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)