expo Station. constraints and opportunities presented by Eastern and northern streets are the existing development. designed solely as vehicle driveways and do not have any sidewalks or pedestrian amenities. Project should revise roadways to create a direct connection to Bergamot Arts Center. 64 `"~ .' BERGANtOTTt2Af~3SIT UILiAf,FGQA LSANDPOLCILE S(tHAP.3ER26J_q.-..,n ~.~ >.s ___._:~ 3..i3CE GOALf?©LICY :. -,; .. -..:P-G ~ ,°CQMPIY~._°: . `= , 155UE5 _. -- .. .. ~' D22.2 Provide for new 60-65 feet of 2.6-36 Needs _ ., - _. . The proposed project provides two dedicated or easement right-of-way streets Design and vehicle connections and two to accommodate appropriate circulation, ~ Location pedestrian connections into the infrastructure and green pathways. Revision project site. Vehicle connections are too narrow at 28, 30, and 52 feet, and connections need adequate landscaping. However the location of those connections does not support the most direct access to the Expo station. D22.4 Enhance~the Olympic Boulevard 2.6-36 Needs The project proposes a fully signalized median along the length of the Bergamot Location intersection that would require aleft- Transit Village (Stewart Street to Cloverfield Revision turn pocket in the median, Boulevard) and implement modifications to constructed by the developer. As accommodate left turns at intersections with proposed by the developer, the . new streets. Incorporate "pedestrian ~ intersection is not located in the harbors' at crosswalks to shorten the position that would provide the pedestrian crossing distance. shortest and most direct crossing distance for pedestrians between the project and the Expo light rail station. GOAL D23: Establish Bergamot Transit Village as a model for the creation of new shared parking facilities and TDM strategies. - D23.1 Create a parking district for the 2.6-36 Anticipated The proposed projects supports this Bergamot Transit Village to accommodate to Comply, policy by including provisions for centralized, shared parking to serve both the with shared parking for third parties in the new and existing uses in the area. Adequate surrounding area at monthly lease Details rates if there are unused commercial spates. Parking analysis shows reduced parking with TDM: D23.2 Create a TDM district for the - 2.6-36 Anticipated As part of a strong TDM proposal, the Bergamot Transit Village area to capitalize to Comply, applicant has agreed to participate in uponthe new transit assets to reduce overall with the formation of a TDM Association. vehicle trips. Adequate Details 65 " ~-- ~ £ITY1L5Ll~jLANDd3S~~ALSA[VD_PYfld£IES~£HAPTE~iZ1} ~°`' _ ~ ~ .:.~..._,...._..~,u._.._~ ~° ,.~ w-;TUtE~~G~'i11.~P4tlG~'"~-._?:-.. .__. r-f-+"s.~i-._._,~C311+1,P3-y?,...;. _.__°- LSStIEf~N,OTES ~~.~___._s GOAL CU2: Integrate Land Useand Transportation for Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emission Reduction-Integrate land use and transportation, carefully focusing new development ontransit-rich boulevards and in the districts, to create sustainable active pedestrian-friendly centers that decrease reliance on the automobile, increase walking, bicycling and transit use, and improve community quality of life. LU2.2 Transit Villages. Capitalize on the 2.1-12 Yes~with The proposed project contains all the Expo Light Rail stations to create vital new additional basic components stated in Policy complete sustainableneighborhoods with Creative LU2.2 in the terms of connections transit as a focal element, greenconnections Arts/Culture through the project site, a mix of and pathways, a variety of housing types and housing, jobs, and retail. The project jobs, enhanced creative arts and institutions, does not yet include creative arts and local-serving retail and services. space that could be used by the broader creative and cultural arts community and can strengthen connections. LU2.4 Affordable and Workforce Housing. 2.1-12 Anticipated The applicant has indicated that Create diverse housing options along the to Comply affordable housing will be constructed transit corridors and in the activity centers, on-site but no details on the replacing some commercial potential with affordability level or number of units additional affordable and workforce housing, has yet been provided. Pursuant to and encouraging affordable workforce the AHPP, the minimum required housing near thetransit stations. amount of on-site affordable housing would range from iD% to 20%, depending on the affordability level of the units. As a Tier 3 project, the applicant would be required to provide additional affordable housing or community benefits. LU2.5 Vehicle Trip Reduction. Achieve 2.1-12 - Yes with The applicanYhas committed to a vehicle trip reduction through adequate minimum 50% reduction in projed- comprehensivestrategies that designate program generated trips from ITE rates with a land uses, establish development and street details target of 67%. The applicant has also design standards, implement sidewalk, proposed a comprehensive TDM bicycle and roadway improvements, expand program that includes measures transit service, manage parking, and which have been shown to be most strengthen Transportation Demand effective at vehicle trip reduction, Management programs that support such as parking cashout, parking accessibility by transit, bicycle and foot, and pricing, and subsidized transit passes. discourage vehicle trips at a district-wide This program would be subject to level. Monitor progress using tools that annual Development Agreement integrate land use and transportation monitoring. Further, the applicant factors. Increase bicycle and pedestrian proposed to make improvements to connectivity in transit districts and adjust the bus stop adjacent to the project bus and shuttle services to ensure success of site. See previous comments on the transit system. roadways, pathways, connections and shared parking. 66 :~ ~ ~ '~,~, .,~ : ~ LI~YWIlET~S S~~,[?Ai~~L IVj._T£iL~C1ES~~C ~- HAP~R~ Y~- ~ r `= x .._~y_.._ y~fCE GCrFit~=f31!#-~~ ~ _. . '~':'P"G w=' - ~COAt}t'~3'~';,_ , __ ..m~ _ . ___„ _.:.._I55i-3ESfJVOT~S_ __..;:~ __a .: .._ LU2.6 Active Spaces. Focus new 2.1-12 Design and The proposed project complies with development in defined districts to create Locations part ofthe policy because it is located active spacesthat can support diverse local- Revisions within the Bergamot Transit Village serving retail and services, walkability, arts Needed District. The proposed project and culture. Require, whenever possible, includes an approximately ~% acre new development to provide convenient and open space on the western portion of direct pedestrian and bicycle connections. the project site but there is concern - that the space would not necessarily have the activity to remain a public - gathering place during ail hours of the day. A street adjacent to the open space would start to create a direct synergy between the rail passengers and the transit village.-The segregation of uses across the site with office on one end and residential on the other makes it difficult to imagine that the largest public space on the site would have the critical mass of people necessary to ensure a vibrant 17 hour/day, 7 day/week neighborhood. An alternative site plan would place residential uses with associated ground floor retail, restaurants, and services facing the public space. GOAL LU3: Transition from Regional- Serving Commercial Uses to Local-Serving Uses in Areas Served by Transit -Redirect regional-serving commercial and office development potential into new housing opportunities with access to neighborhood-serving uses iri transit-accessible areas as part of a citywide trip reduction strategy. LU3.1 Reduce Regional-Serving Commercial 2.1-13 Design The project proposes creative arts Uses. Reduce regional office and commercial Revisions office, residential, and local-serving uses and encourage smaller floor plate office Needed retail near major transit. However, uses, housing and local-serving retail and the floor plates of the creative office services. buildings are not consistent with the polity to create some smaller spaces that Could accommodate a variety of tenants. LU4.3 Mixed-Use Associated with Transit. 2.1-13 Yes The project is located across the Encourage mixed-use development close to street from a future light rail station transit to provide housing opportunities for and addresses the LUCE requirement the community, support local businesses, for a mix of uses in compliance with and reduce reliance on automobiles. _ this policy. 67 ctrtvu~t+~tn~an~ s~-~oar~ m~l.~ca~s~f n ~A~-r»z- ~ `=~- r ~_= __'~~`i~c~~o;ztaL~c,~_.._~_ _ _ ~P+; ~.... ~can~>?~.~ . _m:,=~ssr~srTES _ ___ LU4.4 Pedestrian-Oriented Design. Engage 2.1-13 No The project does little to engage pedestrians with ground floor uses, building pedestrians beyond providing space design, site planning, massing and signage for pedestrian connections on the site that promote vibrant street life and and ground floor pedestrian uses. emphasize transit and bicycle access. The connections appear as leftover space between the unarticulated building sides which create a canyon effect. Primary building entrances should be oriented towards the main exterior pedestrian pathways (not the covered interior spine) with interesting design on all sides of the - building. The project treats only the exterior streets (Olympic, 26`", Stewart) as the primary facades and should be revised to address all sides of the building for 360-degree design. The lark of details to the buildings facing the new connections and, in particular, the north elevation of the project, is not consistent with the polity to create engaging ground floor environments that promote active street life. The proposed ground floors set back from the building face prohibit a landscaped and dynamic pedestrian space. The proposed design would likely result in the type of sterile open space, devoid of human activity, that the community has indicated is not desirable in the Transit Village. LU4.6 Open Space. Provide open space and 2.1-14 Design and A minimal amount of ground floor green connections near residences that are Location open space, in the form of a part of an expanding and comprehensive Revisions playground, has been provided on the system of passive. and active open space and -Needed ~ residential side of the project. The complete street design emphasizing inter- ~ largest open space is on the opposite connectivity, recreation, and gathering side of the project. There are also 2 spaces. pedestrian connections across the site. There is no open landscaped connection between the two provided open spaces. See previous comments about complete streets. GOAL Ll/5: Expo Light Rail line -Cluster housing, employment, local-serving retail and services around the Expo Light Rail line to reduce vehicle trips, create complete neighborhoods and support transit. 68 ~. ~~ ~"` `--~ LI~'f-WfR`€.CAFlti kiSE.GOAD.S'A L+[1~~P{T1,tCiE~{£ E~~1;PT~i~3.'1~ '= ~. .. =, .e.~~~ ~r r :,___~:. ~ .. __K-~t1~-E~GOAt/P4>t'#~t .~ _~u __: _ __ ., ._ ._ . _ "~G. ~ _r - _. _._ _ : ;~COMPL~ _.._.. ' ._ ~~SSff.ESjEIOTES _. ._ .Rt =, ~ r LU5.1 Encourage Desired Uses at Stations. 2.1-14 Anticipated The project has a range of market Encourage a range of housing options, to Comply rate, affordable, and workforce including affordable and workforce housing, housing along with approximately around the Expo Light Rail stations with a 80,000 sf of ground floor retail. The balanced mix of local-serving retail, services applicant has indicated that and employment. affordable housing will be constructed on-site with details to be provided. The project's mix of uses complies with this policy. LU5.2 Integrate Transit Connections. 2.1-14 Partial The project proposes shared parking Integrate supporting transit linkages, as well Compliance that would beavailable to the users as pedestrian and bicycle connections, at all with pricing and management details stations. Parking developed at or near a to be provided. However, the project station is shared with other uses and priced does not currently support a direct to ensure availability at all times. ~ pedestrian connection tothe station. Incorporating the Cit~/s preferred road location would allow forthe most direct and safest pedestrian and bicycle access to the station. GOAL LU10:. Community Benefits -Require new development to contribute directly to the community's core social, physical and transportation goals through mechanisms such as community benefits. LU10.2 Benefits Tied to Community Values. 2.1-17 Anticipated The applicant has proposed Require new development that requests toComply community benefits. As a Tier 3 height above the base to provide project, significant community measurable benefits to foster complete benefits are expected and will be neighborhoods and support the goals of the negotiated as part of the LUCE, including reducing vehicle trips and Development Agreement. A GHG emissions, maintaining diversity, and preliminary list of benefits has been promoting affordable and workforce provided. housing. LU10.3 Affordable and Workforce Housing. 2.1-17 Anticipated The applicant is proposing on-site Focus on additional affordable and to Comply affordable housing and workforce workforce housing with an emphasis on housing nearjobs that is targeted employment centers close to transit towards appropriate groups (e.g. facilities. nurses, teacher, first responders) and existing, nearby residents, with details to be provided. GOAL LU14: Encourage Arts and Culture.- Encourege arts and culture through land uses that maintain and promote the growth of the City's creative capital. LU14.1 Range of Cultural Facilities. Provide 2.1-19 Revisions The project is located in a transit-rich opportunities for the development and Needed area based on its proximity to the retention of cultural facilities ranging from - future Expo station. However, the small, flexible, and affordable performance ~ project does not have the range of ' spaces to venues serving the wider cultural facilities that are referenced community (like the Civic Auditorium). in this policy. These features could be Encourage facilities serving a wide audience provided as part of the community to locate intransit-rich areas. benefits of the project. Further discussions are needed. - 69 .. : --;= ~, ~ ~T¥SiSTlt3E.LPfili31 35E`GflAI:~Rfi 1b:~iiL>)L4E~{L ~ H9PT£R'2.1~ . : °` _~_.~. ~I;3G)=;GOAL;7POLILY,.„_,. ~, . „:P-G ~3, ~C013QP~~S'7._. . - . __ _ u} LSSt31=35~AIOF£S ._ _--..__` LU 14.3 Artist Lofts. Allow adaptive reuse of 2.1-19 No The project is located in the Bergamot structures for artist live/work lofts, Transit Village District but does not particularly in the Mixed-Use Creative and - currently propose any artist live/work Bergamot Transit Village Districts. space. LU14.4 Open Space Programming. 2.1-19 Program- The project provides an open space Encourage the programming of new and ming Details area, however, there are concerns existing open space throughout the City with Needed regarding how the spacewill be cultural activities and events that highlight activated and whether it is of local artists. This will increase accessibility to sufficient size to accommodate the a wide variety of cultural programs for all variety of recreational and cultural ages. - _ programs contemplated by this policy. Further discussions with the applicant '.. and other City departments are necessary to determining the possibility of programming for the on- siteopen space. GOAL LU15: Enhance Santa Monica's Urban Form -Encourage well-developed design that is compatible with the neighborhoods, responds to the surrounding context, and creates a comfortable pedestrian environment. LU15.4 Open and Inviting Development. 2.1-20 Design While the project provides physical Encourage new development to be open and Revisions connections across the site, as a inviting with visual and physical Needed campus setting with inwardly focused permeability, connections to the existing design, the project does not exude street and pedestrian network, and openness to the community and the connections to the neighborhoods and the existing street and pedestrian broader community. network. The project also needs to anticipate future connections to the surrounding area. LU15.5 Pedestrian and Bicycle Connectivity. 2.1-20 With_ Design The proposed project provides Encourage the design of sites and buildings and vehicular and bicycle connections to facilitate easy pedestrian- and bicycle- Location across the project site and does not oriented connections and to minimize the Revisions propose surface parking, however, separation created by parking iots and these connections could be improved driveways. through location and design. LU15.7 Street-Level.Pedestrian-Oriented 2.1-20 Partial The proposed project provides ground Design. Buildings in the mixed-use and ~ Compliance floor retail uses and buildings at the commercial areas should generally be street, however, some portions of the located at the back of the sidewalk orthe - building areset back under uninviting ~., property line (street front) and include active loggias. There are no residential uses commercial uses on the ground floor. Where proposed on the ground floor. a residential use occupies the ground floor, it should be set back from the property line, be located one half level above the street or incorporate design features to provide privacy forthe unit. Front doors, porches and stoops are encouraged as part of orienting-residential units to the street. 70 -~ ~ '~°~. ~ ~ ~ ~ .,~ ~ '° L-i1'Y111lfUE LANli.~ 3SEGAALS~i 1D~ ~f3.t2CCfS,~CH RP7~Ti.2~' ~: ,~,~ .:~:°" s,.. _:1_C~CEGL)71L~RQLgCY,_:-~'.._,_ -__~G#n~_ '"C~MELI'~,„ '.":v_y 75SL7ES~N,,,D~1=S .,,.~,m _T LU15.8 Building Articulation. Building 2.1-21 No The proposed buildings achieve fa4ades should be well designed with articulation primarily through appropriate articulation in the form of materials and texture instead of setbacks, offsets, projections and a mix of addressing building form with architectural materials and elements to modulation, stepbacks-and varied establish an aesthetically pleasing pattern. massing on all sides. Much of the Large areas of glass above the ground floor upper floors are defined with flat require special design consideration. Highly expanses of glass with what appear to reflective materials are to be avoided, and be screens that do not comply with dark or reflective glass is prohibited. this policy. LU15.9 Pedestrian-Oriented Design. 2.1-21 No While the project concept is not yet at Buildings should incorporate pedestrian- the level where architectural details scaled elements with durable, quality have been determined, setting back materials and detailing located on the lower the ground floor storefronts, the lack stories adjacent to the pedestrian. of rhythm, and the low ceiling height, on the ground level in addition to undifferentiated building mass affects the project's ability to create a human-scale environment. LU15.10 Roofline Variation. Buildings 2.1-21 No The proposed project does not should be designed with a variety ofheights provide adequate variety of building and shapes to create visual interest while height and roofline to meet the intent maintaining a generally consistent overall of this policy. Roofline variation is street front. To achieve this goal, generally achieved on the Olympic development standards should provide Boulevard fayade only with the flexibility to encourage buildings with remainder of the building at the same interesting silhouettes and skylines, and the - height. primary building faSade shall not be lower than the designated minimum street faSade height 71 £ .° ' :.. ~ "`£1'Eyifi7lDf-~A'~51A~ t5£UQ#L~-A 3!1A RALI£I£S~E t7l#~PTER-2~~ ~~ ~ ' ;-_ .G~CE'GOAL~~OX,1£lw .:.. dcw ....__ fy,~R , ~ ._~;OMPG~+x__ ~ . _ . ' :--d551f~.§~PIfS~'f~ _ ~0 LU15.11 Building Fa4ades and Step Backs. 2.1-21 Needs The proposed project provides Buildings should generally conform to the design stepbacks only along Olympic minimum and maximum requirements for revisions Boulevard but provides flat facades on the street facade height established for their all other sides of the buildingswhich designated area. Portions of a building is inconsistent with the transit village facade higher than the street frontage, 35 character. The stepbacks provided feet for most mixed-use areas, shall step are not accomplished in a manner back from the facade of the floor below in a that minimizes the visual bulk of the mannerthat will minimize the visual bulk of overall building due to the length of the overall building similar to the established the building facades. stepback standards of the zoning ordinance ' in effect as of May 27, 2010 and as viewed from the public sidewalks and roadway and ensure maximum light, air and sense of ' openness for the general public. Guidelines - - I. or standards for the building mass above the streetwall shall be established in the zoning ordinance. LU15.12 Ground Floor Gathering Spaces. 2.1-21 Needs The project provides buildings at the Buildings should have their primary facades design back of sidewalk but without varied located at the back side of the sidewalk or revisions setbacks to create gathering spaces. on the property line. However, to encourage ~ Ground floor loggias inhibit awell-landscaped streetscape with places landscaped open areas for gathering. for people to gather, small landscaped, The proposed project provides ground people-gathering spaces are encouraged floor open space and pedestrian where they will attract people without connections and has therefore interrupting the pedestrian retail experience. reserved the space to accommodate The intent is to have an overall ground ground floor gathering spaces coverage of 80 percent on each block. referenced in this policy. The staff report details strategies to achieving - some ground floor meeting places that are the basis for creating a vibrant Transit Village. GOAL LU16: Sustainable Urban Form-Assure that buildings are sustainable, are environmentally sound and contribute to the £it}rs urban form. LU16.1 Design Buildings with Consideration 2.1-23 No With commercial floor plates ranging of Solar Patterns. In designing new from approximately 2S,OOOto 35,000 buildings, consider the pattern ofthe sun square feet, the buildings do not and the potential impact of building mass on appear to be optimized for natural habitable outdoor spaces and adjacent daylight access to interior spaces. structures in order to minimize shadows on Further the lack of building stepbacks public spaces at times of the day and year along the project's pedestrian when warmth is desired, and provide shade connections and along the major open at times when cooling is appropriate, and spaces creates a "canyon' effect and minimize solar disruption on adjacent inhibits solar access to areas that are properties. supposed to encourage pedestrian activity. GOAL LUi7: Increase Open Space -Increase the amount of open space in the City and improve the quality and character of existing open space areas ensuring access for all residents. 72 L Ot~f3'!AI'db-Y7SND ~ US~,fi[19La ~L i~TD~~L-fC1ES~C v kIAPTEti`Z 1~ , -"~ ` `__-~+~C@,~,s~flAE/P13L1S5t. _,_.... ._.~,,._ ~.~~ ._ ._,..r41,Y1Pl~ <_ .~_ _.. ~_~SSI~ESZ~IDTES . _'_= __'r`" LU17.1 New Facilities. Encourage new 2.1-23 Design The project provides ground level ground level open space including, but not Revisions open space and pedestrian limited to landscaped areas, gathering ~ Needed connections. See previous comments '' spaces and play areas in new development. regarding design and location revisions needed. LU17.2 Active Streets for Living. Utiliie 2.1-23 No The proposed streets are not streets as the largest and most universally optimized for active living. For accessible public spaces in the community by example, the eastern entrance improving them with landscaping functions solely as a vehicular (particularly shade trees) pedestrian facilities driveway, with no sidewalks or and other enhancements that promote landscaping and the north roadway active recreation and creates a system of lacks sidewalks and landscape. The green connections throughout the City. applicant has indicated that an exercise route will be incorporated as a community benefit but the ground level amenities do not yet support this concept. GOAL LU14: Design Complete Streets -Design and manage complete streets and alleys to support adjacent land uses and human activity, keeping in mind the unique character of each area of the City. LU19.2 Balanced Modes. Design and 2.1-24 No WFiilethe-proposed project includes operate streets with all users in-mind vehicle streets, these streets need to including bicyclists, transit users, drivers and be improved to become complete pedestrians of all ages and. abilities. streets with sidewalks of sufficient width, landscape to create a comfortable pedestrian environment, and accommodation for bicycles. Additional discussions are needed to identify activities and gathering spaces as part of the connections. LU19.3 Streets as Open Space. As streets 2.1-25 No Same as above. are the City's most extensive open space network, seek opportunities to expand the use of streets, alleys and other public rights- of-way for open space, passive recreational use and landscaping. 73 ATTACHMENTF PUBLIC NOTIFICATION INFORMATION Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 9.04.20.20.080 and in accordance with the posting requirements set forth by the Zoning Administrator, prior to application filing the applicant posted a sign on the property regarding the subject application. At least 8 weeks prior to the public hearing date, the applicant submitted a photograph to verify the site posting and to demonstrate that the sign provides the following information: Project case number, brief project description, name and telephone number of applicant, site address, date, time and location of public hearing, and the City Planning Division phone number. It is the applicant's responsibility to update the hearing date if it is changed after posting. In addition, pursuant to Municipal Code Section 9.04.20.22.050, notice of the public hearing was mailed to-all owners and residential and commercial tenants of property located within a 500 foot radius of the project and published in the Santa Monica Daily Press at least ten consecutive calendar days prior to the hearing. Adjacent Neighbors Community Meetings December 15, 2009 Other: 63 NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE SANTA MONICA CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Discuss a Development Agreement proposal for atransit-oriented, mixed-use concept comprised of creative arts, residential and retail uses as well as public open space. 1681 26'" Street (former Papermate factory site) APPLICANT: Hines PROPERTY OWNER: Hines A public hearing will be held by the City Council to consider the following request: Discuss the applicant's Development Agreement proposal for amixed-use project concept consisting of: • Creative arts office space; • Ground floor neighbourhood-serving commercial space; • Mixture of affordable, workforce, and market rate housing totaling up to 40% of the project'stotal Floor area; • Ground-floor public open space; • Street improvements to include: • Two north-south streets from Olympic Boulevard that provide vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle access; • Two north-south pedestrian connections from Olympic Boulevard through the site; ~• Extension of Nebraska Avenue between Stewart and Stanford, primarily for service access that runs along the site's northern property line; and • A subterranean parking garage. DATEITIME: Tuesday, March 22, 2011, AT 6:45 PM LOCATION: City Council Chambers, Second Floor Santa Monica City Hall 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, California HOW TO COMMENL The City of Santa Monica encourages public comment. You may comment at the City Council public hearing, or by writing a letter. Written information will be given to the City Council at the meeting. Address your letters to: City Clerk Re: 1681 26'" Street (former Papermate site) Development Agreement Float-up 1685 Main Street, Room 102 Santa Monica, CA 90401 MORE INFORMATION If you want more information about this project or wish to review the project f le, please contact Jing Yeo at (310) 456- 8341, or by a-mail at iina.yeo(~smgov.net. The Zoning Ordinance is available at the Planning Counter during business hours and on the City's web site at www.smoov.net. The meeting facility is wheelchair accessible. For disability-related accommodations, please contact (310) 458-8341 or (310) 458-8696 TTY at least 72 hours in advance. All written materials are available in alternate format upon request. Santa Monica Big Blue Bus Lines numbered 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10 serve City Hall. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65009(b), if this matter is subsequently challenged in Court, the challenge may be limited to only those issues raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Santa Monica at, or prior to, the public hearing. ESPANOL Esto es una noticia de una audiencia publics pars revisar applicaci6nes proponientlo desarrollo en Santa Monica. Si deseas mss information, favor de Ilamar a Carmen Gutierrezen la Division de Planificaci6n al numero (310) 458- 8341. 64 ATTACHMENT G APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL Concept Plans Proposed TDM plan Proposed Community Benefits Applicant-Prepared Parking and Traffic Report This attachment is also available for review at the City Clerk's office and the Libraries. 65 ATTACHMENT G 168126T" STREET (FORMER PAPERMATE SITE) CITY COUNCIL FLOAT-UP APPLICANT-PROPOSED TDM PLAN TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM The preliminary program elements (which are provided for convenience only) related to the TDM plan for the Bergamot Transit Village Center are as follows. A. Measures Applicable to Entire Proiect (Commercial and Residential Elements) 1. Transportation Information Center. The Developer (or Developer's successors and assigns) shall provide on-site information for employees, visitors and residents about local public transit services (including bus lines, light rail lines [future], bus fare programs, ride share programs, shuttles) and bicycle facilities (including routes, rental and sales locations, on-site bicycle racks and showers for the commercial tenants of the Project only). The Developer (or Developer's successors and assigns) shall also provide walking and biking maps for employees, visitors and residents, which. shall include but not be limited to information about convenient local services and restaurants within walking distance of the Project. The Developer (or Developer's successors and assigns) shall provide information to tenants and employees of the Project site. regarding local rental housing agencies. Such transportation information may be provided through a computer terminal with access to the Internet or, via a website. n> t _: 2. TDM Web Site Information. The Developer (or Developer's successors and assigns) and tenants shall be required to make available transportation information such as the items noted in No. A.1 above, including links to local transit providers, area walking, bicycling maps, etc., to inform employees, visitors and residents of available alternative transportation modes to access the Project site and travel in the area: 3. Employee Transportation Coordinator. An Employee Transportation Coordinator (ETC) shall be designated for this Project by the Developer (or Developer's successors and assigns) as required by the City of Santa Monica's Transportation Management Division in accordance with Ordinariee 1604 (SMMC Section 9.16). The ETC shall manage all aspects of this TDM program and participate in City-sponsored workshops and information roundtables. As the Project is expected to be occupied by multiple users, the Developer shall establish asite-specific TMA (as defined in SMMC 9.16.030), or participate in the Bergamot Station area TMA, to encourage the implementation of TDM strategies for the occupants of the Project, including the residential component of the Project.. The ETC shal} be responsible for making available information materials on options for alternative transportation modes and opportunities. In addition, transit fare media and day/month passes will be made available through the ETC to employees, visitors and residents during typical business hours. 4. Parking Reconfiguration After Occupancy. Reconfiguration of the parking spaces and operations in order to facilitate partial unbundling of parking and/or flexibility of use shall be considered a Minor Modification. S. Public Transit Stop Enhancements. The Developer shall improve the immediately adjacent existing bus stop with a shelter and transit information. These improvements would be intended to make riding the bus a safer and more attractive alternative. b. Pedestrian Wayfindtng. The Developer (or Developer's successors and assigns) shall provide and maintain a pedestrian wayfinding program directing employees, visitors, and residents to/from the project site and public bus transit and {future) rail transit lines, as well as the future light rail station to be located directly across from the Project site. 7. Preferred Drop-off/Pick-up Loading lone. The Developer (or Developer's successors and assigns) shall designate a preferred drop-off/pick-up loading zone that wilt provide direct access to the Project site so as to discourage on-street double parking. Parking time limits in this designated zone shall be enforced by the Developer (or Developer's successors and assigns) to facilitate adequate availability of the loading area.. B. Measures Applicable to Project Commercial Component Only 1. Transportation Demand Management Association. The Developer and building tenants shall be required to participate in a Transportation Demand Management Association (TMA). The TMA shall consist of either a project specific TMA or a geographic-based TMA that may be established by the City. As part of the LUCB Update process, the City has identified that a TMA should be established for the Bergamot Station area. TMAs would provide employees, businesses, visitors and residents of an area with resources to `; ; increase the amount of trips taken by transit, walking, bicycling, and ridesharing. ]f the ` '-' City adopts a requirement that a TMA be formed for this geographic area, the property owner shall attend organizational meetings, provide traffic demand data to the TMA, and make available information to its tenants relative to the services provided by the TMA. 2. Van Pool Program. The Developer (or Developer's successors and assigns) shall require in all leases (with tenants, as defined in SCAQMD Rule 2202) it executes as landlord for space within the Project that such tenants shall provide eligible employees with a vanpool program designed to encourage the use of existing vanpools or the development of new vanpools. The program shall use vehicles owned/leased, insured, and fueled/maintained by employer. Subsidized van transportation (minimum subsidy of 50% of cost) shall be provided by the employer (which may be through the TMA or Transportation Management District) whenever at least six employees of that employer at the Project opt into the program who are geographically serviceable together. 3. Carpool Program. The Developer (or Developer's successors and assigns) shall provide preferential parking within the parking garage for Project employees who commute to work in employer registered carpools. An employee who drives to work with at least one other employee in the Project or adjacent facilities may register as a carpool entitled to preferential parking within the meaning of this provision. 4. Employer Cash-Out Program. The Developer (or Developer's successors and assigns) shall require in all leases that each employer offer in-lieu of any parking subsidy to the extent provided on a general basis by such employer to its employees a transit subsidy equal to 50% of the monthly cost of the MTA TAP Pass or cash allowance equal to the value of such transit subsidy (for use of alternative modes such as walking and bicycling). 5. Parking Availability for Non-Building Users. Consistent with providing sufficient on-site - parking for building users, the Developer (or Developer's successors and assigns) will 1,:.~ make any unused on-site commercial parking available for monthly lease at mazket rates to third parties in the surrounding area in need of parking. 6. Parking Pricing. Hourly parking pricing shall be market-based and adjusted periodically in an effort to ensure parking availability for commercial tenants and their employees and visitors during peak pazking hours, 7. Public Transit Subsidy (one-time). The Developer (or Developer's successors and assigns) shall require in all leases it executes as landlord for space within the Project that tenants must provide all newly-hired employees that will work within the Project a free public transit pass valid everyday for at least the first month of their employment. Pirblic Transit Subsidy In-Lieu of Parking (on-going). The Developer (or Developer's successors and assigns) shall require in all leases it executes as landlord for space within the Project that tenants must offer all of its employees who work within the Project a subsidy program whereby the fares for employees using public transit (e. g., Santa Monica Big Blue Bus, or Metro Bus Service or future Me[ro Light Rail Service} shall be subsidized by at least 50 percent. ~~ 9. Convenient Parking for Bicycle Commuters. The Developer shall provide location(s) within the "" garage or other convenient location relative to the commercial component of the Project for secure parking for bicycle conmuters for employees working at the site and visitors to the site for a minimum of 65 bicycles, which is equivalent to approximately five percent (5%) of the total vehicle parking spaces proposed to be provided for the commercial component of the Project. The secure bicycle parking will be located within the Project site and(or in the public right-of- way adjacent to the commercial uses such that Tong-term and short-term porkers can be accommodated. For purposes of this requirement, bicycle parking may mean bicycle racks, a locked cage, or other secure parking area. 10. On-Site Showers and Lockers. Shower and clothing locker facilities shall be provided for on-site employees who bicycle or use another active means, powered by human propulsion, of getting to work or who exercise during the day. 11. Compressed Work Week Schedule. The Developer shall require in all teases it executes as landlord for space within the Project that, when commercially feasible, a Compressed Work Week schedule shall be offered to employees whereby their hours of employment may be scheduled in a manner which reduces trips to/from the worksite during peak hours for the surrounding streets. 12. Flex-Time Schedule. The Developer shall require in all leases it executes as landlord for space withih the Project that, .when commercially feasible, employers shall permit employees within the Project to adjust their work hours in order to accommodate public transit schedules, rideshare arrangements, or off-peak hour commuting. 13. Guaranteed Return Trip. The Developer (or Developer's successors and assigns) shall require in all leases it executes as landlord for space within the Project that tenants ,'' provide employees who vanpool or carpool, with a return trip to their point of commute origin at no additional cost to the employee, when a Personal Emergency Situation requires it. C. Measures Applicable to Project Residential Component Only 1. Transit Welcome Package for Residents. The Developer (or Developer's successors and assigns) shall provide all new residents of the residential component of the Project site with a Resident Transit Welcome Package (RTWP) on a per-unit basis. The RTWP at a minimum will include a voucher good for either a Big Blue Bus EZ Transit Pass, or a Metro TAP card valid for at (east the first month of their residency, as well as area bus/rail transit route information.. 2, Partial Unbundling and Lease of Parking Spaces for the Residential Land Use. The Developer {or Developer's successors and assigns) may, but shall not be obligated to, offer options for buyers andlor renters of the residential dwelling units to separately purchase or lease additional parking spaces (beyond the first space per unit) at market rates established from time to time by the Developer. 3. Jobs/Housing Badance/Workforce. In furtherance of the City's objective to improve the jobs/housing balance and to reduce total trip generation in the immediate area, the Developer shall implement a workforce housing program wherein preferential sales ~' r and/or leasing of residential units shall be made available to employees within a reasonable wallcing distance of the Project, with further preferences given to first responders, such as firemen, policemen, EMT's, nurses and other hospital workers, as well as teachers and other community serving employees. 4. Convenient Parking for Bicycle Riders. The Developer shall provide location(s) within the garage or other convenient location relative to the residential component of the Project for secure parking for bicycle commuters for residents fora minimum of 26 bicycles, which is equivalent to approximately five percent (5%) of the total vehicle parking spaces proposed to be provided for the residential component of the Project. The secure bicycle parking will be located within the Project site and/or in the public right-of- way adjacent to the residential uses such that long-term and short-term porkers can be accommodated. Far purposes of this requirement, bicycle parking may mean bicycle racks, a locked cage, or other secure parking area. TDMP[an Monitoring and Modifications 1. Peak Period Trip Reduction Target Monitoring. The City shall contract with a third party independent consultant to monitor compliance with the peak period trip reduction targets every two years, beginning in the first full calendar year following the second anniversary of the Certificate of Occupancy, and. to prepare a report on compliance for the City's Transportation Management Division. In the event that the targets are not reached in a two year period, the Planning Director, after consultation with the Developer (or Developer's successors and assigns), may make Minor Modifications to the `fDM conditions to more effectively achieve, through reasonable and feasible measures that will not substantially increase the cost of miflgation, the performance target herein. To - cover the costs of preparing the bi-annual monitoring reports, Developer shall pay the City cone-time lump sum of $10,000.00 prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for the Project. 2. Changes to TDM Program. Subject to approval by the City's Planning Director, the Developer can modify this TDM program provided the TDM program, as modified, can be demonstrated as equal or superior in its effectiveness at mitigating the traffic- generating effects of this Project. t''" ;:;,; ,•:,i's, ATTACHMENT G 168126T" STREET (FORMER PAPERMATE SITE) CITY COUNCIL FLOAT-UP APPLICANT-PROPOSED COMMUNITY BENEFITS (' PUBLIC BENEFITS (a) Sustainable Transportation Measures. Developer shall adopt and implement a transportation demand management program ("TDM") with a minimum fifty percent (50°10) reduction in the PM Peak period traffic counts and a target of a sixty seven (67°l0) reduction in the PM Peak period traffic counts as measured versus the PM peak period traffic generated for a general office, residential andlor retail building (as appropriate) of the same size as the Project as fully leased (or occupied in the event of a condominium) based on a standard ITE formula. Developer shall have the right to implement any traffic mitigation measures it deems appropriate so long as the resulting reductions in traffic counts fall within the range of reductions outlined above. Developer shall have the right to implement traffic mitigation measures which are specific to each building (as defined in Section 2.2{b) of this Agreement} and shall be deemed in compliance as long as the total traffic generated by the Project performs within the range of reductions outlined above. If Developer's TDM program fails to perform within the range outlined above, then the City and developer will work in good faith to modify the program until such time as it faAs within the range outlined above. The TDM program will be subject to review every two years. The preliminary program (which is included purely for convenience and which components remain subject to Developer's sole and absolute discretion) is attached hereto as Exhibit "J". (b) Affordable Dwelling Units. The construction of on-site affordable housing units (vs. an in-lieu fee) in accordance with the City's Affordable Housing Production Program. (c) LEED-Certified Buildings. The creation of a sustainable new development {each of the new buildings will be LEED certified). (d} Infrastructure Improvements. i. The creation of a 15 foot sidewalk around the entire perimeter of the site on a site that has had little or no sidewalk on the majority of the Project Land since 1957. ii. The creation of a marked walking trail (including posted measurements) in, through and around the site. - iii. The contribution of [$x] toward the creation of a mid-block signalized crossing between 26th Street and Stewart on Olympic allowing for the safe crossing for vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians to and from the light rail station across Olympic. iv. Increased permeability through the site via four (4) new vertical cut thrus {including 1 vehicular cut thru} that will allow for safe and accessible circulation for pedestrians and bicycles around and through the site on a site that has been essentially closed to the public since 1957. v: The concealment of the existing electrical substation. vi. The concealment of the existing phone and power lines. vii. The improvement of the bus stop as outlined in the TDM-plan. {e) Publicly Accessible Open Space. The creation of large plazas and open space to be implemented for public use. (f) Public Art. The payment of the arts fee equal to [$x]. ['~>; (g) Workforce Housincr. The creation of Workforce Housing units that will target first responders, including police officers, firefighters, nurses, EMT's as well as teachers and social workers and those working within close proximity of the Project Land. ATTACHMENT G 1681 26T" STREET (FORMER PAPERMATE SITE) CITY COUNCIL FLOAT-UP APPLICANT-PREPARED PARKING AND TRAFFIC REPORT MEMORANDUM ro: Christopher M. Harding - Date: July 21, 2010 Harding Larmore Kutcher & Kozal From: David S. Shender, P.E. ucRee 1-093806-1 Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers Traffic and Parking Evaluation for the Proposed Bergamot Transit subject: Village Center Project in the City of Santa Monica This memorandum has been prepared by Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers (LLG) to provide a comprehensive evaluation of the traffic and parking considerations related to the proposed Bergamot Transit Village Center project (the Project) located in the City of Santa Monica. Specifically, this report provides a forecast of the potential vehicular trip generation and parking demand of the Project, in consideration of: • implementation of the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan described in our related May 17, 2010 document, • the Project's proximity to the future Expo light rail line station, • the Project's mixed-use nature, and • empirical traffic and parking demand data collected at existing commercial and residential projects located in urban settings in close proximity to public transit services. Details of the traffic and parking evaluation prepared for the Project are. provided in the following sections. Proposed Project The proposed Bergamot Transit Village Center consists of the development of a mixed-use project with creative office, retail/restaurant and residential land use components. The Project will be designed to enhance its proximity to the Expo Line light rail station which is proposed to be constructed directly across Olympic Boulevard at 26th Street. Further, the Project site is well situated within the Bergamot Transit Village District thereby providing a multitude of opportunities to affect travel modes. For example, the Project address scores a 92 out of 100 on the Walk Score websitel, which is identified as "walkers' paradise". While the site is conveniently located and strategically designed to minimize travel by the private automobile, the Project will include an actively managed TDM program to promote travel by public transportation, walking and bicycling. ~ Refer to httn'//www walkscore com/ which generates a walkabiliTy score based on the project site location and by locating nearby amenities such as stores, restaurants, schools, parks, etc. Walk Score measures how easy it is to live acar-lite lifestyle-not how pretty the area is for walking. ' Engineers &PCaonars. Traffic Transpnrtarian parking t1I14CU~, L$Y4& 6reenspanr~~tgi6eers 236 N. CfiestcrAvenue $ude 206 ~.(~asadena, CA@t1p8. 626.796.2322 r s2s:792g9a1 r www.pgengirieers.com Pasadena C.asta Mesa San Diego Gas Vegas O l~0a FILF380G12edssd"Cm[£c and Parlnn~Raport (trait O]21.1 J).dac Christopher M. Harding July 21, 2010 Page 2 The Project development program includes the following: a creative office component providing approximately 566,673 square feet of building area floor area; a retail/restaurant component providing roughly 83,712 gross leasable square feet; and a residential component providing approximately 344 units? Associated parking of approximately 2,000 spaces for the Project will be provided on-site. The proposed Project will replace the existing manufacturing use on the site at 1681 26`h Street. -The current building provides approximately 206,000 square feet of building floor area and was historically used for the manufacturing of products for Paper Mate. Transportation Demand Management Plan A TDM plan has been prepared and is recommended for the Bergamot Village Transit Center project so as to reduce vehicular traffic and parking generated by the .proposed development. As part of the TDM plan, Project-related vehicle trip reductiori performance targets for the morning and afternoon peak commute travel periods. See the May 17, 2010 TDM plan document for additional information. Trip Generation A vehicular trip generation forecast has been prepared for the proposed Bergamot Transit Village Center project. In preparing vehicular trip generation forecasts for development projects, it is common for traffic engineers to consult trip rates published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) in their Trip Generation manual. The ITE manual contains trip rates for a variety of land uses (including office buildings, shopping centers, apartments/condominiums, etc.), which have been derived based on traffic counts conducted at existing sites However, the traffic count data submitted to ITE is for free-standing sites generally located in suburban locations, which likely do not reflect the trip generation characteristics for projects located in highly urban areas and/or located near public transit facilities such as a light rail station. Thus, the trip rates provided in the ITE Trip Generation manual (derived from traffic counts at suburban projects) would substantially overstate the trip generation potential of projects located in Santa Monica, including the proposed Bergamot Transit Village Center project which is proposed to be developed directly across Olympic Boulevard from the Expo Line rail station. 2 It has not been determined whether the residential component of the Project will be for sale units (condominiums) or rental units (apartments). For purposes of this assessment, condominiums and apartments are assumed to be generally equivalent in terms of trip generation and parking demand. O~JOB F[LP.Ai ROGate~seal l}a~~anl p~klnq NCport (OraR9', ll: W)doc Christopher M. Harding July 21, 2010 Page 3 As stated on page 1 of the ITE Trip Generation, 8`" Edition, User's Guide: "Data were primarily collected at suburban locations having little or no transit service, nearby pedestrian amenities, or travel demand management (TDM) programs. At specific sites, the user may wish to modify trip generation rates presented in this document to reflect the presence of public transportation service, ridesharing, or other TDM measures; enhanced pedestrian and bicycle trip-making opportunities; or other special characteristics of the site or surrounding area. When. practical, the user is encouraged to supplement the data in this document with local data that have been collected at similar sites." The area adjacent to the Project site provides public transportation service, as well as enhanced pedestrian and bicycle trip-making opportunities. Accordingly, as encouraged by ITE, additional. trip generation data was reviewed at existing development sites in urban areas located in close proximity to public transit facilities, similar to the proposed Project. Trip Generation Studies of Transit Oriented Developments/Urban Infill Developments Two recent research efforts have been conducted for purposes of evaluating the trip generation characteristics at development sites located in urban areas in close proximity' to transit stations/hubs: • TCRP [Transit Cooperative Research Program] Report 128 -Effects of TOD on Housing, Parking, and Travel published by the Transportation Research Board in 2008 (the "TRB report"), and Trip-Generation Rates for .Urban Infill Land Uses in California prepared for Caltrans by the Association of Bay Area Governments in April 2008 (the "Caltrans report"). The TRB report evaluated trip generation at 17 transit oriented developments (TODs) in four urbanized areas of the country: Philadelphia/Northeast New Jersey; Portland Oregon; metropolitan Washington, D.C.; and the San Francisco East Bay area. The 17 TOD sites studied are residential developments. Driveway traffic counts conducted at the TOD sites were compared to the forecast trip generation that would be calculated using applicable and unadjusted trip rates from the ITE Trip Generation manual. Based on the traffic count data collected at the TODs, the TRB report concludes the following: Daily (24-hour): 44% fewer vehicle trips at TODs as compared to ITE trip rates AM peak hour: 49% fewer vehicle trips at TODs as compared to ITE trip rates PM peak hour: 48% fewer vehicle trips at TODs as compared to ITE trip rates OII°° FILEHRU6Reidred Tm~~md Parking N~Mrt (dmROZ2LIO~doc Christopher M. Harding July 21, 2010 Page 4 The Caltrans report evaluated trip generation at eight urban infill sites located in close proximity to transit stations and/or transit hubs in the Berkeley and San Diego areas (thus considered as TOD sites for purposes of this analysis). The eight TOD sites studied are residential developments. Driveway traffic counts conducted at the TOD sites were compared to the forecast trip generation that would be calculated using applicable and unadjusted trip rates from the ITE Trip Generation manual3. Based on the traffic count data collected at the TODs, the Caltrans report concludes the following: • AM peak hour: 61% fewer vehicle trips at TODs as compared to ITE trip rates • PM peak hour: 60% fewer vehicle trips at TODs as compared to ITE trip rates It is demonstrated in the TRB and Caltrans reports that vehicular trip generation is substantially reduced at TOD sites as compared to what would otherwise be forecast through use of the ITE trip rates (derived from studies of generally suburban and stand- alone development projects). Further, it is reasonable to conclude that travel related at the sites studied in the TRB and Caltrans reports comprised a mixture of trips by walking, bicycles and public transit, with reduced emphasis on travel by the automobile. Also, as the sites studied by TRB and Caltrans were residential projects, it is reasonable to assume that the sites studied in the TRB and Caltrans reports were "passively managed" from a traffic management standpoint. That is; travelers used travel modes other than the automobile based on convenience and/or cost savings. By comparison, at an "actively managed" site, additional travel by alternative modes can be realized through implementation of measures such. as those described above in the TDM Plan (e.g., parking pricing strategies, transit pass subsidies, rideshare incentives, etc.). As a way of demonstrating the effects of an actively managed site from a TDM Plan standpoint, a review was conducted of a recently completed commercial project located in the City of Los Angeles. Specifically, the MGM Tower located at 10250 Constellation Boulevard in the Century City area of Los Angeles was approved by the City of Los Angeles in 1998 with construction and occupancy completed by approximately 2003. The MGM Tower is an office building providing approximately 700,000 square feet of building floor area and is primarily occupied by office tenants related to the entertainment industry. The City of Los Angeles required the MGM Tower project to develop and implement a comprehensive TDM plan with a trip reduction target resulting in a reduction of the project's weekday PM peak hour trip generation (as forecast using applicable trip rates by from the ITE Trip Generation manual) by 10%. Annual monitoring reports have been filed since occupancy of the MGM Tower to demonstrate the effectiveness of the TDM plan. As shown in the attached June 4, 2009 letter issued by the City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT), the counted traffic at the MGM. Tower has been 52% to 67% less than the forecast PM peak hour trip s Assuming application of ITE Land U'se Code 230 (Residential Condominium/Townhouses) e1J°° FILEAi Rll6itiehsed T~effcand Parkin3H~a(drzfi OZ LO).doc Christopher M. Harding July 21,2010 Page 5 generation based on the annual reports filed with the City of Los Angeles beginning in 2004. It is reasonable to conclude that the counted traffic at MGM Tower is substantially less than the trip generation calculated using the unadjusted ITE trip rates based on the following characteristics: • The effectiveness of the MGM Tower TDM plan, • The characteristics of creative office tenants that provide employees flexibility in scheduling their arrivals and departures outside of peak traffic periods, • The MGM Tower's proximity to other uses in Century City (e.g., the Westfield Century City shopping center, the Century Plaza hotel, nearby residential complexes, etc.) which allows office employees to walk to nearby attractions, and • The availability of public transit services (provided by Metro, Big Blue Bus, LADOT, etc.) located immediately adjacent to the site. For the Bergamot Transit Village Center project, it is reasonable to conclude that its design and location in Santa Monica directly across Olympic Boulevard from the future Expo Line light rail station would result in at least a 50% reduction in vehicle trips as compared to the trip forecasts that would otherwise be calculated using the applicable and unadjusted ITE trip rates in a "passively managed" traffic management condition. An "actively managed" site would yield additional trip reductions. Further, as most of the potential trip generation is related to the Project's proposed creative office component; these trips (primarily made by office tenants) are highly susceptible to traffic management through travel demand measures that can be incorporated into tenant leases, employment contracts, and other binding documents. Thus, for this analysis, a minimum 50% trip reduction in AM and PM peak hour vehicle trips is assumed, with a 65% trip reduction in peak hour vehicles trip established as a target based on the Project design features, proximity to transit, and implementation of the TDM plan provided herein. The specific vehicular trip generation targets are calculated in the following section. Project Trip Generation Forecast Table A attached provides the trip generation forecast for the Bergamot Transit Village project. Table A contains the following elements: • A gross unadjusted trip forecast using applicable trip rates from the ITE Trip Generation manual. • The calculation of the reduction in trips (i.e., 50%/65% of the gross unadjusted trip calculation) based on the Project's: O-VUB blLEJ8~61Re~iseJ Tran`¢rv;A PUkIn~Repart (Jmk O],Z1J 0)doc Christopher M. Harding July 21, 2010 Page 6 o mixed-use characteristic, o adjacency to a future light rail station and other public transit, o walkability, and o actively managed TDM plan. • An estimate of the Project's environmental effects in terms of net new vehicle trips added to the local street system based on: o an estimate of pass-by trips associated with the retail component of the project° and o a calculation of the vehicle trips previously generated by the former Paper Mate use. As shown in Table A, the trip generation calculation using the unadjusted ITE trip rates results in a gross estimate of 1,113 trips (850 inbound, 263 outbound) during the AM peak hour. Similarly during the PM peak hour, a total of 1,335 trips are calculated (416 inbound, 919 outbound). Application of the 50% trip reduction target based on the TOD characteristic and actively managed TDM plan results in a net forecast of 556 AM peak hour trips and 667 PM peak hour trips. Thus, for purposes of monitoring the effectiveness of the Project TDM plan as described herein, the number of trips shall not exceed 556 AM peak hour trips and 667 PM peak hour trips as measured at the Project site driveways. Application of the 65% trip reduction goal results in net calculation of 389 AM peak hour trips and 468 PM peak hour trips. Thus, the Project TDM plan will provide a goal to attain a site driveway count that will not exceed 389 AM peak hour trips and 468 PM peak hour trips. For purposes of evaluating the potential environmental (e.g., traffic) effects of the Project, it is important to consider that a portion of the Project-related trips are related to motorists already driving by the site. These '`pass-by" trips are primarily related to future patrons of the retail and restaurant uses in the site who visit the Project based on its convenient location (e.g., a motorist commuting home from work stops at the Project for dinner at one of the restaurants located within the site). As these pass-by vehicles are already using the local roadway system, it is appropriate to quantify these ° As defined in the ITE Trip Generation manual, pass-by trips are vehicle trips counted at the project driveways that are generated by motorists already driving by the site in [he pre-project condition. Pass-by trips are typically related to land uses (e.g., shops, restaurants) that rely to some extent on convenience/impulse-oriented patronage by motorists who would otherwise normally drive by the site inthe peak hour in any circumstance. Thus,~pass-by trips are not considered to be new vehicle trips added to the local street system as a direct result of the project. PVOB FILE1380G'.Re~ud TeetTia end Psking Roputt (tlrat[0921.10)doc Christopher M. Harding July 21, 2010 Page 7 trips so as not to directly attribute them to the Project. Table A provides the estimate of the pass-by trips associated with the retail/restaurant component of the Project. Additionally, the Project site was historically used as a manufacturing facility (i.e., the Paper Mate site) consisting of a mix of office and manufacturing space. The existing building (approximately 206,000 square feet) is still in use and could readily be refurbished to peak usage levels. As these trips have historically utilized the local street system (and could be reactivated with only minimal permitting required), it is appropriate to estimate the potential trip generation associated with the existing building. Appropriate trip rates from the ITE Trip Generation manual were applied to the existing floor area as shown in Table A. Taken together, the consideration of pass-by trips and the historical trips associated with the existing building result in a net trip generation forecast for the Project of 144 AM peak hour trips and 193 PM peak hour trips (assuming attainment of the 65% trip reduction goal). These potential net new trips should appropriately be considered in conjunction with the City's environmental review of the proposed Bergamot Transit Village Center project. Parking Demand Forecast The City of Santa Monica Municipal Code (e.g., Section 9.04.10.08.040) provides the off-street parking requirements for development projects. Potential parking rates from the Municipal Code that would be applicable to the proposed Bergamot Transit Village Center project include the following rates from the Municipal Code: • Residential: 2 spaces per unit + 1 space/5 units for. guest parking • Office buildings: I space per 300 s.f. of building floor area • Retails: I space per 300 s.f, of building floor area Based on the current development program for the Project, the parking requirements per the Municipal Code would be as follows: • Residential: 344 units x 2 spaces/unit = 688 spaces (residents) 344 units x 1 space/5 units = 69 spaces (guests) • Office: 566,673 s.f. x 1 space/300 s.f. = 1,889 spaces • Retail: 83,712 s.f. x 1 space/300 s.f. = 279 spaces • Total Project: 688 + 69 + 1,889 + 279 = 2,925 spaces s Restaurant parking requirements include 1 space/300 s.f. of support azea, 1 space/75 s.f. of customer service and seating area, and 1 space/50 s.f. of separate bar area. As the amount of floor area devoted to restaurant space in the Project is not known at this time, this preliminary parking review is based on retail parking requirements only. 2V09 F[GE38UfC2e~sxRBefAc wA PUking Rnpan (dwfi U1,9J~)doc Christopher M. Harding July 21, 2010 Page 8 Taken together, the components of the Project would yield the requirement for approximately 2,925 off-street parking spaces based on the rates provided in the Municipal Code. This calculation is prepared, however, prior to consideration of factors that would substantially reduce the actual parking demand as compared to the Municipal Code rates due to: The transit-oriented nature of the Project which will promote trip-making through modes in lieu of the private automobile, The implementation of the TDM plan as previously described herein, and The nationally-accepted shared parking principle as documented for mixed- use developments such as the proposed Project. Accordingly, a parking demand forecast was prepared for the Project to determine the actual parking demand that can be reasonably anticipated at the site based on application of the factors listed above. By "right-sizing" the on-site parking supply, the Project will limit the amount of on-site parking so as to discourage unnecessary travel by the private automobile, while providing a sufficient supply of on-site parking so as to limit the potential for adverse environmental effects that may be associated with Project-related vehicles seeking parking options at off-site locations. Peak Parking Demand Ratios The first step in the parking demand forecast is to identify the peak parking demand ratios associated with each component of the Project. Residential. As noted above, the Municipal Code requires two parking spaces per unit, plus an additional parking space for every five residential units related to guest parking. Based on the proposed 344 units, this results in the potential requirement for 757 parking spaces (residents and guests) as calculated by the Municipal Code ratios. The previously referenced TRB report states that parking supply for residential uses can be reduced by 50% at TOD sites. The TRB report states that this is appropriate as residents at TOD sites typically own fewer private vehicles due to smaller households, as well as the availability of alternative transportation (e.g., public transit, walking, etc.). For the proposed Project, the following is recommended with respect to the residential component parking supply: o Boa r~rz,eastievcaasea r.aa~. u,d PUAtng ReFarc (a.neo-r?i_wi.doo Christopher M. Harding July 21, 2010 Page 9 - One and one-half (1.5) reserved parking spaces per unit (in lieu of the Municipal Code requirement of two spaces per unit) to be provided in a secured area (i.e., not available for "shared" use by motorists associated with the commercial components of the Project). As recommended in the TDM plan, these parking spaces could be "unbundled" such that if a residential owner/renter chooses not to purchase/lease a parking space, it would be available for purchase/lease by others. While a resident who uses its assigned resident parking space(s) may not drive their vehicle on a daily basis, it allows for a car to be stored on-site for infrequent travel needs that may not be readily accomplished through walking, bicycling, public transit, etc. - One unreserved parking space for every five units to be provided within the overall parking supply such that it can be used by motorists associated with. the commercial components of the Project. This parking space satisfies the Municipal Code parking requirement of one parking space. for every five units associated with guest parking. Taken together, the recommended parking supply for the residential component of the project is 1.5 reserved parking spaces per unit plus an additional 0.2 parking spaces per unit that is unreserved (i.e., available Tor shared use by motorists associated with the commercial component of the Project). • Creative Office. As noted above, the Municipal Code requires one parking space for every 300 square feet of office floor area. A target AVR of 1.5 employees per each vehicle arriving between 7:00 and 10:00 AM is proposed for the Project. Assuming a density condition of 3.0 employees per 1,000 square feet in the creative office component, the 1.5 AVR would roughly correspond to the need for two (2.0) parking spaces foY every 1,000 square feet of floor area (equal to 1 space/500 square feet). Thus, the recommended parking supply for the creative office component of the Project is one (1) space for each 500 square feet of office floor area. • Retail. As noted above, the Municipal Code requires one parking space for every 300 square feet of retail floor area. The target AVR of 1.5 employees per each vehicle arriving between 7:00 and 10:00 AM would also apply to employees in the retail component. Further, it is expected that the retail component will primarily serve office tenants and residents on-site, as well as users of the future light rail station. Thus, trips to the retail component of the Project are expected to be made mostly by walking. Accordingly, the recommended parking supply for the retail component of the Project is one (1) space for each 500 square feet of retail floor area. OaON FILEG 80E8edsod"CmfTic and Parkin~RCputt (~ra12092L1 Ojdoc Christopher M. Harding July 21, 2010 Page 10 Shared Parking Analysis The recommended peak parking demand ratios related to the components of the Project were applied to the shared parking principles so as to account for time of day variations in parking demand between the various uses. The second edition of the Shared Parking manual published by the Urban Land Institute was consulted for purposes of determining time of day parking demand that could be expected to be generated by the commercial and residential uses. In general, the commercial uses (office and retail) will likely experience its peak parking demand during the daytime hours while the residential uses will experience its peak parking demand during the evening hours. Thus, under the shared parking principle, a parking space that is used in the daytime by an office worker could be used again in the evening by a resident or guest of the residential component. Accordingly, application of the shared parking principle minimizes the need to unnecessarily duplicate parking supply at mixed-use projects if a single space can satisfy the parking needs of multiple components. As previously discussed, the resident parking of approximately 516 spaces (i.e., based on 1.5 parking spaces per unit) would be provided in a secured area, but the parking allocated. to guests of the residential component (0.2 parking spaces per unit) would be provided within the overall commercial parking area and thus would be available for sharing. Table B has been prepared to summarize the shared parking analysis.. As shown in Table B, the peak demand for parking at the site is forecast to occur at 2:00 PM on a typical weekday. At this peak hour, a demand for approximately 1,823 parking spaces is forecast (both shared and reserved). Accordingly, the proposed parking supply of approximately 2,000 parking spaces (approximately 516 reserved spaces for residents and 1,484 parking spaces in the shared parking pool for the commercial component and guests of the residential use) would adequately accommodate the peak demand for parking atthe Project. Project Development Alternatives As previously discussed, the Project development program includes the following: a creative office. component providing approximately 566,673 square feet of building area floor area; aretail/restaurant component providing roughly 83,712 gross leasable square feet; and a residential component providing approximately 344 units. Associated parking of approximately 2,000 spaces for the Project will be provided on-site. This development program is considered to be the "Base Plan." OCUOR FD.E13ft~6ARewse~lratfic and Paklns Raport (drnk0]11.Wldoc Christopher M. Harding July 21, 2010 Page 11 In addition to the Base Plan, there is an Alternate Plan development program that is under consideration for the site. The Alternative Plan development scenario is summarized below: • Alternate Plan 0 420,919 square feet of creative office floor area 0 83,766 square feet of retail/restaurant floor area 0 482 residential units Trip generation and shared parking evaluations have been prepared for the Alternate Plan scenario. Specifically, see Tables A-I and B-1 for the Alternate Plan trip generation and shared parking forecasts, respectively. The table below provides a summary and comparison of the Base Plan and Alternate Plan project scenarios, including their respective trip generation and shared parking forecasts. Base Plan and Alternate Plan Comparisons Feature Base Plan Alternate Plan Creative Office 566,673 s.f. 420,919 s.f. Retail/Restaurant 83,712 s.f. 83,766 s.f. Residential Units 344 units 482 units AM/PM tripsb 144/193 trips 86/142 trips Peak Parking Demand 1,823 spaces 1,745 spaces a Forecast ANUPM peak hour net new trips on street system assuming 65% trip reduction. See Tables A and A-1 for trip generation forecasts of Base Plan and Alternate Plan, respectively. ~ Forecast peak hour shared parking demand. See Tables B and B-1 for shared parking demand forecasts for Base Plan and Alternate Plan, respectively. O VOe PILEti895ffiawmd TmfAC and Paklne Raport (d~afr OJ 21J0}doo Chr-istopher M. Harding July 21, 2010 Page 12 Please contact us w evaluation prepared Santa Monica. cc: File attachments th any questions or comments regarding this traffic and parking for the Bergamot Transit Village Center project in the City of OS~On. PILEB806:Revisod Saffic wd ParIdnSIL+Pon (dmtt09,21.1 u) doc CITY OF LOS ANGELES INTER-DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE 10250 Constellation Blvd. DOT Case No. WLA95-008 Date: June 4, 2009 To: David Weintraub, City Planner Department of City Planning From: ~erTransportation Engineer Department of Tra. sportation Subject: DOT LETTER OF RECORD CONFIRMING FULFILLMENT OF CONDITION 3{b){iii) OF THE 10250 CONSTELLATION BLVD (MGM TOWER) PROJECT PERMIT (CF 98-0672, CPC 97-0284 PP and 98-0054 SPE) In accordance with the West Los Angeles Transportation Improvement and Mitigation Program (Ordinance No. 171,492) and pursuant to the Conditions of Approval for the project (the MGM Tower) located at 10250 Constellation Boulevard, the applicant (Constellation Place LLC) is required to submit 5 annual Transportation Demand Management (TDM) reports, per Condition 3.b.iii, to the Department of Transportation (DOT), documenting the applicant's compliance with the performance requirement and described activities in the project's final TDM Plan, dated February 18, 2003. The full context of Condition 3.b.iii is as follows: "The applicant shall submit five annual reports on the TDM Plan to DOT beginning one year after the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for the project. If the annual report documents that the applicant has failed to achieve a minimum of 70% reduction in p.m. peak hour trips for the project, DOT may require additional operating improvements and / or modifications to the TDM measures, and in consultation with the Department of City Planning, shall increase the number of reserved car and vanpool preferential parking spaces, up to a maximum of the number of parking spaces on the project site excess of the L.A.M.C. required spaces" In accordance with Condition 3.b.ii, the project applicant has submitted five (5) annual TDM reports documenting the projects p.m. peak hour vehicle trip activity, and corresponding "performance requirement" evaluation. A summary listing of this information is provided in the table below. TDM Annual Re ort EIR Projected P.M. Peak Hour Tri s Project Performance Requirement 10% Reduction Actual P.M. Peak Hour Tri s Comparison to EIR Projection Percent Reduction 2004 894 805 428 52% 2005 894 805 376 58% 2006 894 805 293 67% 2007 894 805 372 58% 2008 894 805 368 59% David Weintraub Page 2 of 2 June 4, 2009 DISCUSSION AND FINDING Per the TDM review data presented above, it is DOT's determination that the project applicant, Constellation Place LLC, has fulfilled it's obligation under Condition 3.b.iii. However, in order to maintain a strong commitment toward reducing project vehicle trips to the greatest extent possible, it is DOT's recommendation that the project remain open to independent review and if at anytime it is determined that the project has fallen out of compliance with the trip cap target of the original condition and TDM obligations, per Ordinance 168,700, then the project will be required to reinitiate the formal traffic review process and implement a new TDM Plan, for a duration to be determined by DOT. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (213) 485-1062. EGJr.:hs F:\MGMTower TDM release.doc cc: Lisa Trifietti, Fifth Council District Jay Kim, Sean Haeri, DOT Sarah Shaw, Constellation Place LLC Peter Valk,. Transportation Management Services Table A PROJECT TRIP GENERATION [1] 77-Mav-0O AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES 2 VOLUMES 2 LAND USE SIZE IN OUT TOTAL IN OUT TOTAL Proposed Proiect General Office [3] 566,673 GSF 773 105 878 143 701 844 Residential Condominiums [4] 344 DU 26 12S 151 120 59 179 Retail/Restaurant [5] 83,712 GLSF 51 33 84 153 159 312 Gross Unadjusted Project Subtotal 850 263 1,113 416 919 1,335 Transit Oriented DevelopmendAc[ively Managed TDM Plan Minimum Trip Target 42S 131 556 208 459 667 (50% Trip Reduction) Total Trip Reduction Goal 297 92 389 146 322 468 (65 % Trip Reduction) Pass-By Reduction [6] (8) (S) (13) (24) (25) (49) Existine Use [o be Removed Manufacturing [7J (106,000) GSF (60) (17) (77). (28) (49) (77) General Office [3] - (100,000) GSF (136) (19) (155) (25) (124). (149) FORECAST NET NEW TRIPS ON STREET SYSTEM 93 51 144 69 124 193 (assuming 65 % Project Trip Reduction) [ I ] Source: ITE "Trip Generation", 8th Edition, 2008. [2] Trips are one-way traffic movements, entering or Leaving. [3] ITE Land Use Code 710 (General Office Building) trip generation average rates- - Daily Trip Rate: 11.01 trips/1,000 SF offloor area; SO% inbound/SO% outbound - AM Peak Hour Trip Rate: 1.55 trips/1,000 SF offloor area; 88% inbound/l2% outbound - PM Peak Hour Trip Rate: 1.49 trips/1,000 SF offloor area; 17% inbound/83 % outbound [4] ITE Land Use Code 230 (Residential Condominium/fownhouse) trip generation average rates- - Daily Trip Rate: 5.81 trips/dwelling unit; 50% inbound/50% outbound - AM Peak Hour Trip Rate: 0.44 trips/dwelling unit; 17 % inbound/83 % outbound - PM Peak Hour Trip Rate: 0.52 trips/dwelling unit 67 % inbound/33 % outbound [5] ITE Land Use Code 820 (Shopping Center) trip generation average rates. - Daity Trip Rate: 42.94 trips/1,000 SF of floor area; 50% inbound/50% outbound - AM Peak Hour Trip Ra[e: 1.03 trips/1,000 SF offloor area; 61 % inbound/39 % outbound - PM Peak Hour Trip Rate: 3.73 trips/1,000 SF offloor area; 49% inbound/SI % outbound [6] Pass-By trip reduction adjustment factors were derived based on data provided in Chapter 5 of the "Trip.Generation Handbook", Second Edition, June 2004, [TE. Based on the ITE guidelines, apass-by adjustment factor oF45 % was applied to the retail land use component trip generation forecasts after the TOD goal (65 %) adjustments were applied. [7] ITE Land Use Code 140 (Manufacturing) trip generation average rates. - Dai y np Rate: tops 1,0 F o floor area; 50% inbound/SO% outbound - AM Peak Hour Trip Rate: 0.73 [rips/1,000 SF of floor azea; 78 % inboundl22 % outbound - PM Peak Hour Trip Rate: 0.73 Mps/1,000 SF of floor area; 36 % inbound/64% outbound LINSCOTi, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref I-09-3806-1 Bergamot Transit Village Project Table A -1 ALTERNATE PLAN TRIP GENERATION [1] zt ~w-to AM PEAK HOUR PNI PEAK HOUR VOLUMES 2 VOLUMES 2 LAND USE SIZE IN OUT TOTAL IN OUT TOTAL Proposed Proiec[ General Office [3] 420,919 GSF 574 78 652 107 520 627 Residential Condominiums [4] 482 DU 36 176 212 168 83 251 Retail/Restaumnt [5] 83,766 GLSF 51 33 84 153 159 312 Gross Unadjusted Project Subtotal 661 287 - 948 428 762 1,190 Transit Oriented DevelopmenUActively Managed TDM Plan Minimum Trip Target 330 143 473 214 381 595 (50% Trip Reduction) Total Trip Reduction Goal 231 100 331 150 267 417 (65 % Trip Reduction) Pass-By Reduction [6] (8) (5) (13) (24) (25) (49) Existing Use to be Removed Manufacturing [7J (106,000) GSF (60) (17) (77) (28) (49) (77) General Office [3] (100,000) GSF (136) (19) (t56) (25) (124) (149) FORECAST NET NEW TRIPS ON STREET SYSTEM 27 59 86 73 69 142 (assuming 65 % Project Trip Reduction) [1 ] Source: ITE "Trip Generation", 8th Edition, 2008. [2] Trips are one-way traf£c movements, entering or leaving. [3] [TE Land Use Code 710 (General Office Building) hip generation average rates. - Daily Trip Rate: l I.OI trips/1,000 SF offloor area; 50% inbound/50% outbound - AM Peak Hour Trip Rate: L55 hips/1,000 SF of floor area; 88 % inbound/12 % outbound - PM Peak Hour Trip Rate: 1.49 trips/1,000 SF offloor azea; 17% inboundl83% outbound [4] FIE Land Use Code 230 (Residential Condominium/Townhouse)mp generation average rates. - Daily Trip Rate: 5.81 trips/dwelling unit; 50 % inbound/50% outbound - AM Peak Hour Trip Rate:-0.44 [rips/dwelling unit; 17 % inbound/83 % outbound - PM Peak Hour Trip Ra[e: 0.52 trips/dwelling unit; 67% inbound/33 % outbound [6] ffE Land Use Code 820 (Shopping Center) hip generation average rates. - Daily Trip Rate: 42.94 trips/1,000 SF offloor area; 50% inbound/50% outbound - AM Peak Hour Trip Rate: L03 trips/1,000 SF of floor area; 61 % inbound/39 % outbound - PM Peak Hour Trip Rate: 3.73 trips/1,000 SF offloor area; 49 % inbound/5] % outbound [6] Pass-By trip reduction adjustnent factors were derived based on data provided in Chapter 5 of the "Trip Generation Handbook", Second Edition, Sune 2004, ITE. Based on the ITE guidelines, apass-by adjustment factor of 45 % was applied to [he retail ]and use component trip generation forecasts after [he TOD goat (65%) adjustments were applied. [7] ITE Land Use Code 140 (Manufacmring) trip generation average rates. - Dm y" np te: .82 lops F o floor area; 50% inbound/50% outbound - AM Peak Hour Trip Rate: 0.73 trips/1,000 SF offloor area; 78 % inbound/22 % outbound - PM Peak Hour Trip Rate: 0.73 trips/1,000 SF offloor area; 36% inbound/64% outbound LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-09-3806-1 Bergamot Transit Village Roject Table B WEEKDAY SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS ]1] Bergamot Transit Village Project Land Use Office Retail Residential Guest Shared Resident Reserved Size 566.7 KSF 83.7 KSF 344 DU 344 DU City Pkg Rate[2] 3.33 /KSF 3.33 /KSF 0.20 /DU 2.00 NU Peak Pkg Ra[e[3] 2.00 /KSF 2.00 /KSF 0.20 /DU 1.50 /DU Gross Spaces[4] 1,133 Spc. 167 Spc. b9 Spc. 516 Spa Shared Time of Day Number of Spaces Number of Spaces Number of Spaces Number of Spaces Parking Demand 6:00 AM 31 4 0 516 SSl 7:00 AM 314 12 7 516 849 8:00 AM 801 33 14 516 1,364 9:00 AM 1,045 71 14 516 1,646 10:00 AM 1,133 115 14 516 1,778 I I:00 AM 1,084 t45 14 516 1,759 12:00 PM 953 160 14 516 1,643 1:00 PM 980 167 t4 516 1,677 2:00 PM 1,133 160 14 516 1,823 3:00 PM 1,084 154 l4 516 1,768 4:00 PM 953 154 14 516 1,637 5:00 PM 531 158 28 516. 1,233 6:00 PM 265 158 41 516 980 7:00 PM t06 158 69 516 849 8:00 PM 74 137 - 69 516 796 9:00 PM 31 92 69 516 708 10:00 PM 10 54 69 516 649 I I:00 PM 0 19 55 516 590 12:00 AM 0 0 35 516 SSI Notes: [1] Source: ULI -Urban Land Institute "Shared Pazking," Second Edition, 2005. [2] CiTy parking rates for all land uses based on the Santa Monica Municipal Code off-street pazking requirements. [3] Peak pazking rates are City rates adjusted to reflect parking demand reduction due [o captive market, internal capture, transit, and/or walk-in reduction. Condominium parking requirements (1.7 spaces/unit) separated to shared for guests (0.2 spaces/unit) and reserved for residents (1.5 spaces/unit). [4] Gross spaces are component size applied to peak parking rate. LLG Ref I-09-3806-1 LPQSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers Bergamot Transit Village Project Table B -1 WEEKDAY SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS [7] Bergamot Transit Village Project -Alternate Plan Land Use Office Retail Residential Guest Shared Resident Reserved Size 420.9 KSF 83.8 KSF 482 DU 482 DU City Pkg Rate[2~ 3.33 /KSF 3.33 /KSF 0.20 /DU 2.00 /DU Peak Pkg Ratc[3] 2.00 /KSF 2.00 /KSF 0.20 /DU L50 /DU Gross Spaces~4] 842 Spc. 168 Spc. 96 Spc. 723 Spa Shared Time of Day Number of Spaces Number of Spaces Number of Spaces Number of Spaces Parking Demand 6:00 AM 23 4 0 723 750 7:00 AM 234 12 10 723 979 8:00 AM 595 33 19 723 1,370 9:00 AM 777 72 19 723 1,591 10:00 AM 842 116 19 723 1,700 11:00 AM 806 146 19 723 1,694 12:00 PM 708 161 19 723 1,611 1:00 PM 728 168 19 723 7,638 2:00 PM 842 161 19. 723 1,745 3:00 PM 806 155 19 723 7,703 4:00 PM 708 755 - 19 723 1,605 5:00 PM 395 159 38 723 1,315 6:00 PM I97 159 58 723 L,137 7:00 PM 79 159 96 723 1,057 8:00 PM 55 138 96 723 1,012 9:00 PM 23 93 96 723 935 10:00 PM 8 54 96 723 881 11:00 PM 0 19 77 723 819 12:00 AM 0 0 48 723 771 Notes: [!] Source: ULI -Urban Land Institute "Shared Parking," Second Edition, 2005. [2] City parking rates for all land uses based on the Santa Monica Municipal Code off-sfreet parking requirements. [3] Peak parking rates are City rates adjusted to reflect parking demand reduction due to captive mazket, internal capture, transit, and/or walk-in reduction. Condominium parking requirements (1.7 spaces/unit) separated to shared for guests (0.2 spaces/unit) and reserved for residents (LS spaces/unit). [4] Gross spaces are component size applied to peak parking rate. LLG Ref. I-09-38064 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers Bergamot Transit Village Project