The URL can be used to link to this page

SR 07-12-2011 8ACity Council Meeting: July 12, 2011 Agenda Item: To: Mayor and City Council From: David Martin, Interim Director of Planning and Community Development Subject: Development Agreement float-up for a new mixed-use project at 2848- 2912 Colorado Avenue by E. D. D.G. Inc. Recommended Action Staff recommends that the City Council: 1. Discuss the Applicants Development Agreement proposal and provide direction regarding its potential community benefits and appropriateness for the redevelopment of the site; 2. 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; and 3. Direct staff to initiate the Development Agreement review process. Executive Summary The applicant, E. D.D.G. Inc., is proposing a Development Agreement for an approximately 250,000 square foot mixed-use project consisting of approximately 120,000 sf of creative arts and neighborhood-serving commercial space and up to 170 units of multi-family housing on a 2.8-acre project site. The proposal is a Tier 3 project located within the Mixed Use Creative District. It requires a Development Agreement and associated community benefits. The Mixed Use Creative land use designation encourages primarily neighborhood commercial and residential uses along Colorado Avenue with creative arts uses on the remainder of the property. The LUCE also requires enhanced Transportation Demand Management measures, community benefits, and nearby residential components for a balanced land use mix that helps to reduce trips near transit corridors. These elements. promote the goal of creating a complete, walkable community, including creative arts employment, neighborhood-serving retail, and market-rate and workforce residential. The LUCE vision for the Mixed Use Creative District is for amixed-use commercial and residential neighborhood that places housing in close proximity to jobs and within walking distance of local-serving retail and usable, recreational open space. Neighborhood-scale blocks will enable residents to have easier pedestrian and bicycle access to daily needs and also provide more options in the vehicle circulation network. 1 This vision is part of an overall transportation strategy that could potentially result in a significant reduction in vehicle trips. The height of the building facing Colorado Avenue is proposed to be 35 feet stepping up to 45' with the buildings at the rear of the site proposed to be no higher than 57 feet. These heights are consistent with the maximum building heights adopted in the LUCE for the Mixed Use Creative District. The subject property is located within the Bergamot Area Plan boundaries, which consist of the Bergamot Transit Village and Mixed Use Creative Districts. Preparation of the Area Plan is underway with the first workshop resulting in identification of components and characteristics for a vibrant transit village. While the first workshop was focused only Bergamot Transit Village, the four strategies for creating the village that were derived from the workshop have broader application to the entire Area Plan. The four strategies are: • Creating aPedestrian-Oriented Neighborhood • Creating an Active Center of Community Life and Activity • Requiring Human-Scale Design • Introducing an Interconnected Circulation Network These strategies have their roots in the LUCE Placemaking Principles where buildings are not simply evaluated as physical structures unto themselves but in how they shape the physical places where the social life of a neighborhood can occur. These strategies will be further refined into more detailed standards and guidelines; however, in the interim, they serve as the basis by which new development concepts can be evaluated within a larger context of the Area Plan. The proposed project concepts are being brought forward as part of the Concept Review process that includes a community meeting, "float-ups" with the Planning Commission and City Council, and interdepartmental staff review. The purpose of the float-up is to provide an opportunity for the community and decision makers to give the developer feedback on preliminary project concepts and to provide direction to staff on negotiation points once the Development Agreement application is filed. The project concepts and land use mix had broad support at a Planning Commission float-up on November 10, 2010. Specifically, the Commission supported both extending Pennsylvania Avenue between Stewart and Stanford Streets as well as the mix of housing with creative arts office/neighborhood commercial uses. However, it was. also clear that the project must comply with the future Area Plan with respect to land use mix and plan components such as development standards, open space, contribution to transit improvements, pedestrian and bicycle circulation, diversity of housing opportunities, neighborhood commercial uses, and shared parking. The applicant has expressed intent for the project to be consistent with the Area Plan and LUCE goals and policies for the Mixed Use Creative District. However, there area number of outstanding design issues that must be addressed including: • Incorporating greater skyline variation across the project site; 2 • Providing public plaza design and operational details to ensure an active, open, and inviting public space; • Revising the mass and bulk of the rear creative arts building to be consistent with LUCE urban form policies; and • Improving the transition of the project to the lower-scale neighborhood to the north by ensuring that the building facing Colorado Avenue is perceived as no more than three stories The applicant has started to modify concepts to respond to these identified issues but these changes could be taken further, particularly with the building height and mass on Colorado Avenue and the building mass for the rear creative office building. At this time, staff seeks direction from the City Council to guide negotiation points and future plan revisions and whether it is appropriate to proceed .with the Development Agreement. Discussion Development Agreements are negotiated contracts between the City and an applicant that specify the design details and requirements of a project. To avoid negotiating a project the City finds unacceptable, Development Agreement "Float-ups" are scheduled to enable a pro-active discussion with the City Council. The Council's recommendations will provide initial direction to staff and inform the property owner. The information gathered. during-this discussion will be used to evaluate the potential health, safety and welfare benefits and impacts of the proposal and potential alternatives. This report provides the context for the Council's discussion through an assessment of the proposed project's concept plans against the LUCE goals and policies for the Mixed Use Creative District as well as the Four Strategies for Creating the Bergamot Transit Village -the result of initial community dialogue on February 2011 (see Attachment A). The subject property is located within the Bergamot Area Plan boundaries along the northern edge of the Mixed Use Creative District, on Colorado Avenue. The location of the project in the context of the Bergamot Area Plan is shown in Figure 1. 3 Figure 7: Project Location in context of Bergamot Area Plan As detailed in an update to the City Council on June 14, 2011, some of the key issues that the Bergamot Area Plan will address include area-wide circulation and transit access and the integration and coordination of private property development. The Area Plan will provide context for the anticipated transformation of the area by addressing these issues and implementing the vision of the LUCE for the Bergamot Transit Village and Mixed-Use Creative Districts. The strategies for creating. the Bergamot Transit Village were identified as the necessary first steps towards implementing the LUCE vision. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant proposes that the City consider a Development Agreement to allow for a mixed-use project consisting of: 4 BergamotTransit V Ilageand Mixed-Use - Creative Di4riR Area Plan '°""°" Approximately 100,000 sf of production and post-production space • Approximately 11,500 sf of neighborhood-serving retail and restaurant space Approximately 10,000 sf gym/sports center • Approximately 150-170 housing units and live/work units (approximately 130,000 sf) • Public spaces allowing pedestrian access through the property to the streets at the boundaries of the property ® Public street improvements to include: ^ The extension (in cooperation with adjacent property owners) of Pennsylvania Avenue between Stewart and Stanford Streets to provide necessary circulation for the neighborhood and additional walking and biking opportunities on a green connecting street that will contribute to reducing overall congestion; and ^ New access road from Colorado Avenue that will be shared with the Village Trailer Park property. • 2-level Subterranean parking garage. Figure 1: Conceptual Site Plan ' I#,s)~ {1 i~ (lE1~~I1 133! (!-Ii ire,( ! I I I-~ ij!{{! I ~E~~llai~~tl1~ i~ {l~l,i+~ Ilil`h Ii~I~IE3l3tI~s~~3I~ l~i~ls~~r~l~~~ill ~!jl~~~ii~ll {i _f•}BNt Sh"88L COt1t18CfIOr! 1~1~.~tll~~~ IIS~~~~tl~l~l,~ ~Il~i i ~~ ~ ,, ~ ,~~~ ~ ` I_ ,. _ Public ~1~~, , ,, , ~~ Bldg 1 ""`i~Caza ~ " hi ~~ 3 ~ ,GCre~twe `' ! i .~°° ~ ixe ousi ~i~ ~i3 ~e ~ Pace f Rle~ghb~_rh o~ - Bldg 2 ~ ~ and creativ z.,, ~' ~;` ~ ~^~°~ ~:-sernng~ es _ arts ac Bld 3 ~~~~~~!' g ~~ _ 9 I~= r,. ..__ Bld 4 ,{si ~` .-_~ ~ ~ Live Worts, ~~ ~j~'~{~; ~ .,.,. m _F.Init~, ~ iii tta i "" , The northern most building along Colorado Blvd. ("Building 1) consists of three levels of housing over a ground floor neighborhood serving retail component. The height of the building will not exceed 45' total with a 35' high frontage along Colorado. The second building fronting along the west side of the plaza ("Building 2") proposes residential units at the upper levels and a mix of live/work units along the west property line on the ground floor. The ground level space facing the plaza on the eastern side of Building 2, consisting of approximately 10,000 s.f., includes flexible space that. could include creative office space, additional retail (e.g. small market), or community-serving uses (e.g: extension school, kids gym, community rooms for rent to local business and 5 community groups). The third building to surround the plaza ("Building 3") proposes residential units on the upper levels and ground floor retail facing the plaza and the Pennsylvania Avenue extension. Building 3 incorporates a 30'-wide arcade with a 2- story volume that provides direct pedestrian access between the plaza and Pennsylvania Avenue. The southernmost building of the project ("Building 4") proposes production and creative office space although the applicant also desires flexibility to convert some of the creative office space into residential units. Buildings 2, 3, and 4 propose a maximum building height of 57'. The project also contains ground level open space, including an approximately 15,000 s.f. publicly-accessible plaza intended to be a more active space, and a walking path between Building 2 and the west property Tine that is intended to be more passive space. The project provides a portion of the Pennsylvania Avenue extensioh between Stewart and Stanford Streets along with a new street that provides project access from Colorado Avenue. The extension provides space for up to 62'-wide streets composed of two travel lanes, two parking lanes, and 12' sidewalks. This street width is meant to ensure that the Pennsylvania Avenue extension and the new street function as local, slow-moving neighborhood streets providing vehicle access to the site while accommodating pedestrians and bicycles and discouraging cut-through traffic. Relationship to Adjacent Projects The subject property is located between two other Development Agreement proposals presenting a unique opportunity for these projects to work in concert .and provide meaningful community benefits related to transportation, circulation, and site planning. These- parcels can also take full advantage of the '/4-mile proximity of the proposed Bergamot Expo light rail station for reducing vehicle trips and deriving substantial community benefits from each project while meeting the goals of the community. As a Tier 3 project located in the Mixed Use Creative District, a Development Agreement is required to be processed. A Development Agreement gives the applicant and the City more flexibility to achieve a higher quality building that is not strictly regional office use 6 and also provide more meaningful community benefits such as additional affordable housing. The proposed project, in cooperation with adjacent developments, can become a model for future sustainable redevelopment that introduces a more neighborhood-scale circulation network and incorporates a diversity of residential, neighborhood commercial, and employment uses within close proximity of each other to potentially reduce vehicle trips. Staff held a discussion with all three property owners to address LUCE Policy D24.14. The discussion acknowledged the complexity of creating amulti-property master plan that is economically feasible but would likely need to be consolidated in one ownership entity. Further, a transfer of development rights from the Village Trailer Park property as a community benefit for the other remaining- properties would likely be necessary to facilitate the retention of the trailer park. This could also potentially require greater height and FAR than the adopted LUCE in order to accommodate the transfer of floor area and still have sufficient on-site open space. At this time, further efforts are being made to understand the financial feasibility of amulti-property master planned project and the issues regarding the retention of the mobile home park, in whole or in part. Staff will continue to explore options with all property owners through the- Development Agreement process. II. PROJECT EVALUATION A comprehensive evaluation of the applicant's conceptual design examined its consistency with LUCE goals and polices as well as the project's urban form, pedestrian accommodations and enhancements, circulation, location and type of uses, and public open space. The evaluation is presented in four parts: A. General Plan Consistency B. Compliance with Strategies for Creating Bergamot Transit Village • Mixed Use and Active Ground Level: APedestrian-Oriented Neighborhood • Open Space: A Center of Community Life and Activity • Buildings: Human-Scale and Animated ® Circulation: An Accessible and Interconnected Neighborhood C. Transportation Demand Management Program 7 D. Community Benefits As the project moves from conceptual to schematic design and design development, review will be on-going. A. General Plan Consistency The Land Use and Circulation Element accounts for community priorities, appropriate design and scale, and transportation demand management programs. The subject property is located within the Mixed Use Creative District, which has a vision as stated in Goal D24, "Create atransit-focused employment center with mixed-use creative arts and a neighborhood that provides a quality transition to residential neighborhoods to the north, east, and south." The Mixed Use Creative urban design and land use policies emphasize that the primary goal of the district is to support the City's creative economy by allowing for the formation of a new, transit-supportive and sustainable neighborhood that has a balance of affordable, workforce, and market-rate housing and local-serving employment uses complemented by recreational open space and active, pedestrian-oriented retail uses. The goals of the District also including reducing vehicle trips by accentuating the necessity of establishing connectivity throughout the area through green connecting streets and pedestrian and bicycle paths. Connectivity will improve the access to high frequency bus transit and the Expo light rail Bergamot station, located within walking distance of the subject property, and also increase the potential for more vibrant streetlife. Associated with connectivity is the opportunity to create a quality streetscape framed by buildings that contain ground floor pedestrian-oriented uses and provide a transition to adjacent, lower intensity neighborhoods with building stepbacks and less perceived mass. 8 Staff has assessed the concept plans in light of the Mixed Use Creative goals and policies. The proposed project achieves the balanced mix of residential and non- residential land uses contemplated in the LUCE. The applicant has indicated some desire to explore increasing residential uses in the project by converting some or all of Building 4 into a residential building. The project also supports the LUCE goal to establish a street grid within the area by providing space for the Pennsylvania Avenue extension between Stewart and Stanford Streets along with sharing a road between the project and the adjacent proposed Village Trailer Park Development Agreement. The streets are proposed at the staff-recommended width of 62 feet; however, the width could be adjusted in response to the Tower-intensity character of the area and anticipated traffic volumes. Overall, the project responds favorably to the LUCE but there remain a number of policies where it falls short (Attachment C). As an example, Policy B12.1 states, in part, "...locating local-serving retail and residential uses along the avenue and stepping the mass of the buildings down to provide effective transitions to the adjacent lower-scale residential area." Greater skyline variation and building articulation especially through the middle of the site, more sensitive transitions from the buildings with frontage on 9 Colorado Avenue to the lower-scale residential area to the north, and exploration of alternative massing concepts consistent with LUCE requirements for building stepbacks and articulation for the rear building continue to be areas that have not adequately addressed LUCE policies. B. Compliance with Strategies for Creating Bergamot Transit Village The Four Strategies for Creating Bergamot Transit Village were derived from the February 17, 2011 public workshop for the first phase of the Bergamot Area Plan, which encompasses the Bergamot Transit Village and Mixed Use Creative Districts, and are summarized in Attachment A. The workshop attracted over 150 community members who engaged in a discussion about characteristics that make a transit village feel 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 that reflects an arts character, community gathering and open spaces, and more pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicles 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 (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 new streets and pathways and provide wide sidewalks, trees and on- street parking Incorporate creative arts into all facets of the community -housing for artists, creative and performance space While the Mixed Use Creative District and Bergamot Transit Village share the same Strategies for creating a village character and pedestrian-oriented spaces desired by the community, it is recognized that the Mixed Use Creative District differs from 1b Bergamot Transit Village in its less intense scale and character -reflected in reduced height and FAR -and more balanced land use mix. The less intensive development is in deference to the Mixed Use Creative District's location between the core of the transit village and surrounding residential neighborhoods. As such, the "edges" of the District, on Colorado Avenue and Stanford Street are important transition areas that must be sensitive to existing uses. Regardless of the District, the Four Strategies have broad applicability as they center around the LUCE citywide Placemaking Principles of creating complete green streets and the interrelationship between building form, active land uses, and public space to create ground-level places where social life and daily activities of a neighborhood can occur. The following assesses the project's compliance with these Strategies. Mixed Use and Active Ground Level-A Pedestrian Oriented Neiahborhood GROUND FLOOR HEIGHT NEEDS TO PROVIDE FOR VARIETY OF RETAIL In light of the strategies developed from the Bergamot Area Plan community process, the applicant has responded with a project that exhibits stronger pedestrian orientation with human-scale elements at the base such as awnings, greater floor-to-floor heights, and ample outdoor space adjacent to store entries. The project has predominantly retail on the .ground floor and based on the maximum proposed height of 57' and 5 stories, the project currently proposes a 15' ground floor and 10.5' upper floors. Staff recommends that the ground floor heights should range from 15-18' in order to allow for a variety of retail or other ground floor uses that reinforce a stronger pedestrian-oriented base. BALANCED MIX OF USES The project provides a balance of creative office/production, neighborhood-serving commercial, and residential uses in conformance with the land use targets established for the Mixed Use Creative District in the LUCE. The uses are integrated throughout the site with the goal of providing for the daily needs of existing and future residents and 11 employees, a range of housing- types at different income levels, creative office and production space in support of the creative arts, and potential for community uses immediately adjacent to the public plaza to ensure its long-term accessibility to the community. The location of residential uses surrounding the plaza provides an onsite population for the active uses at the ground floor. In response to staff comments, the applicant has also located main building entries off pedestrian pathways and introduced a residential lobby with direct access to the plaza to ensure foot traffic through the plaza. In response to concerns from the Planning Commission about the viability of the plaza, the applicant has been receptive to having uses other than retail that will provide a local destination within walking distance of existing neighborhoods (e.g. arts and cultural enrichment programs, community room for rent, kids gym) and create the vibrancy necessary to sustain the plaza. Due to Building 2 having the greatest amount of frontage on the plaza, staff recommends that these types of uses be incorporated into the ground floor of Building 2 with retail/cafe uses on the ground floors of Buildings 1 and 3. Open Space -A Center of Community Life and Activity INVITING AND ACTIVATED CENTRAL PLAZA The project concept includes an approximately 15,000 sf plaza surrounded on three sides by ground floor active uses and residential units on the upper levels. The plaza is immediately adjacent to the new street that provides access to the project from Colorado Avenue. Plaza dimensions of approximately 60' in width and approximately 250' in depth are proportionate to the proposed 45' to 57' building heights surrounding the plaza and help to make the buildings more human-scale. Since the Planning Commission float-up, the applicant has made significant strides in presenting ideas on how the plaza will be activated including the concept of creating different levels in the plaza that allow the space to be divided into a few platforms where activity can occur. The applicant has also introduced more landscaping concepts and provided better orientation of the access from the plaza to the subterranean sports center via the "pop up" stairs. The location of the plaza next to the new street also opens up the possibility 12 of closing the street for special events allowing the activity in the plaza to spill into the street. Figures 2 and 3: Views of Plaza and Buildings 1 and 2 IMPROVE PEDESTRIAN EXPERIENCE OF WALKING PATH The other open space feature is a walking path located in the 18' between Building 2 and the west property line, intended to be shared with the neighboring property to the west. There is 32' between Building 2 and the proposed building on the property to west. This walking path is adjacent to residential units, with ground floor entrances and potentially some live/work units, while the neighboring property is proposing a creative office building with no ground floor entrances. In contrast to the plaza, the walking path functions as a passive recreational space in acknowledgement of the ground floor .residential units. The applicant has made improvements to the building form adjacent to the path by creating a more clearly pedestrian-oriented base with the suggestion of patios and direct building-entrances and greater distinction between upper floors with window size, materials, and building articulation. However, these massing improvements could be further developed, particularly on the upper levels of the building, and staff recommends that the applicant continue to work with the adjacent property to coordinate the location, use, and configuration of the walking path to ensure that the path has appropriate solar access and minimizes the "canyon effect" between two buildings. 13 Figures 4 and 5: Views of Walking Path between Building 2 and (Nest Property Line Initial y 44 ~~ \ F~ ~ C ~ y Lack of ~"~~~ .Building .~ ~' i. Articulation _ ~! Y~>e~v~a5`f~x. ~, r}" r , ~ . ~~.,r~ ' " ~ ~~ La tk of ~ "i, Pedastnan ~, Orientation , . _ Buildings -Human-Scale and Animated REDUCE TOP FLOOR MASS ON COLORADO AVENUE The project is composed of 4 buildings with a proposed maximum height of 57' with the exception of Building 1, which has a street wall height of 35' and a maximum height of 45'. While the applicant has made significant improvements to Building 1 in response to the Planning Commission direction, staff believes that the fourth floor could still be stepped back further so that it is imperceptible from the existing residential neighborhood to the north. A similar condition exists throughout the Downtown where significant building stepbacks have the effect of negating upper level mass, and staff would recommend that same strategy be employed along Colorado Avenue as a transition to the lower-scale neighborhood to the north. Figure 5 and 6: Views of Building 1 (Colorado Avenue) Initial Excessive s, ~'' Upper Level ! ~ ~ ~ ; ~ Mass r "' ~' '~~ G ~ P. ~. L S i ~r ~4t ~ ~ ~ ~~"~ ~.~ ~:. Overhang ~ n " ' ~ ~' ^ Negatively Affects Pedestrian ~ ~ EOV'Y. LACK OF DISCERNIBLE SKYLINE VARIATION While the project has a building height range of 45' to 57', the variation in building height needs to be improved across the project site. Buildings 1, 2 and 3, in particular, could incorporate significantly greater skyline variation because of their highly visible location on the plaza. While staff understands the applicant's concerns regarding loss of unit size or floor area, staff recommends that skyline variation could potentially be achieved with roof decks between top floor units that would break up the building mass while still retaining usable space for the unit. Another strategy would be building stepbacks to create visually perceptible depth and variation. Figures 7 and 8: Views of Building 2 BOXY MASS AND BUILDING FACADE ARTICULATION NEEDS FURTHER DEVELOPMENT While building fagade articulation has been significantly improved in Buildings 1, 2, and 3, the form will continue to evolve in terms of fagade modulation and building rhythm in order to support the village character. The applicant has taken initial steps to incorporate fagade modulation strategies such as stepbacks, breaking buildings into a series of vertical bays; adding human-scale elements such as awnings, varying building wall planes, and introducing multiple rhythms. However in keeping with the strategy of designing four-sided buildings, the buildings will need to continue to be articulated, especially where they face existing and future public spaces and public streets, including the Pennsylvania Avenue extension (south side of Building 3). As previously mentioned, the west elevation of Building 2, adjacent to the walking path, needs to 15 exhibit greater stepbacks and articulation in order to make the walking path inviting and reconcile the transition between the residential units and the creative office building on the neighboring property. The form of Building 4 has changed since the Planning Commission float-up in response to concerns about the large, high-volume overhang but still requires further study. The revised massing concept demonstrates a more conventional approach to the strategies for creating ahuman-scale building with the attempt at creating a base and what appear to be stepbacks and changes in building rhythm at the upper levels. However, -the concept still needs further refinement as it is unclear where the building floorlines reside and the building does not appear to reflect its use as a production/creative office space but exhibits features and a scale that are more reflective of residential units. Building 4 is an opportunity for the applicant to pursue a unique building design that reflects the arts character of the area, however, the building still exhibits the boxy form and footprint that does not reflect the purpose of the Mixed Use Creative District. Further, the sustainability principles stated on the cover page of the applicant's concept plans are not supported by a building footprint of the size being proposed. Staff recommends that the applicant break up the mass of the building more and demonstrate that the proposed floorplates provide sufficient natural light and. air for interior spaces. Figures 9 and 10: Views of Building 4 Boxy, 8uiky:.. 16 Circulation -An Accessible, Interconnected Neighborhood PROJECT SUPPORTS CREATION OF NEIGHBORHOOD-SIZED GRID The initial strategies for the Bergamot and Mixed Use Creative Area Plan place great emphasis on creating a coordinated circulation system that allows for pedestriah, vehicle, bicycle, and emergency access. Extending Pennsylvania Avenue eastward to Stanford Street helps to create walkable city blocks that form the basis for village character. The proposed project includes a portion of the Pennsylvania Avenue extension between Stewart and Stanford Streets. This extension will introduce aneighborhood-sized grid to the large parcels in the area and enhance pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicle access. The applicant has created space for a potentially 62' wide street, however, the width could be adjusted based on the anticipated capacity of the street and whether parking is provided on one side or both sides. The staff-recommended street width reflects the intent to create safe "slow streets" that provide vehicle access but also can be used for active recreation. It should be noted that the 62' street width reflects the approximate right-of-way for existing residential streets in the surrounding neighborhood. Figure 11: Proposed Circulation System „~ _ :. Pedestrian Pat ~ Vehicle Access ~7 C. Transportation Demand Management Program The project is expected to provide a transportation demand management (TDM) program that would significantly reduce the number of vehicle trips associated with the project and encourage alternative forms of transportation. While a preliminary plan has not yet been formulated by the applicant, staff recommends that the plan incorporate, at a minimum, the features of the other TDM programs in the area, including but not limited to: • Making the cost of parking visible through cashout or direct payment • Providing free transit passes to all on-site employees and residents • Incorporating full or partial unbundling of parking for residential • Providing shared parking • Providing spaces for potential carsharing program • Including on-site grocery/convenience market (local-serving uses) to help reduce trips It is anticipated that the scale of the TDM measures combined with the project's Y4-mile proximity to the new Expo light rail station at 26th Street and Olympic Boulevard could reduce the number of trips associated with the project and may allow the City to consider reducing the amount of required parking in the project. If a parking reduction or establishing parking maximums for the project is desirable, the applicant. will be required to submit a parking demand analysis showing how the combination of uses will share the on-site parking. D. Community Benefits At this early stage of the process, there have not yet been detailed discussions regarding the project's community benefits. The applicant has indicated that the proposed building height is necessary in order to make the multi-family residential units feasible and to provide for the scale of potential community benefits that have been identified: • Green streets Envisioned as narrow street (62' total width) with street parking, fully improved sidewalks, and potential incorporation of exercise path into street design 18 • Re-establishes the neighborhood street network as opposed to the large city blocks of the industrial area thereby improving pedestrian, bike, and vehicular circulation for the neighborhood • More options to reach destination will result in better response times by Police/Fire/Emergency Services • Affordable housing • The project is required to comply with the Affordable Housing Production Program by either providing a minimum percentage of on-site affordable housing or paying an affordable housing fee. The City Council may recommend that the ability to pay an affordable housing fee to satisfy this obligation is removed. In addition, the City Council may also recommend that additional on-site affordable housing, beyond the minimum percentage, be constructed as part of the Development Agreement. Public plaza • Investigate possibility of cultural programming in partnership with local arts organizations to ensure that there is adequate infrastructure and a mechanism for ongoing funding or long-term arrangements so that it is a meaningful cultural arts venue. • May be used as a venue for special events or as part of a "festival streets concept" with the adjacent new access road. Neighborhood-serving retail • Possibility of retaining some of the existing businesses that currently occupy the subject property. • On-site public use room or recreational activity (e.g. community room, gym, community facility) • Establish mechanism for preferred pricing for Santa Monica residents who use these facilities. • Activating the streets, parkways, and green spaces for active/recreational use In addition, the applicant will explore whether more housing units can be added to the project and the degree to which those units can be restricted for affordable and/or workforce housing. An area of concern is the viability of the live/work units and whether there should be provisions in the Development Agreement that provide guidance as to whether the unit should allocated for. artist live/work space and how the units would actually function. "Artist studios" are permitted use and receive height and FAR incentives in the LMSD and M1 zoning districts, consistent with the City's desire to support the arts community. However, projects that have benefitted from the artist studio incentives have often not resulted in the type of affordable work space that the incentives were meant to create. The proposed live/work units support the overall vision of the Mixed Use Creative District, however, it would be appropriate to also 19 include design guidelines that would address issues such as space requirements, ceiling heights for large works, and noise abatement. For discussion purposes, staff has attached examples of design guidelines for artist live/work space developed by the Boston Redevelopment Authority and a copy of a model live/work ordinance developed by the American Planning Association (see Attachment E). .Consultation with the Community and Cultural Services Department has resulted in suggestions for some of the recreational and cultural programming community benefits listed above. Comprehensive plans and alternatives will be developed as part of the Development Agreement process based on direction from the City Council pertaining to the project's size, scale, and public benefits. III. INPUT RECEIVED FROM COMMUNITY AND PLANNING COMMISSION Proposed Project Community meeting A community meeting to review the concept plans was held by staff on May 7, 2009. With few exceptions, the majority of residents who attended the meeting were not supportive of the mass and scale of the project and expressed significant concerns regarding the potential traffic problems that it would create. The following summarizes key comments: Community Benefits Concerns were expressed that the project did not propose meaningful benefits. As a result, some residents felt that the increased building height in relation to the scale of benefits provided was unbalanced. Suggestions for other community benefits included affordable housing, useable park and green space, green roofs and other opportunities for greening the site, retaining some existing businesses that serve the vicinity, and a neighborhood market. 20 Traffic Concerns were expressed about mitigating the project's vehicle trip generation in relation to potential property value impact and quality of life. Comments were also made that the proposed Pennsylvania Avenue extension could potentially increase cut- through traffic in the residential streets. Building Mass/Scale/Height Concerns were expressed regarding the project's incompatibility with neighborhoods to the north and east. Comments were also made that the height and massing of the project on Colorado Avenue does not relate to the residential neighborhood to the north. If the development agreement proceeds, future community meetings will be scheduled to allow surrounding residents and businesses the opportunity to provide input on the project design. Planning Commission Float-Up Discussion The project's concept plans were reviewed and discussed at the Planning Commission float-up meeting on November 10, 2010. There was majority consensus from the Planning Commission to support the mix of uses and the amount of ground floor open space on the project site. There was also agreement for the following items: ® Require that the project provide aggressive TDMs and shared parking • Require project consistency with the new Bergamot and Mixed Use Creative Area Plan with respect to land ,use mix and plan components such as development standards, open space, contribution to transit improvements, pedestrian and bicycle circulation, diversity of housing opportunities, neighborhood commercial uses, and shared parking Provide an update on discussions with neighboring properties regarding options explored in order to address LUCE Policy D24.14: "Explore means to sustain Village Trailer Park's economic viability by incorporating it into a larger multi-property master plan, if feasible, or by the transfer of development rights that have as a goal, preserving existing housing as an integral part of a new mixed-use project." 21 Support the Pennsylvania Avenue extension between Stewart and Stanford Streets and new road from Colorado Avenue The Planning Commission also expressed concern with some areas of the project concept, particularly with respect to the accessibility and programming of the plaza and the project's transition to the lower-scale neighborhood across Colorado Avenue. The Commission also recognized that while the project concepts speak to many sustainable principles, the ideas are not yet fully realized in the concept plans and need further refinement. The minutes of the Planning Commission float-up discussion are in Attachment B. 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 Impacts & 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. 22 If negotiations proceed, the associated fiscal impact will be determined prior to the Development Agreement returning for City Council consideration. Prepared by: Jing Yeo, Special Projects Manager Approved: Forwarded to Council: David Martin Rod Gould Interim Director, Planning & Community City Manager Development Attachments A. LUCE Vision: Four Strategies for Creating the Bergamot Transit Village B. Planning Commission Minutes, November 10, 2010 C. Review of Project Concept for compliance with LUCE policies D. Examples of guidelines for artist live/work and live/work model ordinance E. Public Notification F. Applicant's Proposal -Narrative and Concept Plans 23 ATTACHMENT A 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 26t" 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 Expo 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. 24 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: 1. A Pedestrian-Oriehted 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 light 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: ® Tall 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 25 . The mix and location of uses Wide, comfortable sidewalks with enhanced paving, shade trees and landscape, well-designed and strategically-placed street furniture, bike racks, and pedestrian lighting. 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: 26 Figure 3: Features of a walkable environment • 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 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 Building mass and scale are frequently 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. 27 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, 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 28 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 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 aviable 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. 29 ATTACHMENT B PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 10, 2010 30 WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 2010 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:00 P.M. ROOM 213, CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:04 p.m. by Acting Chair Newbold. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Winterer led the Pledge of Allegiance. 3. ROLL CALL: Present: Jennifer Kennedy Hank Koning, FAIA Gerda Newbold, Acting Chairperson Jason Parry [arrived at 7:08 p.m.] Gwynne Pugh, FAIA, ASCE Ted Winterer Absent: Jim Ries, Chairperson Also Present: Kyle Ferstead, Commission Secretary Eileen Fogarty, Director of Planning /Planning & Community Development Department Kevin McKeown, City Council Liaison Barry Rosenbaum, Senior Land Use Attorney Jing Yeo, AICP, Special Projects Manager 3-A. Oath of Office: Jennifer Kennedy was sworn in as Planning Commissioner by the Commission Secretary. 4. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT: Ms. Fogarty gave the Director's Report. She reported that the Commission can expect to review the Bergamot area plan in January 2011. She further reported that next week community input will be received for the Neighborhood 31 Conservation implementation. Also early next year, the Commission will be reviewing changes for the Downtown area as regards circulation and parking; and preliminary work on the Interim Zoning Ordinance. Commissioner Pugh asked Ms. Fogarty to comment on the Bayside District Corporation's plan to re-vision itself as it relates to the planned changes for Downtown. Ms. Fogarty stated that staff is currently working on a flow chart for the area outlining all things land-use related for the Commission. Commissioner Pugh asked if the Commission will be receiving more information on parking and transportation demand management (TDM) programs. Ms. Fogarty responded in the affirmative. City Council Liaison McKeown announced that, per the Los Angeles Times, the Bundy Village developer has filed for bankruptcy. He then asked Ms. Fogarty why the Saint John's Development Agreement Amendment was postponed and when it will be heard by the Commission and City Council. Ms. Fogarty explained the .parking issues for Saint John's and an amendment to the Yahoo Center Development Agreement. She stated the items will come to the Commission in a more logical manner. Commissioner Winterer commented on the defeat of California Proposition 21, which would have negatively impacted the City's beach parking lots. Ms. Fogarty was in agreement that the proposition would have been problematic if passed. 5. PLANNING COMMISSIONER ANNOUNCEMENTS: Acting Chair Newbold congratulated City Council Liaison McKeown on his re- election last week. The rest of the. Commission concurred. Acting Chair Newbold also wished Commissioner Winterer well as he awaits the results for the final City Council seat. Commissioner Pugh commented that he is current president of the League of California Cities Planners Institute and retention of funds for Santa Monica from Proposition 22, which passed in the recent election. Ms. Fogarty announced that last week, senior Planning and Community Development staff received an award for the newly adopted Land Use and Circulation Element from the California American Planning Association. She also commented on a panel led by City staff at the conference on the issues of no new net trips and sustainability, which was very well attended and caused lots of excitement in the planning community. 6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: 32 6-A. Commissioner Pugh made a motion to approve the minutes for August 4, 2010, as amended. Commissioner Winterer seconded the motion, which was approved by voice vote with Commissioners Kennedy and Koning abstaining. 6-S. Commissioner Winterer made a motion to approve the minutes for August 18, 2010, as amended. Commissioner Koning seconded the motion, which was approved by voice vote with Commissioner Kennedy abstaining. 6-C. Commissioner Winterer made a motion to approve the minutes for September 1, 2010, as amended. Commissioner Parry seconded the motion, which was approved by voice vote with Commissioners Kennedy and Pugh abstaining. STATEMENTS OF OFFICIAL ACTION: None. DISCUSSION: 8-A. Roberts Business Park Development Agreement Float-Up, 2848-2912 Colorado Avenue. Discuss the applicant's Development Agreement proposal for an approximately 300,OOOsf mixed-use proiect concept consisting of: (al Production and post production studio and creative arts space; (bl Ground floor neighborhood-serving retail and restaurant space; (cl Up to 170 housing units totaling approximately 50% of the project's total floor area; (dl Ground-floor public plaza allowing pedestrian access through and around the property; (el Street improvements to include: (fl New north-south access road along the subject property's east property line; (gl Fair share portion of Pennsylvania Avenue extension between Stewart and Stanford Streets; and (hl A two-level subterranean parking garage. (Planner:. Jing Yeo, AICPI APPLICANT / PROPERTY OWNER: E.D.D.G. Inc. / Roberts Business Park Santa Monica LLC. Planning Director Fogarty gave an overview of the project and process. Special Projects Manager Jing Yeo gave the formal staff report. Commissioner Koning asked Ms. Yeo for the zoning across from the project site. Ms. Yeo stated the zoning is R-2. Commissioner Koning asked for the height limit. Ms. Yeo stated it is 24-30 feet, depending on whether the building is a flat or pitched roof. Commissioner Pugh asked staff to discuss the concept for complete neighborhoods and how this proposal fits and will address area issues. Ms. Yeo explained the complete neighborhoods concept and stated that this proposed development is looking to provide daily services and needs currently absent from the area. She further stated that the proposal will provide more housing with a focus on creative arts. Ms. Yeo stated the site is being reviewed in relation to its 33 proximity to the Bergamot Transit Village area and adjacency to the future Exposition Light Rail station. She mentioned that the two adjacent property owners, who are also seeking Development Agreements with the City, are working with this developer to create connections, open space and housing opportunities to allow residents to have their needs met. Commissioner Pugh commented on the "green streets" proposal and whether they will be true dedicated public streets or under the ownership of the developer. Ms. Yeo stated the proposed new street will be public streets, although there may be issues with the proposed subterranean parking structures beneath the streets. Commissioner Pugh expressed concern with the proposed live/work residential housing and asked for the City's concerns on this issue. Ms. Yeo stated that the City's prior experience with art live/work spaces is that they never really work as intended. Ms. Fogarty added that her experience in different jurisdictions is that live/work spaces do not work as intended, which has led to skepticism on her part. Commissioner Pugh asked if some of the live/work housing is proposed to be affordable housing. Ms. Yeo stated this is possible, but the developer should address this question. Commissioner Pugh asked for the height limit in the district. Ms. Yeo stated it is 57-feet with third tier maximum height. Commissioner Pugh stated he noted one place on the plans that indicated 58-feet. Ms. Yeo stated this is probably a typographical error. Commissioner Pugh asked about anticipated retail on the ground floor and floor-to-floor heights. Ms. Yeo referred this question to the developer. Commissioner Winterer commented on the plaza, which appears to be the open space requirements for the project, but it is not a green or active play space. Ms. Fogarty stated that within the district, green open space locations .will be identified and the developer will contribute to funding to provide more public open space. Commissioner Winterer asked about the proposed fifty-fifty balance of residential and commercial uses, which is the goal of the final area. Ms. Fogarty stated for the whole area as identified in the Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE), the direction was to look for asixty-forty ratio for Bergamot and afifty- fifty ratio for this area. Commissioner Winterer asked about goal of extending Pennsylvania Avenue. Ms. Fogarty stated that a detailed analysis of vehicle circulation for the area has concluded that breaking up the "super blocks" will alleviate some traffic problems in the area. Commissioner Winterer commented on the process for afloat-up, which goes to the City Council with a recommendation from the Commission and, if the City Council deems it appropriate, the environmental process begins. He asked staff if the plans presented to the Commission are the ones which will be used for the environmental analysis. Ms. Fogarty stated that staff's goal is to provide the developer with comments from the Commission and public prior to City Council review. She also stated that the area where this project is proposed is an area where a specific planning process is beginning (an Area Plan), 34 however the environmental work will not be completed prior to completion of the area plan process. Commissioner Winterer asked when the Commission will see an economic analysis of community benefits for the proposal. Ms. Fogarty. stated it can be done prior o the EIR. Commissioner Winterer commented that it is unusual to have three contiguous sites requesting Development Agreements. He asked if it would make more sense to consider them as a whole. Ms. Fogarty explained that the three sites are at different stages in the overall process, however the proposed infrastructure extensions are part of each proposal and have been considered as a whole. She further explained that the three properties have separate ownership, that staff has met with all parties, but they want to proceed separately for a variety of reasons. Ms. Yeo commented that as part of the EIR process and project review, the sites will be reviewed independently and with options covering contingences for which projects are actually built or not built. Commissioner Parry asked staff for the floor area ratio (FAR) for the site and if this includes the street area. Ms. Yeo stated the FAR is 2.5 and includes the street area. Commissioner Kennedy asked staff about the Pennsylvania Avenue extension, which appears to be for both vehicles and pedestrians. She expressed concern that this has not been done in Santa Monica before and whether it will be safe for pedestrians. Ms. Yeo stated the street will be conventional with curbs, but will not be for high speed travel Acting Chair Newbold asked staff if there has been any discussion regarding the residential unit configuration. Ms. Yeo stated the project is in the concept stage and noted that the number of units has doubled since the original proposal was made. She also stated that the developer is looking for feedback on this issue. Commissioner Winterer commented that the project is proposed to be approximately 300,000 square feet, half of which is residential with 107 units, which would average under 1000 square feet per unit. City Council. Liaison McKeown commented on the adoption of the LUCE and the policy to encourage the preservation of the existing unique affordable housing stock which is the Village Trailer Park. He stated his understanding that the only way to preserve that housing stock is to have cooperative agreement between the three property owners. He asked if this specific Development Agreement moves forward to City Council, will that preclude the preservation. Ms. Fogarty stated it does not preclude it. She stated the issue which was clear to the City Council, explore means to sustain the Village Trailer Park's economic viability by incorporating it into a larger, multi-property master plan, if feasible, or by transfer of development rights. She stated that staff can bring together the property owners to discuss these issues, although they have indicated they do not want to 35 proceed together. She also stated this does not preclude transfer of development rights or other options for the trailer park. Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum stated he has not been involved in the meetings with the developers to date, so he can only refer to what has been presented in the staff report and presentation. He commented on the exploration of other options for the trailer park, which has commenced and will continue independent of any action taken by the Commission -this evening. City Council Liaison McKeown asked if the City Council moves forward on this proposal, can he be reassured the aforementioned will not occur. Ms. Fogarty stated that the options can be presented to the applicants and they can discuss their reasons for not going forward together. This information can then be given to the City Council. Commissioner Koning commented on his understanding that TDRs are only for historic properties per the LUCE and stated this is not a historic property. Commissioner Pugh commented on his understanding of TDRs that only the rights can be transferred but not in excess of the LUCE. He noted that this property seems close to excess. Ms. Fogarty stated that, in theory, this project will have public benefits built-in. Acting Chair Newbold asked staff what would happen if the Commission did not recommend this project to move forward. Ms. Fogarty stated that by-right, the developer. can build a Tier One project, however the Commission would need to articulate clear reasons why they would not recommend the process move forward. She also stated that under the new LUCE; the options are very limited for development and the City wants to encourage the provision for community benefits. Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum expressed agreement with Ms. Fogarty in that a Tier 3 project is subject to approval by Development Agreement and Development Agreements are not mandatory, but are a voluntary contract between. the Developer and the City. The Developer's Team included project architect Sami EI Bayar and attorney Dale Goldsmith. Mr. EI Bayar gave a presentation on the proposed project to the Commission. Commissioner Winterer asked the Developer Team if the housing will be market rate. Mr: EI Bayar stated the housing will be rental. Commissioner Winterer if the sport facility will be private or public. Mr. EI Bayar stated it will be private for residents only. Commissioner Winterer asked about the green or complete street and whether there will be shared uses or incorporation of bioswales or other such things. Mr. EI Bayar stated no bioswales are proposed and there will be a mix of dynamic uses on the street. Commissioner Parry asked about the proposed live/work units. Mr. EI Bayar stated that the live/work units came late in the process. He further stated that the developer wanted the ability for smaller tenants, like photography studios or 36 architectural offices, as well as residential units, so the live/work units are being studied. Mr. Goldsmith stated the uses would be more active and vibrant around the plaza area. Commissioner Parry asked about the upper level residential units and suggested having an art non-profit manage the units, which may increase the desired use. Mr. EI Bayar stated this last suggestion could be looked into. Commissioner Koning commented on his understanding of the proposed live/work space for the ground floor and appreciated the proposed ceiling heights, however, the drawings indicated residential use. He asked if the site will be secure for residents if the live/work space is "activated." He also expressed concern with a conflict with the paseo which is on the western property line. Mr. EI Bayar stated that the area is not dedicated and the intent is for people to be able to flow through the site. He also stated that there may be private patios for residents- on the ground floor. Commissioner Koning asked if the private patios would not dilute the energy. He noted that a great deal of effort has gone into making the space active. He also asked what one does in the plaza area. Mr. EI Bayar stated it is a large area and it is hoped that development to the east will have retail space across from the plaza and that the plaza can be used as a community gathering space. He stated he is still working with the landscape architects on this area. Commissioner Pugh asked if the eastern property line runs down the middle of the street. Mr. EI Bayar stated that the development site property line runs 35- feet of the 60-foot right-of-way and the adjacent property has 25-feet. Commissioner Pugh asked what happens if the adjacent property does not redevelop. Mr. EI Bayar stated that if that redevelopment fails to occur, the extra street depth will allow for installation of two way lanes for access to the site and Fire Department access with a cul-de-sac at the southern portion for turning around. Mr. Goldsmith commented that the two other projects that flank this project are further along in their environmental impact (EIR) and Development Agreement process. Commissioner Pugh asked for the subterranean garage setback relative to the property line. Mr. EI Bayar stated it is approximately 30- feet. Commissioner Pugh stated that the trees will not be sitting in soil. Mr. EI Bayar stated the trees on the edge of the plaza will be in planters due to the subterranean parking garage. Commissioner Pugh asked if the planters will be at-grade or below grade. Mr. EI Bayar stated this is yet to be determined. Commissioner Pugh expressed concern regarding the plaza design, which includes a great deal of hardscape and shading will be difficult. He also expressed concern about the water feature and assembly area, which he feels needs work. on the design, and the need for more green space. He also had concerns regarding the plaza staircase, based on the rendering, and its relationship to the gym and proposed glazing. Commissioner Koning commented that the stairway reminds him of the Yahoo Center access to its subterranean parking garage, which looks interesting but is not well used. Commissioner Pugh commented on his. concerns regarding the layout for the residential units and 37 double-loaded corridors in terms of air-conditioning which should not be needed in Santa Monica. Mr. EI Bayar stated that other options were analyzed and the double-loaded corridors appear to be more efficient, however he can look at this aspect again. Commissioner Pugh raised the issue of the reduced floor footprint at grade level and asked if any thought had been given to shading effect of the building design, which may be too much shadow late in the day. He then asked about floor-to-floor heights. Mr. EI Bayar stated the proposal is for 14-15 foot floors on the ground floor and 9-feet in the residential units. Commissioner Pugh asked about the "creative" building. Mr. EI Bayar stated the proposal is for 11-foot floor-to-floor and slab floors. Commissioner Pugh expressed concern with the functionality of the space and that there may be one too many floor proposed for this commercial building. He concluded by expressing concern that this project will work for the neighborhood as well as the proposed uses and asked how the uses were analyzed. Mr. EI Bayar stated a market study was done for the retail uses, which are anticipated to be neighborhood serving retail along Colorado Avenue and new retail on the Pennsylvania Avenue extension. He also stated the upper level housing units have been increased in number and the LUCE guidelines have been followed. Commissioner Pugh commented on one public benefit, noting that the current space has been creative incubator space over the year and asked how this will be continued and fostered. Mr. Goldsmith stated the intent is to provide for a variety of uses and current businesses would be appropriate for the new space.. Commissioner Kennedy asked if there has been any consideration for opportunities for children to play and will the gym be open for a fee. Mr. EI Bayar stated the gym membership concept is still being developed. Mr. Goldsmith stated that public gyms generate too much traffic. Commissioner Kennedy asked about providing a children's play area as was done for other Development Agreement sites in the vicinity. Mr. EI Bayar stated that such an area has not been provided and there are playgrounds nearby and a community garden is proposed for an adjacent project. He also stated a play area can be incorporated. Commissioner Koning asked afollow-up question about the gym, specifically why it could not be opened up for people in adjacent projects and/or for residents within a quarter mile of the site. He stated that would be a community benefit: He then asked about the proposed roof-top pool and if it would be for residents only. Mr. EI Bayar stated that certain construction and height issues are being reviewed for the pool, and it would be for residents only due to liability issues. Commissioner Koning asked several additional questions about the pool and noted it-would need to have a ~estroom nearby. Commissioner Winterer asked about the proposed parking for the site and whether shared parking is being contemplated. Mr. EI Bayar stated he is working closely with City staff and the issue will be studied as part of the overap neighborhood parking strategy and TDM program requirements. Commissioner 38 Winterer noted that subterranean parking is expensive and asked if some of the building massing could be set aside if less parking was built. Mr. EI Bayar stated that this is part of what still needs to be reviewed. Acting Chair Newbold asked about the affordability aspect for the residential units and why 30% workforce housing is being proposed. Mr. EI Bayar explained fhe proposed two-thirds market-rate housing and one-third affordable units, however these numbers are all up for negotiation. Mr. Goldsmith asked the Commission for direction on the level of affordable units desired. Acting Chair Newbold asked about the retail component and what was requested by nearby residents. Mr. EI Bayar stated the residents did not really request any specific types of retail. [The Commission took a break from 9:28 p.m. 9:38 p.m.] The following members of the public addressed the Commission: Eric Shapiro, David Engelberg, Howard Ganz, Paul Rosenstein, Catherine Eldridge, Christel Andersen, Jack Walter, and Gregg Heacock. One member of the public, David Latham, was not present when his name was called. Mr. Goldsmith spoke in response to the public comments. He commented on the TMD program, the master planning process for the Area Plan, and programming of the open space. Commissioner Koning asked Mr. Goldsmith what is located on the property to the south. A member of the audience stated the property is occupied by the Gas Company. Acting Chair Newbold closed the public hearing. She addressed the audience and stated that this meeting is the very beginning of the Development Agreement process and it is the Commission's task to vote on whether to move the process forward to the City Council with a recommendation to start the Development Agreement process. Commissioner Parry commented on the proposed extension of streets through the site, which were described as "slow streets," and the public's fear that the streets will become speedways through their residential neighborhoods. He asked Ms. Fogarty to comment on other ideas for the slow street concept. Ms. Fogarty stated there two street extensions proposed: Yale Street will not be connected and is basically for Fire Department access; and Pennsylvania Avenue is still being reviewed by the traffic consultants. Ms. Yeo commented that for other projects in the area, staff is looking at ways to change the character of adjacent street, including how they are used, and this is part of an on-going parking study. Commissioner Parry asked if the EIR for the LUCE got into details that would help the Commission. Ms. Yeo stated this area will be studied as part of the area plan EIR. Commissioner Parry asked if the Commission recommends 39 the City Council move forward with this Development Agreement, can improved infrastructure be part of the final Development Agreement. Ms. Fogarty suggested this request be evaluated as part of the area plan as this project will not be moving forward as quickly as the area plan. She stated that the desire is to have access, not cut-through streets for vehicles. Commissioner Winterer asked staff to refresh his memory on where Village Trailer Park is in their Development Agreement process. Ms. Yeo stated that project is mid-way through the EIR process and a draft EIR should be released early in 2011 with public hearings in the spring.- Commissioner Winterer commented on the community's concern that there is no area plan for this portion of the City as yet and there are numerous Development Agreement proposals near this site. He also commented on the importance of protecting the Village Trailer Park residents. Commissioner Winterer expressed concern that the proposed project utilizes the maximum building envelope permitted in the new LUCE, which seems too massive, and suggested reducing the floors of the rear building to four stories. He also expressed concern with the Colorado Avenue elevation, which is too tall in comparison to the residential buildings across the street. He appreciated the generous outdoor space, but is not satisfied with the affordable housing aspect. He stated he would support continuing this item for a few months so options for the Village Trailer Park can be explored as well as the other adjacent projects and for progress on the specific plan. Commissioner Pugh commented that he sees good intentions, but they are not being fully realized in this design. He recommended more thought be given to the proposed uses and that the buildings compliment the neighborhood to the north. He expressed concerns about the buildings footprints, shade and shadows issues, and the project should see if it can achieve "no new net trips" with its adjacency to the Bergamot Transit stop. He also had concerns with the proposed buildings height, massing, and relationship to the neighborhood. Commissioner Pugh stressed the need for sustainable buildings and a quality project. He also suggested the rear building height be reduced by one story to allow for greater floor-to-floor heights and large floor plates and try to create more daylight for the subterranean parking garage. He concluded by saying nothing is insurmountable and he hopes the initial good intentions are fulfilled. Commissioner Parry commented on the Development Agreement float-up process and recommendation to City Council. He also commented on the aggressive Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program; the proposed new roadways; issues with the plaza design; suggestion for wider sidewalks for walkability; request for more architectural flair; massing on Colorado Avenue and possible elimination of fourth floor or move to other portion of site to vary building 40 heights; need for affordable housing on-site; and suggestion that local arts organization manage the live/work units. Commissioner Koning stated the comments have been excellent. He cited the benefits to the City from this project including 170 housing units and employee live/work units. He commented on a book by David Owen, Green Metropolis. He also commented about traffic impacts and the great benefit of the proposed new roadways that end in T-intersections and limit cut-through traffic in the neighborhood. Commissioner Koning expressed the need for creative design, for creating a transition between the residential neighborhood and the proposed project. He also expressed the opinion that the proposed overhangs will create much needed shade and shadow. He commented on the heights proposed, agreeing with other Commissioners that they need to be re-examined. He concluded by suggesting the design team look at German requirements for buildings and daylight. Commissioner Kennedy commented on the proposed building massing as mentioned in the staff report as well as the on-site workforce and affordable housing. Acting Chair Newbold expressed the opinion that this is like "the cart before the horse" since the area plan has not been developed yet and there are not enough community benefits included in the proposal. She stated that the project should exceed the affordable housing requirements and the proposed units should have a greater variety of sizes and be family oriented. She expressed concern that the TDMs rely on the arrival of the Expo Light Rail and adding new streets. Acting Chair Newbold stated she liked the plaza at first, however when she thought about other large projects (Water Garden and Yahoo Center), she grew concerned. She commented on neighbors concerns regarding increased traffic from the project, but did not necessarily agree with them. She concluded her remarks by commented on the slow streets, which would be great for children to play on. She asked for a motion. Commissioner Winterer commented on the proposed plaza, contrasting it to the Edgemar development on Main Street which is a good gathering space of intimate scale. He made a motion to recommend the City Council continue this projecf for several months and the developer return with more refinements based on feedback from the Commission and staff. He stated the developer needs to define the project's vision. Commissioner Parry asked if the developer wanted to comment on the motion. Mr. Goldsmith stated that the concerns raised are appreciated and that the plaza is key to the project desigri. He commented that the Development Agreement process is very slow and the EIR process takes approximately one year followed by more public hearings, all of which is a natural pause in the process. He urged 41 the Commission to allow the development team to move forward in process and expressed the desire to work, to the extent possible, on the area plan. Acting Chair Newbold asked staff if, when the EIR process begins, the project needs to be more fully formed than at this current stage. Ms. Yeo stated that the exact project does not need to be set when the EIR process begins and the EIR studies the outside parameters using basics of the development (such as heights and square footage). Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum agreed with Ms. Yeo and added that the EIR process has built into it that the nature of the project may change and additional analysis may be required along with additional public review. Ms. Fogarty agreed with counsel and stated the EIR sets outside perimeters and, if the developer changed the project substantially (adding square footage), then a new EIR would be needed. Acting Chair Newbold summed up the comments by saying the EIR could be on a project the Commission would not want or approve. Commissioner Winterer expressed the opinion that the public is better served by knowing more about project. Commissioner Koning .stated that the Commission is only making a recommendation to the City Council and there is plenty of opportunity for improving the project. He expressed confidence that the development team has heard the Commission's concerns and comments and changes will be made to the project. He stated he would- not vote for Commissioner Winterer's recommendation as it is not necessary. Commissioner Kennedy seconded Commissioner Winterer's motion Commissioner Parry asked for clarification on the motion, if the intention is that the developer returns after the area plan is completed, however the EIR process should start during this time. Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum clarified that this is a "float-up" which is done prior to the filing of the Development Agreement application and is an opportunity for the developer to understand whether or not the City is interested in pursuing the formal Development Agreement. He stated the motion is recommending the City Council hold off on the Development Agreement process. He also stated that the developer has the right to file for a Development Agreement regardless of the outcome of this float-up or City Council decision. Commissioner Koning made a substitute motion to recommend the City Council move forward with the Development Agreement process, including the Commission's comments and concerns. He stated this has been a courtesy review and this can be a great process. Commissioner Pugh seconded the substitute motion 42 Commissioner Koning made a motion to continue past 11:00 p.m. at 11:08 p.m. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Winter and approved by voice vote: Commissioner Parry asked Commissioner Winterer if he had any amendments to his motion and Commissioner Winterer explained his rationale for his motion to continue. Acting Chair Newbold suggested the developer hold a community meeting after the area plan is completed. Ms. Fogarty stated the developer wishes to begin the Development Agreement and EIR process, but they can also hold another community meeting. Commissioner Koning commented that there will be community meetings as part of the area plan process, so the neighborhood should be well served. The substitute motion was approved by the following vote: AYES: Koning, Newbold, Parry, Pugh; NOES: Kennedy, Winterer; ABSENT: Ries. 9. FUTURE COMMISSION AGENDA ITEMS: None. 10. PUBLIC INPUT: None. 11. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 11:14 p.m. APPROVED: APRIL 27, 2011 43 ATTACHMENT C REVIEW OF PROJECT COMPLIANCE WITH LUCE POLICIES 44 2848-2912 Colorado Avenue (Roberts Center) Review of Project Compliance with LUCE Policies ;~: ~.. . .~_ MIXED USE CREkTIUE Dt~SRCCT GQALS AND POLCIIES (CHAPTER 2.6) LUCE GOAL/POLICY --~ ~RG. # ;_;~ 4ONIPLY,? ISSUES_ ,,,' Goal D24: Create atransit-focused employment center with mixed-use creative arts and a neighborhood that provides a quality transition to residential neighborhoods to the north, east and south. D24.1 Capitalize on the Expo Light Rail 2.639 Yes, with Project is a mixed-use project that station at Bergamot to create amixed-use some includes creative arts offices, neighborhood with a diverse mix of creative refinement residential, and local-serving uses. arts facilities and residential types as well as of uses Uses could be further refined to local-serving uses to establish a 17 hours per include more arts-related facilities. day 7 days per week neighborhood. D24.3 Provide active recreation and 2.639 Yes Provides a plaza as central gathering gathering places, and passive open space in place and passive walking paths the form of new parks, plazas and ground around project and along western level landscaped open spaces. property line. D24.4 Encourage appropriate uses including 2.639 Yes, with Project provides broad mix of uses existingjob-rich uses, new arts-related future including creative arts offices, local- industries, neighborhood-serving retail and details to be serving retail, and range of housing. services, and affordable, workforce and provided Size of rear building footprint may not market-rate housing. necessarily support flexible space necessary for smaller arts-related uses. D24.8 Design buildings with a varietyof 2.639 Further Buildings have made significant heights, and architectural elements and design progress in terms of skyline variation shapes to create visual interest. Walls should refinements and building articulation however, have meaningful combinations of materials are needed further refinements are necessary to and three-dimensional articulation to fully comply with this policy. engage the eye. D24.9 Scale buildings to the pedestrian to 2.639 Yes, with Project provides active uses at the create an enhanced sidewalk shopping or future ground floor showing intent to walking environment. Include enhanced design provide pedestrian-oriented features materials and detailing on ground floor details to be such as awnings and entryways. facades along pedestrian ways. provided D24.10 Encourage swell-landscaped 2.639 Yes, with Concepts show intent to provide streetscape that facilitates pedestrian future landscaped plaza and street trees on movement and creates places for people to design Pennsylvania Avenue extension and gather.. details to be new road. provided D24.11 Locate building entrances and 2.639 Yes Project's primary facades face the primary facades facing and adjacent to the new streets and building entrances perimeter streets or the new are located along sidewalks or off vehicle/pedestrian streets to encourage an central plaza. interesting and varied streetscape with places for people to gather. 45 =;MD<ED USECREATIVE DISTRICT GOALS AND F.CIIES (CHAPTER 2 6j ' LUCEGOdL/POLICY„,~,~r,, ;,>; =PG.# COMP4Y'~:,' CSSUES,,,' ~ D24.14 Explore means to sustain Village 2.6-40 Ongoing The property owners have met to Trailer Park's economic viability by discussions explore feasibility of amulti-property incorporating it into a larger multi-property as part of master plan that includes retention of master plan, if feasible, or by the transfer of Develop- Village Trailer Park. See discussion in development rights that have as a goal, ment staff report. preserving existing housing as an integral Agreement .part of a new mixed-use project. process Goal D25: Enhance the circulation and transportation in the Mixed-Use Creative District with pedestrian, vehicular and transit improvements. D25.1 Plan new streets to form an 2.6-40 Yes, with Project provides the space for interconnected grid of vehicle/pedestrian further Pennsylvania Avenue extension and streets and bicycle paths to facilitate design new road with adjacent property to circulation in the district. Design the length, details to be the east. Specifc street design details width and shape of blocks to provide provided are yet to be determined. convenient and safe circulation and access for pedestrians and vehicles, recognizing the constraints and opportunities presented by the existing development. D25.2 Provide for 60-65 feet of dedicated 2.6-40 Yes Project provides at least 62' of width easement rights-of-way streets to for two new streets. accommodate appropriate circulation and infrastructure. ,. w ~ ~ ~~ - CtTYWILiE'LAND USE GOALS AND'~OL[CIES (CHAPTER 2~1~~:, -. , ' , ~ ... ~~; ', ... ..tip.=~~w.. ~ .;.. LUCE GOAC~EdtIGY; , ~~fr,7E COMPLY x',;' ; , ISSUES/NOTES GOALLU2: Integrate Land Use and Transportation for Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emission Reduction -Integrate land use and transportation, carefully focusing new development on transit-rich boulevards and in the distriMS, 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. LU2.4 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 the transit stations. amount of on-site affordable housing would range from 10% 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. 46 `~:.° ~~ ~'~"° CITYWIDE LAND USE GOALS AND POLICIES (CHAPTER 2:1}' ` ~~`~ ~', ~° " ~`~>,~` ,{, , ; LUCE GOAL/POLICY PG. # :COMPLY? ISSUES/NOTES LU2.5 Vehicle Trip Reduction. Achieve 2.1-12 Anticipated At this early stage, details on an vehicle trip reduction through to comply appropriate TDM program have not comprehensive strategies that designate yet been proposed by the applicant land uses, establish development and street however, it is expected that the design standards, implement sidewalk, project will be required to have a TDM bicycle and roadway improvements, expand program that commits to a target transit service, manage parking, and reduction in project-generated trips strengthen Transportation Demand from ITE rates, similar to other Management programs that support projects in the Bergamot area. The accessibility by transit, bicycle and foot, and TDM program would also be expected discourage vehicle trips at a district-wide to include measures which have been level. Monitor progress using tools that shown to be most effective at vehicle integrate land use and transportation trip reduction, such as parking factors. Increase bicycle and pedestrian cashout, parking pricing, and connectivity in transit districts and adjust subsidized transit passes. This bus and shuttle services to ensure success of program would be subject to annual the transit system. Development Agreement monitoring. LU2.6 Active Spaces. Focus new 2.1-12 Yes, with The proposed project complies with development in defined districts to create further part of the policy because it is located active spaces that can support diverse local- design and within the Mixed Use Creative District. serving retail and services, walkability, arts operational The project includes two new roads and culture. Require, whenever possible, details to be that are intended to be slow, new development to provide convenient and provided neighborhood streets that will direct pedestrian and bicycle cpnnections. accommodate pedestrians and cyclists. The project is also anticipated to include local-serving retail and daily services along with the potential for community events on the central plaza. 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 intransit-accessible areas as part of a citywide trip reduction strategy. LU3.1 Reduce Regional-Serving Commercial 2.1-13 Yes, with The project proposes creative arts Uses. Reduce regional office and commercial further office, residential, and local-serving uses and encourage smaller floor plate office design retail near major transit. However, uses, housing and local-serving retail and details to be the floor plate of the rear creative services. provided office building is not consistent with the policy to create some smaller spaces that could accommodate a variety of tenants. GOAL LOSS: 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. 47 -.. CITYWIDE LAND~USE GOALSANd P©L~Cj~S ~C~H APTER 2 ~} _,` `z,;,; ~' ..,.,... ,. . u.:~~;u... ,. .. ~.._v. ~..::.. :: EUCE60AL/POLICY ~ ~ ;,PC`,.#~~'~~ COMPLY,?~ ~'.'ISSUESf~~~C ~~ LU15.4 Open and inviting Development. 2.1-20 Further While the project demonstratesthe Encourage new development to be open and design and intent to ensure public accessibility to inviting with visual and physical operational the project site with active ground permeability, connections to the existing details to be floor uses, physical connections street and pedestrian network, and provided through the site, and a central open connections to the neighborhoods and the space; details are to be provided as to broader community. how the open space will be activated and the natures of uses that will attract the community. LUS5.5 Pedestrian and Bicycle Connectivity. 2.1-20 Yes, with The project includes the portion of Encourage the design of sites and buildings further the Pennsylvania Avenue extension to facilitate easy pedestrian- and bicycle- design and a new road that both provide oriented connections and to minimize the details to be room for accommodate pedestrian separation created by parking lots and provided and bicycle connections. driveways. LU15.7 Street-Level Pedestrian-Oriented 2.1-20 Yes, with The project demonstrates intent to Design. Buildings in the mixed-use and further provide active uses at the ground commercial areas should generally be design floor and pedestrian-oriented located at the back of the sidewalk or the details to be features such as awnings and varied property line (street front) and include active provided ground floor heights. Additionally, commercial uses on the ground floor. Where proposed live/work units along the a residential use occupies the ground floor, it western side of the project should be set back from. the property line, be incorporate front doors and porches located one half level above the street or adjacent to the walking path. incorporate design features to provide privacy for the unit. Front doors, porches and stoops are encouraged as part of orienting residential units to the street. LU15.8 Building Articulation. Building 2.1-21 Further While the project has progressed in facades should be well designed with design providing more significant building appropriate articulation in the form of refinements articulation, further refinements are setbacks, offsets, projections and a mix of are needed needed particularly through the architectural materials and elements to middle of the site and for the rear establish an aesthetically pleasing pattern. building. Large areas of glass above the ground floor require special design consideration. Highly reflective materials are to be avoided, and dark or reflective glass is prohibited. LU15.9 Pedestrian-Oriented Design. 2.1-21 Yes, with With the incorporation of a clear Buildings should incorporate pedestrian- further active, base, the project concepts scaled elements with durable, quality design demonstrate intent to comply with materials and detailing located on the lower details to be this policy. stories adjacent to the pedestrian. provided 48 n,. CITYWID~~`LAI~D USE GOALS AND POC41CIE5 (CHAPTER 2.1) ~ ~ , ~'. ~ „` §~~; ;LUCEGOAL/POLICY ~ PG.#. ;"'COMpLY'~ ~` „~ ISSUES/NOTES LU15.10 Roofline Variation. Buildings 2.1-21 Further While the project has progressed should be designed with a variety of heights design significantly in providing additional and shapes to create visual interest while refinements skyline variation, this could be further maintaining a generally consistent overall are needed improved particularly on Building 2 street front. To achieve this goal, and Building 4, two of the largest development standards should provide buildings on the site. flexibility to encourage buildings with interesting silhouettes and skylines, and the primary building fagade shall not be lower than the designated minimum street fagade height. LU15.11 Building Fayades and Step Backs. 2.1-21 Further The project provides a significant Buildings should generally conform to the design stepback along Colorado Avenue but minimum and maximum requirements for refinements the transition to the lower-scale the street facade height established for their are needed neighborhood to the north could be designated area. Portions of a building further improved by ensuring that the fagade higher than the street frontage, 35 4`" story mass is not perceived from feet for most mixed-use areas, shall step the ground level. Additional back from the fagade of the floor below in a stepbacks could also be provided on manner that will minimize the visual bulk of the western elevation of Building 2, the overall building similar to the established adjacent to the walking path. 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 or standards for the building mass above the streetwall shall be established in the zoning ordinance GOAL LU16: Sustainable Urban Form -Assure that buildings are sustainable, are environmentally sound and contribute to the City's urban form. LU16.1 Design Buildings with Consideration 2.1-23 Further The floor plate of the rear building still of Solar Patterns. In designing new design needs to demonstrate that it is buildings, consider the pattern of the sun refinements optimized for natural daylight access and the potential impact of building mass on are needed to interior spaces. Further the solar habitable outdoor spaces and adjacent access for the walking path along the structures in order to minimize shadows on western portion of the project needs public spaces at times of the day and year to be considered relative to when warmth is desired, and provide shade appropriate stepbacks on the western at times when cooling is appropriate, and elevation of Building 2. minimize solar disruption on adjacent properties. 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. 49 CITYWIDE LAND U ",~., LUCEGOAL/P041CYy '.,, ,,,,, S~B~G,OACS ANq POLICIES (CHAPTER 2.1) ~y~xi ~~ ; ,,,, PG #,~ ;:~~COMPLY? ISSUESjNOTES' '.;;, ,`;~,'~. LU19.2 Balanced Modes. Design and 2.1-24 Yes The project provides two new streets operate streets with all users in mind that provide the space to support and including bicyclists, transit users, drivers and active recreational environment by pedestrians of all ages and abilities. accommodating pedestrians, cyclists, and slow-moving vehicles. LU19.3 Streets as Open Space. As streets 2.1-25 Yes Same as above. are the Gity's most extensive open space network, seek opportunities to expand the use of streets, alleys arid other public rights- of-way for open space, passive recreational use and landscaping. 50 ATTACHMENT D EXAMPLES OF GUIDELINES FOR ARTIST LIVE/WORK AND LIVE/WORK MODEL ORDINANCE 51 Example of artist live/work design guidelines (Boston Redevelopment Authority) BostanRedevelopmentAuthority Artist:Live/4VorkSpecific Design Guidelines 1. Suace-Reouirements: (i) A minimum of r,ooo square feet oflve/work space for one artist is required.. (h) Work-onlyspacesmustbeatleasttSOSF. (iu) Where segazate hve and work spaces are provided, the minimum combined area must be i,ooo SF. 2. Accessibility: (i) Studiosandhallwaysshouldbe.ofoversizewidthtoaccommodate the shipping of large works. {ii) Loading bays should be located directly adjacent to a direct route to elevators. (iii) Freight elevators should be provided to carry oversize/overweight objects; and allow for noise; weekend and late night deliveries. (IV} All space should beADAadaptableandareasonablenumber should be.ADA accessible. 3. Securi :Security should reflect the needs ofartists who have on-site sales, employees and customers, 4. Fire Safety; (i) Fire protection systems should include the ability to address industrial accidents. (ii) Fire insulation should be adequate for open flames. {iii) .Live-work space, particularly those where there ai'e children living in the unit, should include an appropriate separation between live and work areas (such as-a$re wall). (iv) Electrical capacity should meet thevarious needs of different art forms. 5. Liehtine: (i) The window-to roomratio needs to be adequate for natural light The ideal source of light for workspace is from the north. (ii) Interior or borrowedhght" is especially important for deepspaces. Track hghtirigforstudio photographyJdance/theater is preferred. Artistliive/YVork Space Design GuideImes 6/xgfo3 FormoreinFormation abouttlie&ostah Redevelopmert$uthority's Artist Space Initiative , uontac[: Heidi Burb~dge, SemorPro7ect Manager. (biz) 9a8-g3o6 52 6. Noise: wall .and floorconstruction needs appropriate "sound transmission w- efficient" to prevent the transmission of sound from machinery, equipment or repetitive tasks. ~. Indoor air auali (i) Special ventilationandairhandingtechniquesshouldbetailored to ensure the safety and health of resident, visitors and neighbors. (ii} Ail spaces need to provide venting via the outside wall while providing a central ventilation system to the roof. 8. Ceflina heiahGs: Should allow for the creation of large works and-large equipment, including machinery and lighting. 9. Floors: (f) Should be constructed to provide extra weight-bearing capacity. Iris not necessary that they be highly finished: (ii) An upgmdepackage (sprung woodfloors) for dance/theater performers shou]d be mc]uded. So: Minimum Fit-Out: (i) The minimum level. offit-out that isrequired to obtain a. Certificate of Occupancy Permit from the Inspectional Services.Degartment and that meets artists' needs for open and flexible space is desired. (ii) Plumbing should includeeasy installation of slop sinks if needed. (iii) FroJect should be fully wired for new technologies. it. DumpsterCapacity;Oversizedumpstercapacity~shou]dbeprovided. tz: Toxicand Hazardous Material Disnosalc Containers should he provided for the disposal of toxic/hazardous materials (such as turpentine/painf5). r3. Common Areas: (i) Common space or meeting space may include display space for both art work and rehearsal. (ii) On-site laundry shouldbe,provided. (iii) Some artists will consider shared baths/kitchens if it reduces unit cast. (iv) Access for outdoor v<~ork area should be provided to all tenants. Artist Live/Work Space Design Guidelines -. 6(vg/o3 For more information about the Boston RedevelapmentAuflorit}~s Artist Space Initiative , contact Heidi BurbidgeSeniorPro~ect Mar~ger:(6a7j:9ffi-4306 53 Model live/work ordinance (American Planning Association) 54 4.2 MODEL LIVE/WORK ORDINANCE Thee notionof residents awing and working ona singlepremise may seem novel in the context of modem urbaniife, but it was the noun until the early decades of the twentieth century. Storekeepers, trades people,: doctors, lawyers, and others commonly lived upstairs from or adjacent to their shops or offices. Awrde range of economic, societal, andpolihcal factors resulted in such aaangements'becoming uncommon and even outlawed. Rapid suburbanisaiion, increased car dependence,.corrtinued adoption of Euclidean-type. zoning that called for separating land uses bycategory, a burgeoning middle class, and a desire on the part of urbanites forrelief &otkt oveterowdurg and urban pollution all contributed to such change: Livelwork unitsemerged in.the 1970s. asmanufacturers-moved out of large iridustrfal buildings and warehouses m downtown areas and artists began to occupyand use these spaces. By the late 1980s, a number of cities, including New York, Boston, Chicago, and San Francisco, began to legalize the live/work concept by adapqug building and zoning regulafions to accommodate tlrem. This era of loft and warehouse conversions coincided with significant private investment in adaptive reuse of the structures for all manner.ofuses:: 'SoontheaRists were joined small businesses,. restaurants, personal and professional service businesses, eoffeeshops, galleries, and other sole-proprietors who wanted tolive neaz where they worked. In the 25 or more years since this trend began; many warehouse: and manufacturing districts, including Printer's Row in Chicago, Lorimer Square in Denver; andthe South-of-Market districfin San Francisco have become some of the most pricey and sought-after residential and employment locationsand entertainment destinations. Communities today aze once.. again embracmgmany features of traditional town planning, including allowing a mix of kanduses both within a district and within a building. The modem iteration ofthe aivelwark option existsin iwo distinct forms: (1) home occupations and (2) live/work units. A home occupation ordinance is intended to allow modest, low-impact business or commercial uses within a residence in a residential zone. Such uses are subject to significant limitations on the permitted extent of commercial activities,.hot]rs of operation, parking and number of employees to ensure that such uses do not upset the residential character of the neighborhood. ht contrast, alive/work ordinance may allow incidental residential uses within commercial, office, or industrial buildings and zones. - Wltere suchuses are allowed does depend on whatthe city's objective is for allowing such uses. at all. MazkTroxeloftheSeattlePlanningDepattrnentsaysthatthelivelworkconceptas appliedahroughthe.Scattle zoning ordinance-would be more aptly named a "work/live" ordinance because thee. emphasis is on maintainingthe-commercial or industrial chazacter of the district while aliowmg'some residences. Seattle also prohibits live(woik units in mdusttiat zones'. in adherence with the city°s policy to preserve industrial lands.€or industrial uses. At the same timethe city recognizes that entrepreneurs and creative professionals in new mediaand=more traditional businesses are. seeking ways to integrate their home life and work life, and improved teclmology has allowed. workers to telecommute fromhome. Tohelp foster livelwork units; tlt8 ciTy allows them in all commercial districts (Troxe12004}. The strategy of wanting to retain industrial land for industrial uses is understandable, especially where there is a strong demand for residential uses. Alternatively; live-work ordinances do help 55 older cities with a surplus of underusedor industrial land to revitalize such azeas by providing development alternatives. - Primazy Smar[Growth Principle Addressed Mixed land Use.. Secondary Smart, Growth Principle Addressed: Range of housingchoices:: 101. Definitions As`used n.this: ordinance: "Livehvork unit" or "livelwork space" means. a building or spaces within a building used jointly forcommercial and residential purposes. where the residential use of the space is secondary or accessory to: the primary use as a place of work. [orj "Live work unit"-means a structure or pomon ofa structure;' (a) Thatcombmes a commercial oripanufactunngacGvityallowed in [he zone with a residential living space fortfie owner of tfie commercial or manufacturing business, or the owner's employee, and that peison's}iousehold; (b) Where[he resident owner or employee of the business is responsible for the commercial or martufacturmg achvny performed, and (c) Whzreahe commercial or manufacturing activiTy conducted takes place subject W a valid business hcznse associated with the premises. 102. Purposes. Tite':purposes nfthis ordinance are to7 (a) Provide for fhe appropriate decrelopmentdf imits that incorporate both living andworlting space (b) Provide flexibility for the development: of IiveCwark units; particulazly within existing buildings; (c) Provide locations where appropriate newbusinesses oan startup;, (d):provide opportunities for people to live in mixed-useindus[rial and commercial areas where compatible with existing uses; (e) Protect existing andpotential industrial uses and nearby residential uses from conflicts with each other; and (f) Ensure that the axteriordesign-oflivelwork buildings is compatible with the extericrdestgn of ctimmercial, industrial, and residential buildingsinthe area, Seas 4.2 ModelLivelWork Ordinance Model Smar'CLandDevelapmentRegutatians Interim PASReport ®American Planning Association, March 2606 56 while remaining consistent with the predominant workspace chazacterof live/work buildings. 163. Y4?ttereLivelWarkUnits Are Permitted - (1) Live/work units aze permitted in all commercial [and manufacturing] zones Conrnrent: This provrstortallows the apfron of allowing Zive/work units in manufacturng ctr industrial zones. The city of Oakland authorizes this; Seattle does not. Seattle's deeisnonao limit such uses to commercial districts reflects a city policy ofprotecting manufacturing districts from encroachment and displacement from residential or other uses. Seattle does; however, conditionally permrt artfst's studio/dwellings-which are regulated separately fromgeneral Zive/warkunts-inmanufacturing zones. (2) Any;eommercial usepermittedinthc zoning district applicable to the property is permitted in thelive/work unit (3) Live}workuuifs at streetleval aze prohibited where single-purpose residential struchrresaze prohibited. (4} y4hereperinitfed, live/workunits located atstreet level are subject to the dovolupmerit standards for ground-floor retail or commercial establishments asfollaws, and.. any additional staridardsfor ground-floor commercial establishments provided insection of the [zoning ordinance]: Comment: The pzerpose ofFhe followingprovisians is to allow liie/work units in neighborhood commercial districts without compromising the districts' vibrant commercial environment. Seattle has several neighborhood commercial streets wherein single purpose residential buildings are prohibited. In those areas, street-Zeve1 Zive-work units are prohibited, but are allowed in the rear or on upper floors. Seattle's ordinance also contains provisions for the appearance and function,ofstreet-Zevel live/work units adapted for this model. (a) Aminimum of 80 percent of a structure's street front facade at street level shall be occup#ed byriomesidential uses. (b) A minimum of 51 percent of the portion of a structure's street front facade that contains requirednomesidential use shall be ator above sidewalk grade. (c) Indistriots where live/work_un$s are permitted atstreetlevel, th'81iVelwork unitshalt havea minimumflooT-#o-floor height of [13]feaY. (d).In districts where.Iive/woikuuits aze pemitted. at street level, pazking for live-work units on neighborhood commercial streets and in mined-use zones is prohibited in front of the building. (e) Live/work units drat exceed [2,000] sgrraze feet must have at least two exits. [(f) Within each live/work unit, the living azea shall not exceed [one-third] of the total floor azea of the unit.] Sec. 4.2 Model Live/Work Ordinance Model SmarfLand Development Regulah'ons Interim PAS Report ®American Plannurg Associatioq March 2006 57 Cmnment: ~%ot every Zive/work oadnareee cnntain.r a required Zivtng areco`ic-asking area ratio or proportion. Oakland, Catiformce, requires a ra6a of one-to-three ltvmg tp-xtorking area. In an effort to provide flexibility, Seattle opted nor to set proportion standards. 104. Business License Required At least one resident in each live/work unit shall: maintain a valid business license and [zoning permit] for a business on the premises. Conunent: N'of all businesses mayrequire a valid business 1-e'cense. Forex~antple, an artist may rmt be required to haveone. 105. Parking For livelwork units of less than [2,500]. square feet, one parking space is required far each unit. For live/work units greater than [2,500] squaze feet, required parking will be based on the applicable parking standazd for the: nonresidential use or the closest similaz use as determined by the [zoning administrator]. Comment: The relatively non-stringentparking standards provided here reflect thefac6 that a person occupying a relatively small hve£workunitmay have less use for a car given that.he-or she works on the premises. Larger units may have additional residents as well as employees, and thus must provide more parking. References Berkeley, Califomia, City of. Zoning Code. Chapter 23E.20 LivelLVOrk Provisions [accessed November 4, 2004]: www.ci.berkelev.ca.us/bmcBerke]ev Zonine CadeLSub-Title 23E/201index:html Live/Work Institute, available at wwwf live-worlecornlrevsedrlwr/. Oakland, Califomia, City of Planning Cade, Title 17,17 102.190 Joint living.arid: work quarters [accessed December 27, 2004]: http./lbnciserver.netlcodesloaklandf San Jose, Califomia, City of.-:Zoning Ordinance, Section 20.4Q 130, Live WoikUnits [accessed November4, 2004]: wwwsanjoseca govlvlanninelndf(zonine. code.ndf Seattle, Washington; City of. Live-Work Units; Ordinance No. 12196 (passed June 23, 2003), [accessed November 4, 2004]: http:lhvww:ciseattle.wa.usidclulnews720030715a.aso Mark Troxel, Senior Planner; City of Seattle, telephone interview, February 26, 2004. Sec. 4.2 Model Live/Work Ordinance ~ 4 Model SmartLandDevelapmentRegulah'oru Interim PAS Report ®AmericanPla"".v~ Association, March 2006 58 ATTACHMENT E 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 May 7, 2009 Other: 59 NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE SANTA MONICA CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Discuss a Development Agreement proposal for amixed-use concept comprised of creative arts, residential and retail uses as well as public open space. 2848-2912 Colorado Avenue APPLICANT: E. D.D.G. Inc PROPERTY OWNER: Roberts Business Park Santa Monica LLC A public hearing will be held by the City Council to consider the following request: Discuss the applicant's Development Agreement proposal for an approximately 250,000 sf mixed-use project concept consisting of: • Approximately 100,000 sf of production and post production studio and creative arts space; • Approximately 11,500 sf of Ground floor neighborhood-serving retail and restaurant space; • Approximately 10,000 sf gym/sports center; • Up to 170 housing units totaling approximately 50% of the project's total floor area; • Ground-floor public plaza allowing pedestrian access through and around the property; • Street improvements to include: • New north-south access road along the subject property's east property line; • Fair share portion of Pennsylvania Avenue extension between Stewart and Stanford Streets; and • A two-level subterranean parking garage. DATERIME: Tuesday, July 12, 2011, AT 6:45 PM LOCATION: City Council Chambers, Second Floor Santa Monica City Hall 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, California HOW TO COMMENT The City of Santa Monica encourages public comment. You may comment at the City Council public hearing, or by writing a letter. Written information will be given to the City Council at the meeting. Address your letters to: City Clerk Re: 2848-2912 Colorado Avenue (Roberts Center) 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 file, please contact Jing Yeo at (310) 458- 8341, or by a-mail at iing.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 publica pars revisar applicaciones proponiendo desarrollo en Santa Monica. Si deseas mas informacion, favor de Ilamar a Carmen Gutierrez en la Division de Planificacion al numero (310) 458- 8341. 60 ATTACHMENT F APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL NARRATIVE AND CONCEPT PLANS This attachment is also available for review at the City Clerk's office and the Libraries. 61