Loading...
SR-12-10-2013-8BCity Council Meeting: December 10, 2013 Agenda Item: 85 To: Mayor and City Council From: Andy Agle, Director of Housing and Economic Development Subject: 4th /5th and Arizona Exclusive Negotiating Agreement Recommended Action Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA) with the team led by Metropolitan Pacific Capital, Clarett West, and DLJ West Capital ( "Metro Pacific team ") to develop the City -owned property between 4th and 5th Streets, south of Arizona Avenue ( "Site "). Executive Summary On August 27, 2013, staff recommended that Council enter into exclusive negotiations with the Metro Pacific team based on the selection panel's determination that their proposal best addressed the evaluation criteria and development objectives outlined in the RFP for the 4th /5th and Arizona development site. Council directed staff to request additional information from two of the three applicant teams —the Metro Pacific Capital team and the Related California team —and to report back to Council. Upon evaluating the teams' responses to follow -up questions, the selection panel determined that the team led by Metropolitan Pacific Capital, Clarett West, and DLJ West Capital continued to best address the RFP evaluation criteria, development objectives, and Council's identified priorities. Staff recommends that Council authorize staff to enter into exclusive negotiations with the Metro Pacific team and to initiate community outreach, in anticipation of negotiating entitlements and ground -lease terms. Background The Site consists of nine contiguous parcels comprising 112,000 square feet. The parcels were purchased by the City between 2007 and 2010. On December 14, 2010, Council endorsed guiding principles for the Site and approved initiation of a community planning process. In March 2011, the Planning Commission and Downtown Santa Monica Inc. held two community workshops to solicit community input on the future of the Site. The results of those meetings and an update on the visioning process were presented to Council at a Study Session on May 10, 2011. 1 Another community workshop was held on January 26, 2012, to discuss alternatives for development of the Site within the context of the Downtown Specific Plan process. On April 10 2012, Council authorized the issuance of a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) to solicit development team qualifications for the Site. On November 13, 2012, Council directed staff to issue an RFP to the top three teams that were selected through the RFQ. At that time, Council adopted development objectives that were incorporated into the RFP, including: • the development of programmable gathering space, • ground -floor retail, restaurant and cultural space, • a mix of uses such as retail, cultural, office, hotel and residential, • exceptional architecture and sustainable design, • public access to views, • a minimum of 339 public parking spaces, a highly flexible development approach, and • the incorporation of concepts identified in the Downtown Specific Plan process. On February 1, 2013, staff issued the RFP to solicit proposals from development teams led by Forest City Development, Metropolitan Pacific Capital, and Related California, and received their proposals on May 1, 2013. The proposals and the RFP are available online at www.smqov.net /4thandarizona. Upon receiving the proposals, staff completed a review and due diligence process. A selection panel comprised of eight City staff members from Planning and Community Development, Community and Cultural Services, Public Works, and Housing and Economic Development, as well as two real estate finance consultants from Keyser Marston Associations (KMA), reviewed the proposals and conducted interviews with the three development teams. Teams responded to questions from the selection panel regarding their proposals and their flexibility to modify certain aspects of proposals to better meet public objectives or address community concerns. The selection panel felt that each of the proposals was thoughtful, creative, well prepared and capable of achieving the public objectives for the site. Staff issued an Information Item on July 10, 2013 summarizing the selection panel's review of each 2 proposal against the selection criteria and recommending selection of the Metro Pacific team comprised of Metropolitan Pacific Capital, Clarett West Development, DLJ Real Estate Capital, and their designers and consultants On August 27 2013, staff recommended and sought Council approval to enter into exclusive negotiations with the Metro Pacific team with direction from Council to pursue affordable housing as part of the development. Council directed staff to pose several follow -up questions to two of the three applicant teams — Metropolitan Pacific Capital and Related California —and to return to Council with additional information. Discussion The following discussion outlines the selection process and the selection panel's review of the Metropolitan Pacific Capital and the Related California teams' proposals, including their responses to follow -up questions posed by Council on August 27 2013. Additional details of the selection panel's initial review of the three proposals, including the Forest City proposal which was not considered for follow -up review, are outlined in the July 10, 2013 Information Item. The following discussion also describes the purview of an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA) and what the next steps would be if Council authorizes initiation of an ENA. Selection Process After receiving the proposals on May 1, 2013, staff completed a thorough review and due diligence process. The selection panel reviewed the proposals according to the selection criteria outlined in the RFP, as follows: Development strategy: understanding of the potential market demand, the existing context, and the development review process; preliminary selection of land uses and product types; integration of public benefits; creation of an iconic, compelling and synergistic development. ® Design approach: architectural excellence; responsiveness to the City's design, sustainability, and circulation objectives. 3 ® Community approach: how the development team would promote community involvement in the project development stages; community /cultural events programming; open /event space programming. ® Financial analysis and capacity: project's economic vitality; anticipated ability to get financing; financial benefit to the City as the property owner. These four broad selection criteria encompass more specific Council- endorsed development objectives and priorities gleaned from community input prior to issuing the RFP. The selection panel was also attentive to the flexibility of the development teams and proposals and their ability to respond to community priorities as the public participation process evolves. Per Council direction, staff issued follow -up questions to the Metro Pacific Capital and Related California teams on September 19, 2013 (questions listed in Attachment A) and received responses on October 21, 2013 (responses available with full proposals at www.smgov.net/4thandarizona). The selection panel reconvened to review the responses. In addition, the City's financial consultant, KMA, reviewed the additional information from the teams with an emphasis on the proposals' economic feasibility and financial benefits to the City. Selection Panel Recommendation The selection panel concluded that the proposal submitted by Metropolitan Pacific Capital, Clarett West, DU West Capital, and team (Metro Pacific team) best responded to the Council- identified development objectives and the RFP selection criteria through their original proposal and their responses to Council's follow -up questions. KMA reconfirmed that the Metro Pacific team has the financial resources and development experience to complete the project. Staff recommends entering into an exclusive negotiating agreement (ENA) with the recommended Metro Pacific team to further advance the development proposal. 11 The Metro Pacific team's proposal responds to Council's adopted development objectives by providing a diverse mix of uses for both the ground floor and upper levels. The proposed development's ground floor is comprised of a major public plaza, smaller public spaces, a cultural space, and a variety of retail spaces, including a marketplace concept at the center of the site. Upper levels are proposed to include a hotel, office space, and residential space, including market -rate and affordable housing. The hotel use would serve as an activity generator to support nearby restaurant and retail establishments in the downtown district. Additionally, the hotel's guests would help activate the project's open spaces during the day and night. The placement of the ground -floor public plaza, which opens to the corner of 4th Street and Arizona Avenue, connects the development effectively to adjacent downtown uses. The project's tiered design creates another large public open space on the second level, as well as additional programmable open spaces on the upper rooftop levels. The proposed 580 public parking spaces exceed the required amount of public parking by over 240 spaces. The proposed design delivers iconic architecture from all elevations, as well as a highly flexible interior space design that could most easily accommodate potential design modifications and adjust to market demand changes in the future. The design is conducive to activating all areas of the site and providing public access to multiple portions of the site. The Metro Pacific team demonstrated a commitment to a high level of community involvement in the project's design development, in the form of a series of community workshops, online resources, and mailings. The community open space would be managed by Biederman Redevelopment Ventures, a special - purpose entity that manages well -known public spaces such as Bryant Park in Manhattan, in conjunction with local partners. The selection panel recognizes the strong team that Related has proposed and values their current experience developing in Santa Monica. However, some elements of the 5 development strategy and the design approach were not as compelling as the Metro Pacific team's proposal, as outlined below and in the July 10, 2013 Information Item. Staff's recommendation to enter into an ENA with the Metro Pacific team does not indicate full endorsement of all aspects of the proposal. The selection panel identified some concerns with the proposal as expressed in the discussion below. At this early stage in the project, it is critical to recognize that the proposal will evolve during the community participation and entitlement process. In that regard, the proposals should be viewed not only a starting point for continued discussion and refinement, but also as an indication of how well each team can respond to established community priorities. The following discussion provides a detailed overview and comparison of the two proposals that Council directed staff to pursue further, and a description of the selection panel's detailed review of project components. The discussion also highlights some of the key tradeoffs involved in decision - making for the site. Proposal Comparison: Development Objectives The July 10, 2013 Information Item outlines the selection panel's review of all three proposals according to the four broad selection criteria stipulated in the RFP. In this report, a more detailed side -by -side comparison of the Metro Pacific team's proposal and the Related California team's proposal is organized according to the nine specific development objectives endorsed by Council on November 13, 2012 and included in the RFP. While the broader selection criteria encompass these specific development objectives, evaluating each proposal through the lens of the development objectives facilitates comparison of each major project component. Following the development objectives discussion is a comparison of the projected fiscal and economic impacts of each development proposal, both in terms of ongoing estimated annual revenue to the City and up -front capital investments. I. 1. Development objective: Open space must be an exceptionally designed, sizable, and programmable gathering space with a well- developed community events management plan to ensure on -site activity throughout the year that will add to the civic life of the community with public events and seasonal activities, such as a winter ice rink. AMMetopolitan Pacrf cicla[ett WestlDLj,Team Related'Cahfornia Tgam Open Space and Management AmountofOpen .. - Totalpublicopenspace 56,764sf - Totalpublicopenspace 36,255sf Space -,- Ground -floor public plaza 20,756sf '.- Ground -floor public plaza 29,235sf '- Ground -floor public pocket parks 10,783sf I- Plaza amphitheater /stair/terrace 3,820sf i- Second -floor public terrace (restricted furs) 12,969sf - ArizonastairAerrace 1,200 at ! - Alleyandhotelentry public 12,256sf - Groundfloorsetbacks 2,000sf Cultural - 12, 000sf cultural use on ground level - interest letters from - 3, 480sf cultural ad gallery on third level at corner of 4th and Amenity/ IZimmerman Children's Museum, Otis College ofAd and Design .Arizona Gathering -4,300 at pocket park as public entrance to cultural space Project - Corner plaza to connect to Promenade and provide visible '-...- Large open space is located within the project, open but Approach to connection to the site for pedestrians , protected from surrounding streets Open Space "- Maximize open space amenities va terraced design - Designed with everyday and special eventuses in mind (utilize (in applicants' -,- Activities on lower levels visible to building tenants; added terrace and stairs) words) securityandengagement - Public space to draw visitors, engage locals, enhance private 'uses, enliven Promenade Open Space - Biederman Redevelopment Ventures (manages BryanlPark, - ManagedbyRelatedincoordinationwith localpartners Management NYC) to manage and coordinatewith local partners !- Sampleprogramalreadydeveloped Plan - Sample program already developed - $397,571 annual mgmtbudget (stabilization) -$860,000 annual mgmt budget (stabilization) Landscaping/ - Terraces have distinctive palettes - Groundscapes of native grasses and shrubs lead to large open Hardscaping '- Ground -floor public areas- palms, benches, groves oftrees, plaza defined bybuilding massing and deciduous trees Planplatformforpublicprogramming -L- shaped sunken court isatcenterof plaza; lowwallforseating '...- Second-floor public terrace -grass lawn, band shell, garden ',at sunken edges ( planting, trees :,. Brightlycolored tables and chairs around plaza '.- Building program areas - distinct landscapes that cater to users;',- Residential terraces - more exotic, drought - tolerant landscaping :stormwater management centers The Metro Pacific team's proposal includes a larger amount of open space and cultural amenity space than the Related team's proposal. The selection panel valued the effective visual and physical connection to adjacent Downtown uses and the enhanced pedestrian experience that is achieved in the Metro Pacific team's proposal to locate the main public plaza on the corner of 4th Street and Arizona Avenue. The Related team proposes a sunken, L- shaped courtyard in the center of the block behind a three -story building on the corner of 4th Street and Arizona Avenue, which creates a central focal point for the project but may feel separate from adjacent uses. While a proposed three- 7 story building in the Related proposal may respond to a desire to anchor the corner of 4 t Street and Arizona Avenue with a strong building form, it could block Downtown pedestrians' visual connection to the public plaza. Consideration of whether the plaza should be open to the adjacent streets or generally located within the interior of the site raises fundamental questions about the nature of the plaza. If the plaza is primarily intended to serve the needs of the site, creating an interior plaza serves that purpose well, as it draws customers into the site to frequent the ground -floor businesses that open onto the plaza. If the plaza is intended to serve the broader community and function more like a public space, opening it to the adjacent streets will tend to make it more accessible and feel more like a community asset. During the community planning for the site, the plaza was envisioned as an actively programmed space that will serve as an open space amenity for the Downtown and for Santa Monica generally. Both teams' proposals include budgets and plans for actively programming the site. Locating the plaza on the corner of the site would make the active programming more visible and inviting to residents and visitors. Given the nature of the proposed plaza as a programmed public amenity, the selection committee viewed the Metro Pacific team's proposed plaza that opens to the street more favorably than the Related team's proposed plaza that has a greater orientation to the interior of the site. The Metro Pacific team's tiered building design creates another large public open space on the second level, and additional open spaces on the upper rooftop levels. The design provides the ability to program different portions of the space in different ways, simultaneously, for both public and private use. Both proposals combine plant material and hardscape within the ground -level plaza, and the second -level plaza in the Metro Pacific proposal would be predominately grassy lawn. The selection panel also valued the larger ground -level cultural space in the Metro Pacific team's proposal, and the two letters of interest submitted from the Zimmerman Children's Museum and the Otis College of Art and Design substantiated the type of cultural tenant that may activate J. the space. The cultural space in the Related proposal is on the third level, potentially separated from the ground -level pedestrian experience. It is also smaller than the Metro Pacific team's proposed cultural space, and the management and occupancy of the space are less defined. Staff considers the open space management plans in both proposals to be capable of providing high - quality programming of the public - gathering space. In either case, the management plan would need to be further developed as the project progresses. Both proposals rely on private -event revenue, sponsorships, or naming rights to cover programming costs, and the appropriate scope of those activities would need to be defined as the development application progresses through community input and Council approval. In addition, the proposals envision local organizations providing much of the programming and possibly paying usage fees for the space, which may be beyond the capacity of local non - profits and may require alternative programming or budget scenarios. A primary difference between the two plans is that the Related team proposes hiring their own staff to manage the open space, while the Metro Pacific team proposes creating a special purpose entity that is exclusively dedicated to open space management. The selection panel valued the approach of creating a special purpose entity to include representation by community stakeholders and to place programming in the hands of individuals who have expertise in event planning. The Biederman Redevelopment Ventures group, proposed as a consultant to oversee the open space management, is highly regarded in the field. The on -site hotel use combined with this robust open space management proposal would successfully activate the site, with hotel guests serving as a built -in audience for programming. It should be noted that these significant public open space benefits, including amount of open space and programming plans, may be compromised if the proposed heights of either proposal are significantly compromised. 9 2. Development objective: Incorporation of ground -floor retail, restaurant, cultural and public uses that animate the street and that contribute to an interactive and vibrant pedestrian experience. - MeiopplitanPaciflclC (�iettWesflpLJ7eam Related „DahformaT @am,, r w Ground Floor Activation Ground -Floor - 52, 317sfofground- flooracflvatinguses - 44, 392sfof ground floor retaillculturaluse Activating Uses !- 40,271 sfof retail to activate 4th, 5th, and Arizona !- Retail shops at corner of 4th and Arizona and along 4th and - Includes 10,000 sf marketplace at center facing plaza; for '..Arizona !smaller, unique vendors; artisan food theme - -Food and beverage offerings fronting the plaza '.- Neighborhood- servngretail on 5th St, portions of plaza -- Convenienceandneighborhood- servinguseson5thSt - 12,046 ground -floor cultural facility plus pocket park - Arizonaproposedforpotentialbikeshareprogram -Bike share station on plaza; bike room, lockers proposed - Bike station and transit kiosk on ground level Public Upper - 2nd floor public terrancelperformance space (12,969so . 2nd floor dining terrace and 3rd floor community ad gallery in Level Activating -12th floor hotel rooftop baropen to public patrons '.corner building al4th and Arizona (24,645 st) Uses - 9th floor "Skybar' at top of office building TargelTenanl - Retailspacedividedbetweenlarge - and small - format spaces lo- Dynamic mix of traditional retail, foodandbevarage, Mix '.provide a mix of options ',entertainment, convenience and other neighborhood - serving - Buildinganglescreatecornerfrontageformostretail ;uses - Target mix ofthree-meal restaurants, locallyowned boutiques - TrytogettenantsthalcomplementthePromenade and community- serving retailers like pharmacies, markets, flower. - Target non - formula, independent, local businesses '.shops and cafes - Restriction to those tenants not recommended due to financing '..- Target non - formula, independent, local businesses, which also .challenges !complement Promenade - Value success ofground -floor activation more than maximizing (revenue, due to impacton project success j -Open to retail restrictions depending on parameters - Zimmerman Children's Museum and Otis College of Art and '.Design interested in cultural space The Metro Pacific team is proposing a ground -level cultural space of significant size, while the Related team proposes a smaller cultural facility on the third level and food uses on the second level. Both teams propose significant retail and restaurant space to activate the ground floor. Both would include neighborhood- serving uses and target non - formula, independent, local businesses. The Metro Pacific proposal also includes a 10,000- square foot marketplace at the center of the ground floor, which is a unique concept that may attract local and independent businesses. Staff cautions against placing specific restrictions on the tenant mix, however, since it may impede project financing. In addition, one or both of the banks currently located on site may seek to relocate in the new development. While they are neighborhood- serving tenants, they are not independent or local businesses and would be precluded from continuing to serve the neighborhood under tight restrictions. Other potential retailers that could 10 provide important services to the neighborhood, such as pharmacies or grocers, may not be independent, local businesses, but could be beneficial to Downtown. 3. Development objective: The development above the ground floor should include a mix of uses that may include retail, restaurant, cultural, office, hotel, and residential that maximize market feasibility and create an anchor for the northern portion of the Downtown. A single type of use for all upper -level spaces will not be considered. 11 Metopolt tanPaclhslClaiettYitesflDLJTeam RelatedCalifogntaTeam -� r MlxofUses Square Footage : -Total Building Square Footage 448,182sf - TotalBuildingSquareFootage 484,039 at Breakdown Office 172,293sf -Office 146,534 sf -Hotel (225 rooms) 127,308sf- Residenfial(260units) 248,021sf - Residential (96units) 85,511sf- Residential Amenities 9,022sf - Retail /Cultural(total) 52,317 at Retail /Cultural(total) 69,037sf - Service/BackofHouse 10.753 at Service /Back of House 11,425sf Affordable '- 50% of residential units - 48 affordable units ,- 20% of residential units- 52 affordable units Housing Detail - Verylow- income units: allat50 %AMI - Verylow- income units: 85 %at50 %AM1;15 %at40 %AMI : -19 %studios, 63% 1-BR, 13% 2-BR, 6% 3-BR 10% studios, 61 %1- BR,29 %2 -BR - Taxcreditrequirements - unitmixmatchesprojectmix !- Taxcreditrequirements - unitmixmatchesprojeclmix :- Dispersed through residential componenton floors 5 -7 -Units interspersed through development - Tenants can access same amenifiesasmarket-rate units '.- Tenants can accesssame amenfities as market rate units - 17,000sfterrace- communitygarden ,BBQ grills, dog park, -Amenifies mayinclude fitness center, business center, and/or children's playarea possible, and communilyroom communityroom, rooftop deck, pool, concierge and valet - Atunitstohavepatio ,washer -dryer, upgraded interiors servicies on subscription basis -Sameground rentoffered as in initial proposal - FreesocialseNceprogramforaffordabieunits -No impactto architecture ordesign, or project amenities Could create more 2-BIR units buteconomic impact : - Buildoutcastslessthanwithoificeinflexspace ,returnoncost -I- Operated by Community Corporation of Santa Monica slighflylower, but offset by lower risks ofmarketrale housing and - Consider increasing to78 affordable units (30 %oftotal)Kity !greater diversity of uses !would reinvest portion of ground lease payment Noise Mitigation'- Mitigate through properdesign and managementplan - Emphasisondeveloperexperiencemanagingnighlli feand for Residential !- Building's uses are stacked, more public uses on bottom, office 'residential uses in several urban mixed use developments .levels as buffer, residential and hotel on top ',- Careful planning of spaces, selection of complementary night - Hotel has no banquet or convenfion facilities for nighttime noise;'' life uses with savvy operators, and implementation of arrival is in ground floor entry ',management protocols and controls Plazas programmed in consultation with bldg mgml .- Night life uses to serve as an amenityfor the residents ',- Second -floor terrace closed to public in evenings i- Performances limited in size and volume Hotel Demand - :- 85 % occupancy at$325 /night; 225 rooms -Not applicable Projections -Based on occupancyfor comparable hotels Downtown (One year avg as of 2013 Q1: occupancy84%, $326/night) - Little new hotel development over last ten years - Hospitality demand expected to outpace supply, even with other :. hotels proposed - New construction, iconic design, proximity to transit, views, and building's office tenants will draw guests 11 Both proposals respond well to the development objective to provide a diverse mix of uses for the upper levels. Broadly, the proposed use mixes are similar in that both proposals include similar amounts of office space and similar total amounts of retail and cultural space. Both proposals now also include similar quantities of affordable housing. The key difference in the proposed mix of uses is the Related team's proposal to build 208 market -rate apartments and the Metro Pacific team's proposal to build 225 hotel rooms. This difference in proposed market -rate residential use versus hotel use is one of the most significant decision points, and the tradeoffs associated with either use should be considered. Market -rate residential units would help address Santa Monica's jobs- housing imbalance. However, a substantial amount of market -rate residential development has been built recently Downtown, is under construction, or is in the development pipeline. The residential development has been concentrated on premium - priced rentals, and market -rate apartments on the site would likely target a similar market. Market -rate apartments typically require parking spaces that are dedicated to residents, which reduces opportunities for shared parking among uses and with the public. Residential uses also may create more significant traffic and circulation impacts than hotel uses. While three projects have been approved and others have been proposed, there has been only one hotel developed in the Downtown in the past decade, and that was a redevelopment of two existing lodging facilities. The selection committee considered the primary benefit of the hotel use to be its ability to serve as a day- and -night activity generator to support nearby restaurant and retail establishments in the downtown district, and to activate the community open space and increase participation in on -site programs. While a hotel use is not expected to generate as much residual land value as a market -rate residential use, the demand projections used by the Metro Pacific team appear reasonable and were reviewed by KMA, the City's financial consultant. In addition, a recent market demand study conducted for the Downtown Specific Plan 11PA and referenced in a January 23, 2013 Planning Commission staff report indicates that hotel occupancy remains strong at over 80 percent Downtown, and forecasts market demand for approximately 1,500 new hotel rooms in Downtown over the next 15 years. Other hotel proposals that are entitled or under review would not entirely satisfy this level of estimated market demand, which indicates that there would be capacity in the market for a hotel use at the 4th /5th and Arizona site. In addition to the differences between market -rate housing and hotel use, the affordable housing components of the proposals also differ. While both teams are currently proposing a similar number of affordable units and fairly comparable residential amenities, they differ in the share of affordable versus market -rate units and in their financing and operations plans. The Related team continues to propose 52 affordable apartments for very -low income households (20 percent of total units would be affordable), and they have indicated a willingness to include up to 78 affordable units if the City would reinvest a portion of the capitalized ground -lease payment into the development of the additional units. The affordable units are proposed to be operated by the Community Corporation of Santa Monica (CCSM). The Metro Pacific team initially proposed to provide 10 percent of residences as affordable or to provide a financial contribution if they had used their flex space, which was originally designed to accommodate residential or workspace uses, for office purposes. In response to Council's August 27, 2013 discussion, the Metro Pacific team has proposed to develop the flex space with 96 residential units, 48 of which would be market rate and 48 of which would be affordable to very low- income households (50 percent of total units would be affordable). The operation of these units is not yet defined. The City's real estate finance consultant, KMA, reviewed the developer's pro forma and found that given the developer's reduced return threshold to accommodate affordable housing, the developer's proposed affordable housing component could be feasibly included in the project scope. The selection panel expressed concerns regarding the Metro Pacific team's depth of experience in developing and operating 13 affordable housing and believes that other affordable housing models should be considered if Council approves staff's recommendation to enter into exclusive negotiations with the Metro Pacific team. 4. Development objective: The proposed development must exemplify exceptional architecture and sustainable design and construction. The City will require LEED Silver certification at minimum but LEED Gold certification is preferred. Architecturally, the selection panel found the Metro Pacific team's proposal most compelling. The proposed design delivers iconic architecture from all elevations, as well as a highly flexible interior space design that could most easily accommodate potential design modifications and adjust to market demand changes in the future. The design is conducive to activating all areas of the site and providing public access to multiple portions of the site. Additionally, the site design maximizes the public view corridor toward the open plaza areas and integrates the project within the framework of Downtown and adjacent properties. The selection panel felt that the Related team's design approach was creative, though there were concerns about whether the proposed architecture would fit with its surroundings and whether it would achieve the community's expressed desire for truly iconic architecture. HE j47eto�olitanPaciRclCl ;jre)aWestlD�.JTeam ' RelatedCal {fornraT'eam Exceptional Architecture and Sustainable Design Architects and - OfficeolMeUopolitanArchitecturewithlocalparinerVan - BiarkeIngotsGroup( BIG) with local firms KoningEizenberg Renderings Tilburg, Banvard, & Soderbergh and OLIN as landscape architect Architecture and landscape architect Rios Clemente Hale '- Renderingsofailelevationsprovided '.Studios - Renderings of southern elevation not provided; rendering from northeast angle but not dead -on from 5th Steel LEED ',- LEEDGoldminimumcommitment - achieve via terraced roofs, - LEEDGoldminimumcommitment - achieveviaenergybenefits Certification ;building systems, energysystems ''.from mix of uses, shared parking, and central space conditioning level '- Terraced design allows forgreen roofs and is designed to !system to support 24 hour load curve and ice rink maximize natural light and ventilation '- WiIIalso implementCityrs green building policies, Title24, . - LEEDPlatinumcouldbepursued - Economicimpactsrequire CALGreen standards further analysis •.- Developers "build and hold" model encourages many more ',sustainable building and management practices -LEED Platinum could be pursued - Economic impacts require '.further analysis Architecturally, the selection panel found the Metro Pacific team's proposal most compelling. The proposed design delivers iconic architecture from all elevations, as well as a highly flexible interior space design that could most easily accommodate potential design modifications and adjust to market demand changes in the future. The design is conducive to activating all areas of the site and providing public access to multiple portions of the site. Additionally, the site design maximizes the public view corridor toward the open plaza areas and integrates the project within the framework of Downtown and adjacent properties. The selection panel felt that the Related team's design approach was creative, though there were concerns about whether the proposed architecture would fit with its surroundings and whether it would achieve the community's expressed desire for truly iconic architecture. HE In response to Council's request to provide renderings of elevations from all sides, the Metro Pacific team provided all elevations while the Related team did not provide a rendering of the southern elevation, and the eastern elevation was provided from an angled viewpoint rather than a dead -on view. Based on the additional renderings, the selection panel continues to believe that the Metro Pacific team's architecture is the most compelling and appropriate and most likely to achieve the architectural goals expressed by the community and Council. Key elevations are shown in Attachment B, and all elevations are available in the proposals and responses to follow -up questions at www.smqov.net/4thandarizona. The selection panel also found that the Metro Pacific team's proposed approach to site planning is the most compelling. Favorable site planning choices include locating the public plaza at the corner or Fourth Street and Arizona Avenue in order to create strong connections between the open space and the adjacent streets, to enhance the site's connection to the Third Street Promenade, and to heighten the perceived safety of the plaza by making it visible from the adjacent streets, nearby buildings, and the proposed on -site development. A further discussion of the open space approach is discussed above under Development Objective No. 1. The selection panel also favored the use of a variety of building angles that create small plazas and upper -level open spaces throughout the site. In response to Council's request for clarification regarding level of LEED certification, the Related team reiterated its initial commitment to LEED Gold, while the Metro Pacific team indicated that it had reevaluated the proposal against updated scoring systems and could now commit to LEED Gold rather than LEED Silver. Both teams indicated a willingness to explore LEED Platinum with the anticipation of economic implications. 15 5. Development objective: Public access to views should be created in parts of the development where greater heights support ocean or mountain views. Metopolifan PaerScJCIarett weail6L,l Team Related California Tiram .:,.r A", Public Public Mews From hotel lobbyand bar (levels 8 and 12) - From artgalleryand "skybar" (levels 3 and 9) Both teams provide public access to views within the public - private tenant spaces in the building. The upper -level views are somewhat connected to patronage at the rooftop bars. The views from the community art gallery on the third level of the Related team's proposal are arguably more public, albeit from a much lower level of the building. 6. Development objective: Parking for the development should consider LUCE parking approaches and shared parking considerations. Parking that is exclusively reserved for future tenants should be minimized, while shared parking should be maximized for public availability. 7. Development objective: The development must include a minimum of 339 public parking spaces. Additional public parking more than the required 339 spaces is encouraged to be built provided there is a viable financing plan, shared parking plan and an appropriate traffic circulation design to mitigate any potential impacts to City streets, including bicycle parking and access. The development must address ingress and egress in accordance with the Downtown Specific Plan. The parking structure must be subterranean and the City's preference is for public parking spaces to operate as part of the City's public parking supply. Both teams propose a similar number of total parking spaces, with the Metro Pacific team providing a much higher number of dedicated public parking spaces and the 16 MetopoJitanPacihclClarett $JestlDCJTeam -, 3 RelateilCallfornlaTeam Parking and Circulation Public Parking -580 public spaces - 339 public spaces; 507 addl shared public - private spaces - Unbundleparkingforresidentialleases -, Unbundle parking for office and residential leases - "Cash out' option for employees who don't park '- ..- Access from 4th and 5th Streets into alley entrance '.- Release some private spaces for public use if possible -367 private spaces; total of 1,213 -.- Access from 41h and 5th Streets into ramps - 640 private spaces; total of 1,220 TDM Plans -TDM strategies produced by Crain &Assoc in proposal .. -TDM program proposed - Bike station valued at$1.4m and bike share location - Bike share facilities and bike station or shortage on site - Pedestrian and bike access via paseo in southern alley .- Permeable site plan for pedestrian access Both teams propose a similar number of total parking spaces, with the Metro Pacific team providing a much higher number of dedicated public parking spaces and the 16 Related team proposing shared parking depending on tenant demand for spaces. The Metro Pacific proposal also notes that additional spaces could be made available for public use depending on private tenants' usage rates. Both proposals would require additional analysis regarding the appropriate amount of total parking on site, and traffic and circulation impacts would be studied extensively during the environmental review. Both teams propose ingress and egress from the southern portion of the site, though the Related team proposes access from a two -way alley at the southern end of the site and the Metro Pacific team proposes long ramps off of 4th and 5th street with a one -way driveway at the southern edge of the site. Both teams developed Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plans, proposed ground -level bike station or bike share space, and permeable sites for pedestrian access. The Metro Pacific team proposal creates a pedestrian and bicycle paseo along the southern edge of the site. 8. Development objective: The proposed project design and development of the site should allow for maximum flexibility in order to respond to changes in community and market needs over the coming decades. 9. Development objective: The development must identify the concepts identified in the Downtown Specific Plan process. Conceptualization and design of the site must be coordinated with the specific planning process to ensure that each informs the other sn MetopolttanPaclGSlCfdregWesflDL ,ITearo � „ RelatetlC�hformaTeam �. k: r Flexible Development Approach Height and - 148feelathighesf point, narrows attop - 194 feet at highest point; narrows attop Density ',. -12 stories -18 stories Proposed 3.75 FAR ! -4.3 FAR Aternale Height ,- An84A building would reduce public benefits - Notpossibleto achieve Cityobjectivesat84feet Proposal(s) -Loss of 40% of floors would mean loss ofonly25 %of square '- Would require major tradeoffs in design, rent, public parking, footage due to small massing on top floors architecture, and open space - Could maintain ground -floor amenities as proposed '.- Provided two alternate scenarios 180 and 110 feel high - Housing and office square footage would each be reduced by :- 180 -foot scenario: reduced housing, office, and retail, reduced '30% affordable housing, and a 50% reduction in the lease paymenito - Reduction in affordable units to 25 -30 (vs. 48 proposed) the City - Reduced or eliminated open space for housing or office tenants -110 -fool scenario: loss of community open space, loss of - Hotel room reduction by20 %(from 225 to 180); loss ofviews ! permeability and pedeshian connections, loss of art gallery may impact rates '.space, loss of architectural significance, and all reductions that -300 space parking reduction -150 public and 150 private the 1 80' proposal has, plus an 85% reduction in the lease - Iconic architecture compromised .payment to the City - Ground lease estimated to fall from $1.3m to $1 rn year 17 The Council- adopted development objectives emphasize flexibility and coordination with the Downtown Specific Plan (DSP), which is proceeding in tandem with planning for the development of the 4th /5th and Arizona site. Upon receiving the three development proposals initially, the selection panel questioned both Related and Metro Pacific teams about their proposed heights and densities. In conveying Council's follow -up questions, staff asked the teams more specifically to provide a hypothetical 84 -foot scenario for development, given that Council recently set the maximum height to be studied in the DSP Environmental Impact Report (EIR) at 84 feet. The question was for illustrative purposes only and does not indicate that staff or the selection panel is recommending an 84 -foot development, as that height limitation would create tradeoffs that would likely not align with established community and Council priorities for the site. The Related team indicated that they would be unable to fulfill all of the established development objectives with an 84 -foot building. They reiterated the two alternative scenarios included in their initial proposal, at 110 feet and 180 feet in height, as opposed to their preferred 194 -foot design. Both of these alternate proposals would come with architectural and economic tradeoffs, including the loss of open space, cultural space, pedestrian connections, and City ground lease revenue. The Metro Pacific team proposed a 148 -foot building but indicated that they would be able to achieve some of the development objectives with an 84 -foot building. Due to the narrow massing at the top of the building, a 40 percent reduction in height would equate to only a 25 percent reduction in building square footage, allowing them to preserve ground -floor uses as outlined in the initial proposal, assuming the general direction of the current design were to be maintained. There would be reductions in hotel and office space, reduced affordable housing, a significant loss of public parking spaces, and the elimination of significant amounts of open space. Ground -lease payments to the City would also be reduced. The team cautioned that the iconic architecture in the original proposal would be severely compromised. 19 While the selection panel appreciates the Metro Pacific team's flexible approach, the panel expressed concern whether the 84 -foot scenario could truly accomplish the public objectives for the Site without significant and difficult tradeoffs. Most significantly, the project likely would need to be entirely redesigned, compromising the iconic architecture that the community is seeking on the site. The top tier of the building as proposed would be removed, eliminating the building's striking cantilever design element. The building's tiered design likely would be compromised and the building may risk looking more like a typical boxy form in order to achieve the rents necessary to support key public benefits like open space and public parking. In addition, the loss of height would eliminate unique views and premium room -rates for the hotel component, the elimination of private open space likely would reduce the achievable rents, and there could be greater difficulty in maximizing the operational utility of the office and residential components of the development. A reduction in the number of affordable apartments could also affect financing opportunities. Despite the need to further examine the tradeoffs that would be inherent in any height restrictions, the selection panel considers the Metro Pacific team's proposal more flexible in terms of design and the resulting ability to respond to the fluid DSP and community process. The diversity of uses and flexible space design also allows for greater market flexibility. While height and density are areas of great importance to the community and will continue to be discussed throughout the DSP process, limitations on height and density will have definitive impacts on the development's ability to provide public benefits such as open space, programming, public parking, and iconic design. Proposal Comparison: Fiscal and Economic Impacts On August 27, 2013, Council requested additional analysis of the projected fiscal and economic impacts of the Metro Pacific and Related teams' proposals. The table below includes the teams' reported estimates of annual City revenues, and staff's conversion to standardized estimates for each team; these have not been independently estimated `F'] by the City's real estate finance advisor. The Related team has slightly higher projected sales and use tax revenue and offers a higher ground -lease payment (Related proposes an up -front capitalized payment but when this is translated into the effective annual value, the proposed Related payment is higher than the proposed Metro Pacific team payment). However, these revenues do not offset the sizable transient - occupancy tax (TOT) estimated from the hotel use in the Metro Pacific team's proposal. In addition to comparing projected annual revenues to the City from each proposal, the table below also compares the capital investments projected under each proposal, both in terms of total capital investment and capital investment in major public benefits. This data is strictly developer - reported and varies based on construction costs 20 Mato PaC$lcJGlarettWBSUDLJ Team - Related Team Developer ! Standardized Developer Standardized Standardization Method Reported Estimate. Reported Estimate Ground Lease 1,300,000 1,300,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 Related proposes a capitalized ground lease payment of Payment $33.2m; converted to an annual value (appx $2m) for 15%Increaseevery Inilialpmlof$1.3m; Capitalized ground Forcomparison; comparision purposes only Aso calculated capital value of 5yrs;conslderprofft Capdalizedvalue lease of $33.2 m; Related proposing Metro payments. share appx$22m $2myrffannual capitalized pmt Prop a 0 TaTax 584,000 475,607 949,227 395,380 Reflects post - redevelopment property tax allocations. PBAD, Mall, school, college, and water assessments excluded. Prop Tax in Lieu of 93,400 93,395 Not provided 77,641 Increased assessment values based on construction costs VLF as value estimate. Sales and Use Tax 283,800 316,243 1,525,828 414,981 Based on a conservative $400 PSF sales and a 1.5% City tax rate, assumes 100% taxable sales. 317,300 322,340 174,489 273,816 Assumes average standardized annual tax per public Downtown parking space. Uses developer revenue projections for private or shared spaces, FFacilifies 145,700 89,636 99,000 96,808 Based on conservative estimate of$2.00 of ublity chargas PSF of total building area. Utility User Tax rate of 10 %. 333,000 94,074 Not proNded 88,207 Conservative standardized esfimate based on gross rental Tax receipts, retail sales, and utility receipts only. Sales and Use Tax 86,300 - Not provided - Not including-in standardized estimates. (offsitellndirecl) Property Transfer 65,000 - Not provided - Notincluding instandardized estimates. Tax Holel Transient 3,176,200 3,176,184 Not applicable - Based on developer projected occupany and room rates. OccupancyTax Assumes hotel rate of $325 for 225 rooms at 85% occupancy. Total 6,384,700 5,867,479 4,748,544 3,346,833 In addition to comparing projected annual revenues to the City from each proposal, the table below also compares the capital investments projected under each proposal, both in terms of total capital investment and capital investment in major public benefits. This data is strictly developer - reported and varies based on construction costs 20 and design. The Metro Pacific team, which has a higher per- square -foot construction cost, proposes making a higher total capital investment and a slightly higher investment in public benefits overall. The most striking differences in the projected capital investments in public benefits are the higher anticipated cost for Related for the affordable housing component and for the public parking on a per - public -space basis. Conversely, the Metro Pacific costs are much higher for the public open space and the cultural facility. However, it is likely that there are differences in how each team calculated these numbers. Consequently, these figures are intended to give Council an order of magnitude comparison only. The City's financial consultant KMA reconfirmed that both development teams are well financed and have the capacity and access to capital to finance the development. The ground -lease payment that can be supported by either proposal and the public revenues generated by the project will be largely dependent on the scope of development that is approved by the City. Once Council authorizes staff to enter into an ENA with one of the teams, the desired scope of development will be defined. Based on that scope of development, a Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) will be prepared. As part of the DDA process, the City will commission an independent financial analysis to quantify the supportable ground -lease payments, and to assist in creating a ground -lease structure. 21 Meto PacificlClareft WestIDLJ Team Related Team Total Capital Investment Development Costs $325,090,( ($725 psf of bldg area) $270,253,000* ($558 psf of bldg area) `(net of capitalized ground lease pmt) Capitial Investment in Public Benefits Affordable Housing 19,544,000 32,364,000 Public Open Space 11,199,000 2,500,000 Cultural facility 5,893,000 1,500,000 Bike Station 1,408,000 Estimate not broken out Public Parking 27,755,000 20,619,000 Public Art Contribution 1,481,000 1,609,000 Total Capital for Public Benefits 67,280,000 58,592,000 The City's financial consultant KMA reconfirmed that both development teams are well financed and have the capacity and access to capital to finance the development. The ground -lease payment that can be supported by either proposal and the public revenues generated by the project will be largely dependent on the scope of development that is approved by the City. Once Council authorizes staff to enter into an ENA with one of the teams, the desired scope of development will be defined. Based on that scope of development, a Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) will be prepared. As part of the DDA process, the City will commission an independent financial analysis to quantify the supportable ground -lease payments, and to assist in creating a ground -lease structure. 21 Exclusive Negotiating Agreement If Council concurs with staff's recommendation, the City and the Metro Pacific team would enter into an ENA. An ENA affirms that the City will not negotiate with any other developer for the development of the site for the duration of the ENA. Entering into an ENA does not convey project approval or obligate the City to grant any entitlements. The ENA would require that the Developer make a good -faith deposit with the City and demonstrate evidence of financing prior to execution of a ground lease. The purpose of an ENA is to set forth the terms and conditions under which the City and development team will work together to develop the project scope. The ENA would establish a schedule of performance for the Metro Pacific team to solicit community input and pursue Council approval of design concept plans. Once design concept plans are approved, the ENA would stipulate an additional negotiation period, typically six to twelve months including a base period and extension options, to fully negotiate a Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA). A DDA would fully stipulate the project details and lease agreement terms for Council consideration. If the developer is making good faith progress but the process takes longer than anticipated due to factors outside the development team's control, the City Manager could authorize additional time to complete the process. If the schedule of performance outlined in the ENA is met, community input is incorporated, schematic designs are conceptually approved, and negotiations regarding business terms proceed favorably, staff would return to Council with a recommendation to enter into a DDA with the Metro Pacific team at a later date. If these benchmarks are not met, the City would have the right to terminate the ENA and cease negotiations. The specifics of the 41h /5th and Arizona project would determine the specific terms of an ENA, but the ENA that the City entered into for the Civic Center Village development provides a recent example. That ENA required the developer to submit a good -faith deposit of $250,000. The performance schedule gave the developer approximately one 22 year to conduct community outreach and obtain conceptual approval for schematic designs, followed by an additional year to successfully negotiate a DDA with the City. Alternatives Council may elect not to follow the selection panel's recommendation regarding a preferred development team, or may decide not to enter into an ENA with either team. Council may also reject all proposals and initiate a new process. Environmental Analysis Authorization to negotiate and execute an ENA is exempt from CEQA. As the proposal progresses, this site will be studied as part of the Downtown Specific Plan Program EIR. The project may also require additional environmental review, particularly with regard to shade, shadow, parking, and circulation impacts, and may conduct its own project EIR, if necessary. In particular, shared parking as proposed for the site is an important commodity in the downtown and enables the "park once" strategy that is crucial to continued success for the district. The impacts of this commodity on circulation around the site, specifically ingress and egress from the garage and vehicle - pedestrian interaction, will be studied. Public Outreach Community workshops were held in advance of issuing the RFQ in order to establish community objectives for the Site. Upon issuing the July 10, 2013 Information Item, staff solicited feedback about the proposals in advance of Council consideration. Staff did not receive any feedback in writing, though verbal feedback as well as print media coverage favored the Metro Pacific Capital proposal. Staff presented the proposals and the selection panel's recommendation to Downtown Santa Monica, Inc., and they were in agreement with the selection panel's recommendation. Once a team is selected by Council, opportunities for community input on the proposed project will be extensive. The ENA period would include a community process focused 23 on the proposed development, and community input would be incorporated throughout the development approval process. The project would go through the standard development application process, including float ups and board and commission presentations, and entitlements would be subject to Council approval. Next Steps During the exclusive negotiating period, community outreach would be conducted on the project design and open space programming. Feedback from community input and from initial float -up presentations to Council, boards and commissions would be incorporated. A disposition and development agreement and environmental analysis would follow. This project would proceed in tandem with the Downtown Specific Plan process, and the two efforts would continue to be coordinated. A development agreement application would not likely be submitted until sometime in 2014 and construction would not be expected to commence until 2016. Financial Impacts & Budget Actions There is no immediate financial impact or budget action necessary as a result of the recommended actions. Staff will return to Council if specific budget actions are required in the future. Prepared by: Sarah Johnson, Principal Administrative Analyst Andy Agle, Di Housing and Attachments: A. Follow -up Questions to Teams B. Renderings from Teams Forwarded to Council: Rod Gould City Manager 24 ATTACHMENT A Follow -Up Questions for Metropolitan Pacific Capital Team 41th /5th and Arizona Development Opportunity The Santa Monica City Council has directed staff to seek clarification regarding your team's proposal for the development opportunity at 41h /51h and Arizona. The list below summarizes the questions and concerns raised by Council at the August 27`h, 2013 Council meeting. The full Council discussion is available to view online at http: // santamonica .granicus.com /MediaPlayer.php ?view id =2 &clip id =3102. Please submit written responses to the questions below to Sarah Johnson at sarah.iohnson(a)smgov.net no later than October 21, 2013. Please add any other clarifying information you deem necessary to address Council's questions and concerns. Questions: • Please provide additional detail regarding the projected economic benefits to the City, including the fiscal benefits produced by the proposed project on an annual basis after project stabilization (i.e. Sales Taxes, Property Taxes, Transient Occupancy Taxes, and any other ongoing City revenue). • Please provide renderings of all elevations of the proposed project, particularly the south and east elevations, in JPG format. • Please identify the minimum LEED certification that the project is proposed to achieve and the expected trade- offs (including reduction in ground rent, if any) to achieve the next highest level of LEED Certification. Include a concise description of the sustainable features of the proposal. • Please provide a concise, quantified listing of public benefits (open space, parking, etc.) • Please describe the project's approach to on -site open space and why such an approach best achieves the public objectives of providing an important open space amenity, activating the site, and expanding the vitality of downtown. Describe the landscaping and hardscaping approach to the on -site open space, and which portions of the open space have restricted or time - limited public access. • Given Council's recent decision to set the maximum height to be studied in the Downtown Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report at 84 feet, please describe any tradeoffs in terms of project design, rent, ability to achieve public objectives, or otherwise if the development were limited to 84 feet in height. • Please describe your proposed mix of retail tenants. How would your team respond if the City were to limit allowable types of retail tenants to non - formula, independent, or locally owned business, for example? What might retail rent and revenue implications be, and what would be the potential trade -offs associated with such limitations, if any (i.e. proposed ground rent)? • How would your development balance night -life use with any proposed residential uses on site? • Please provide information regarding incorporation of affordable housing, including how much and what type, as well as any projected economic impacts to the project. How would you approach subsidizing affordable housing? What would be given up in the project in order to accommodate affordable housing? What amenities would be available to the residents? • Please provide assumptions related to demand for hotel rooms. ATTACHMENT A Follow -Up Questions for Related California Team 4th /5th and Arizona Development Opportunity The Santa Monica City Council has directed staff to seek clarification regarding your team's proposal for the development opportunity at 4`" /5`h and Arizona. The list below summarizes the questions and concerns raised by Council at the August 27h, 2013 Council meeting. The full Council discussion is available to view online at httD:// santamonica .aranicus.com /MediaPlaver.Dhi)?view id =2 &clip id =3102. Please submit written responses to the questions below to Sarah Johnson at sarah.iohnson(cDsmoov.net no later than October 21, 2013. Please add any other clarifying information you deem necessary to address Council's questions and concerns. Questions: a Please provide additional detail regarding the projected economic benefits to the City, including the fiscal benefits produced by the proposed project on an annual basis after project stabilization (i.e. Sales Taxes, Property Taxes, Transient Occupancy Taxes, and any other ongoing City revenue). a Please provide renderings of all elevations of the proposed project, particularly the south and east elevations, in 1PG format. m Please identify the minimum LEED certification that the project is proposed to achieve and the expected trade- offs (including reduction in ground rent, if any) to achieve the next highest level of LEED Certification. Include a concise description of the sustainable features of the proposal. • Please provide a concise, quantified listing of public benefits (open space, parking, etc.) ® Please describe the project's approach to on -site open space and why such an approach best achieves the public objectives of providing an important open space amenity, activating the site, and expanding the vitality of downtown. Describe the landscaping and hardscaping approach to the on -site open space, and which portions of the open space have restricted or time - limited public access. U Given Council's recent decision to set the maximum height to be studied in the Downtown Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report at 84 feet, please describe any tradeoffs in terms of project design, rent, ability to achieve public objectives, or otherwise if the development were limited to 84 feet in height. ® Please describe your proposed mix of retail tenants. How would your team respond if the City were to limit allowable types of retail tenants to non - formula, independent, or locally owned business, for example? What might retail rent and revenue implications be, and what would be the potential trade -offs associated with such limitations, if any (i.e. proposed ground rent)? • How would your development balance night -life use with any proposed residential uses on site? Please provide a concise description of the proposed affordable housing, including residential amenities that would be available to households in the affordable housing. 2 ATTACHMENT B Renderings for the Metropolitan Pacific Capital Team Proposal 4th /5th and Arizona Development Opportunity View from Corner of 4th Street and Arizona Avenue ATTACHMENT B Renderings for the Metropolitan Pacific Capital Team Proposal 4th /5th and Arizona Development Opportunity North Elevation (Arizona Avenue) South Elevation (alley on southern end of site) ATTACHMENT B Renderings for the Metropolitan Pacific Capital Team Proposal 4th /5th and Arizona Development Opportunity East Elevation (5th Street) West Elevation (4th Street) N ATTACHMENT B Renderings for the Related California Team Proposal 4th15th and Arizona Development Opportunity View from Corner of 4th Street and Arizona Avenue ATTACHMENT B Renderings for the Related California Team Proposal 4th/5th and Arizona Development Opportunity North Elevation (Arizona Avenue) South Elevation (alley on southern end of site) - Not Provided- ATTACHMENT B Renderings for the Related California Team Proposal 4m/5th and Arizona Development Opportunity Northeast Elevation (5th St. and Arizona, due east not provided) N Reference: Agreement No. 9844 (CCS)