SR-06-10-2014-8BCity Council Meeting: June 10, 2014
Agenda Item: 0-13
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Andy Agle, Director of Housing and Economic Development
Subject: 4th /5th and Arizona Update and Preliminary Design Direction
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council provide direction on preliminary design
concepts for the City -owned property between 4th and 5th Streets, south of Arizona
Avenue ( "Site ").
Executive Summary
On December 10, 2013, Council authorized staff to execute an Exclusive Negotiating
Agreement (ENA) with the development team led by Metropolitan Pacific Capital, Clarett
West, and DLJ West Capital ( "Development Team ") to develop the Site. Council
directed staff to provide a six -month progress update during the exclusive negotiating
period. Council also directed the Development Team to complete a design study of an
84 -foot height scenario and outline the tradeoffs related to different height scenarios.
The Development Team has completed a design study and analysis of trade -offs for
Council review. Following the project update and review of alternatives, staff
recommends that Council provide direction on preliminary design concepts for the Site,
including direction regarding which scenario should serve as the basis for continued
outreach and dialogue.
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. 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.
1
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.smgov.neb4thandarizona. Upon receiving the proposals, staff completed
a review and due diligence process. An evaluation 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. Staff issued an
Information Item on July 10, 2013 summarizing the evaluation panel's review of each
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 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.
4
One of the questions was regarding whether and how each team could achieve a
potential 84 -foot building scenario, given that Council had directed staff to study a
maximum height of 84 feet in the Downtown Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) on August 13 2013. Upon review of each team's responses to Council's
questions, the evaluation panel found that the team led by Metropolitan Pacific Capital,
Clarett West, and DLJ West Capital ( "Development Team ") continued to best address
the RFP evaluation criteria, development objectives, and Council's identified priorities.
Figure 9: Original Proposal in response to RFP
On December 10 2013, Council authorized staff to execute an Exclusive Negotiating
Agreement (ENA) with the development team led by Metropolitan Pacific Capital, Clarett
West, and DLJ West Capital ( "Development Team ") to develop the Site. Council
directed staff to provide a six -month progress update during the exclusive negotiating
period. Council also directed the Development Team to complete a design study of an
84 -foot height scenario and outline the tradeoffs related to different height scenarios.
Discussion
Based on Council's December 10, 2013 direction, this report provides a six -month
update to Council regarding progress on the development, and presents the results of
3
the Development Team's design study of an 84 -foot building scenario. Staff seeks
direction regarding the Development Team's ongoing development of design concept
plans for the property, in light of tradeoffs related to building height and Council -
identified public objectives for the site. This report describes the Downtown Specific
Plan context for the Site, notes changes to the original 148 -foot proposal, and outlines
the key comparison points and tradeoffs associated with the Development Team's
original proposal and an alternate scenario with a building height of 84 feet.
The Development Team seeks direction from Council on the preliminary design
concepts, in particular which height scenario should provide the basis for continued
design development, community dialogue, and float -up reviews, in order to minimize
confusion and facilitate the forthcoming community review process.
Draft Downtown Specific Plan Context
The development of the Site is proceeding in coordination with the LUCE vision and the
Draft Downtown Specific Plan (DSP). The LUCE identified the site as an investment
location that could provide significant contributions to the community. The LUCE-
identified sites are significant in their ability to provide larger -scale amenities that benefit
the Downtown as a whole. Through coordination with private investment, these sites
can contribute to automobile trip reduction in the Downtown by utilizing nearby public
transit or by incorporating land uses that generate fewer car trips, such as hotels and
affordable housing. The draft DSP further implements the LUCE and identifies the site
as a "Large Site" that should address the Council- adopted public objectives identified
through the visioning process, and provides circulation and urban form criteria to be
considered in the design process.
The Site must address Council's identified public objectives listed above, and the
Development Team was selected due to the proposed development's ability to meet
those objectives. Based on extensive public input regarding the Site, the Draft DSP
identifies in more detail the priority public objectives to be achieved:
12
® Open Space
Significant open space to address the community's desire for public gathering
and local interaction with event programming, including continuing to provide a
seasonal ice rink that would become programmable open space in the warmer
months and accommodate cultural and entertainment events or outdoor markets.
® Circulation and Shared Parking
Increased public parking to be operated as part of City system (minimum 339
spaces) with parking access designed to avoid traffic flow impacts and
degradation of the pedestrian environment in the center of Downtown.
® Cultural Institution /Public Art
A major cultural institution that captures the community vision such as a museum
of art or art education facility
® Affordable Housing
This site is identified as a suitable site for a mix of housing including opportunities
for increased affordable housing
The Draft DSP provides a framework for evaluating any new concepts proposed by the
Development Team to ensure that the project is integrated into the Downtown networks
and context. These criteria include:
® Including active ground -floor uses and spaces to ensure vibrancy at the north
end of the Downtown District;
® Ensuring that the existing alley or new alley alignment should service buildings;
• Improving ground -level physical permeability through the Site via pedestrian
paths;
® Focusing taller portions of the building on the southern end of the site away from
the public street frontage; and
® Developing a mix of uses that supports a 17- hour - per -day and 7- day - per -week
environment and the success of shared parking.
The project should respond to the Draft DSP as it evolves through the public review
process while ensuring that the key public objectives are achieved.
4
Modification to Original Proposal
The original proposal submitted in response to the RFP included "flex space" that could
accommodate commercial or residential uses. On August 27, 2013, Council directed
staff to pursue affordable housing as part of the development and asked the
Development Team to identify if and how affordable housing could be incorporated.
In response to follow -up questions, the Development Team submitted a revised
proposal using all of the flex space for housing, including 48 market -rate apartments
and 48 affordable apartments.
The Development Team has since begun working with an experienced non - profit
developer as a potential affordable housing partner. Based on the affordable housing
partner's experience, as well as financing considerations, the Development Team now
proposes to include 48 affordable apartments as previously presented, but has
eliminated the market -rate residential from the proposed project and plans to use the
remaining portion of the space for creative workspace.
Staff supports the proposed change for a variety of reasons, including: (a) market -rate
apartment tenants are likely to require that parking spaces be dedicated for their use
and unavailable as a shared resource, (b) the Downtown has experienced a significant
increase in the amount of market -rate residential development over the past decade
and many additional market -rate residential developments are proposed, and
(c) a development that is largely composed of retail, hospitality, cultural and commercial
uses, with a significant affordable housing component, would be unique within Santa
Monica, demonstrating Santa Monica's values with respect to serving the needs of
lower- income households.
The proposed exchange of market -rate residential for non - residential uses has minimal
impacts on the proposed development's ability to meet public objectives and on the
project's financing. The revised submittal information accompanying this report includes
R
updated square- footage information reflecting the proposed update to the original
concept (Attachment A).
Scenario Comparison
At the December 10 2013 Council meeting, the Development Team indicated that an
84 -foot project would be feasible from an economic and design perspective but would
impact the project's ability to address public objectives for the Site. The Development
Team identified expected changes in building mass, open space, affordable housing,
public parking, public views from upper levels of the project, and ground rent to the City.
In response to Council's direction, the Development Team developed a conceptual 84-
foot height scenario and design study (Attachment A). The Development Team
maintained the design idea and approach, though in an alternative manner that does
not exceed 84 feet.
Building Massing Comparison
To ensure that the 84 -foot scenario could address key public objectives for the Site
while maintaining financial feasibility, the Development Team could not reduce the
overall floor area by more than 20 percent. The original design was modified to achieve
the 84 -foot height limit by relocating the upper "bar" of the building containing the hotel
from the highest point at the southern portion of the Site to a lower location to the north,
as shown in the renderings from 4th Street and Arizona Avenue depicted in Figure 2. As
shown in Figure 3 and detailed in Table 1, the number of floors in the
workspace /residential and hotel program "bars" was reduced and the floor -to -floor
heights were reduced at the ground floor. It should be noted that the reduction in the
floor -to -floor height at the ground level to 16.5 feet would not comply with the 18 -foot
minimum proposed in the Draft Downtown Specific Plan.
7
Figure 2. Rendering Comparison from 4th Street and Arizona Avenue Corner
By bringing the upper building "bar" toward Arizona Avenue, the shading patterns for
84 -foot design create significantly greater shade and shadow impacts on the site and
plaza, and increases the apparent building mass on Arizona Avenue.
Figure 3. Massing Comparison
Alternate Massing Study (84')
E
Original Proposal (148')
Table 1: Comparison of Project Design Elements
Program Bar
# of Stories
Floor Al
Floor to Floor
Height
Program Square Feet
Alternate Proposal (84)
Culture /Retail
1
1
16.5'*
12,000140,000
Workspace
3
2 -4
12'
162,350
Workspace /Residential
Workspace — 2
Residential — 3
Workspace - 5 -6
Residential - 5 -7
Workspace - 15.75'
Residential - 10.5'
Workspace - 26,650
Residential - 24,000 (24 units)
Hotel
3
5 -7
10.5'
72,000 (135 rooms)
Total
7
84'
337,000
Original Proposal (148)
Culture /Retail
1
1
22'
12,000/40,000
Workspace
3
2 -4
12'
162,857
Workspace /Residential
Workspace — 3
Residential — 4
Workspace - 5 -7
Residential - 5 -8
Workspace - 12'
Residential - 9' **
Workspace - 37,143
Residential - 48,000 (48 units)
Hotel
5
8 -12
10'
120,000 (225 rooms)
Total
12
148'
420,000
*Does not comply with Draft DSP minimum ground floor -to -floor height of 18' (Land Use Standard 6.4.DA, Page 214, Draft DSP)
* *May not comply with Draft DSP minimum upper -level floor -to- ceiling height of 8' (Land Use Standard 6A.D. 1, Page 214, Draft
DSP)
Building Use Mix Comparison
Figures 4 and 5 depict the changes to the proposed use mix in the 84 -foot design study
as compared to the original proposal. The 84 -foot scenario and the 148 -foot scenario
would have the same ground -floor use mix of retail and cultural space. However, some
of the tenancies are expected to change in the 84 -foot scenario, as there would be less
economic value in the upper floors of the project to support some of the lower -rent
ground -floor uses. Using a large portion of the ground floor for a local marketplace is
not expected to be feasible in the 84 -foot scenario (market -rate retail is proposed
instead), whereas a local marketplace is proposed in the 148 -foot scenario. In addition,
the 84 -foot scenario is anticipated to need retail tenants with strong credit (i.e. formula
retail) to support the project, and is anticipated to have somewhat limited restaurant
opportunities and permeability of natural light due to a reduced floor -to- ceiling height.
The 148 -foot scenario anticipates the ability to seek neighborhood - serving retail and
restaurants.
The mix of uses on the upper floors differs in the two scenarios. The original proposal
includes a 225 -room hotel, whereas the 84 -foot proposal includes a 135 -room hotel,
and the revenue - per -room would be reduced due to the loss of unique views. The
9
original proposal would include 48 affordable apartments, whereas the 84 -foot scenario
would include 24. Twenty -four residences may fall below the number needed to provide
extensive resident services, and could potentially reduce financing opportunities. The
original proposal includes 200,000 square feet of workspace, whereas the 84 -foot
design proposes 180,000 square feet of workspace. Figure 5 also depicts four levels of
parking in the original proposal, which includes 580 public spaces, and three levels in
the modified height scenario, which includes 430 public spaces.
Figure 4. Use Mix Comparison
ALTERNATE MASSING
STUDY
PROPOSED DESIGN
with residential
TOTAL HET AREA= 337.000 SF i80 %I TOTAL NET AREA= 420 000 SF
10
Figure 5. Sectional Comparison
Public Open Space Comparison
The total quantity of public open space on the ground level and the second level are the
same in both scenarios at 43,650 square feet. The nature of the ground -floor plaza
would change in the 84 -foot scenario, as over half of the plaza (26,847 square feet)
would be covered by a cantilevered building mass above, depicted in Figure 6. The
original proposal would have 43,650 square feet of open, fully programmable open
space compared to 22,384 sq. ft. in the modified height scenario. The ground -floor
pocket park on 5th Street would be associated with the cultural use in the original
proposal, and would need to be associated with the hotel in the 84 -foot scenario. The
open space on the second level would be uncovered and programmed in the original
11
proposal. In the modified height scenario, the second -level space would be covered and
would not be programmed with events or activities. The budget for programming the
public open space would be $860,000 in the original proposal. In the modified height
scenario, the budget would be $430,000 and the breadth of programs that could occur
would be reduced due to acoustic issues associated with the building overhang.
Figure 6. Covered and Uncovered Public Open Space on Levels 1 and 2
Public Objectives Comparison
On November 13, 2012, Council endorsed specific development objectives for the site
that were included in the RFP. In recommending the Development Team to Council,
staff concluded that the original proposal successfully achieved the development
objectives. There are tradeoffs inherent in reducing the height and floor area of the
building in terms of its ability to satisfy the Council- adopted development objectives.
Some of the differences in the two scenarios' ability to achieve the public objectives
have been discussed in more detail above. This section summarizes the key differences
within the framework of the Council- adopted public objectives.
The differences in the two scenarios' abilities to achieve Council- identified public
objectives for the site are outlined in detail in the Public Objectives Comparison table
12
below. The most significant differences, comparing the 84 -foot building to the 148 -foot
building, include:
• 22,384 sq. ft. versus 43,650 sq. ft. of uncovered, fully programmable public open
space;
• 24 versus 48 affordable residences;
• 430 versus 580 public parking spaces;
• Market -rate, formula retail tenants versus a local marketplace concept and more
neighborhood - serving retail;
• No upper -level public views versus public views from the hotel lobby and
adjacent open spaces; and
• A pocket park that serves the cultural institution versus the hotel.
Table 2: Public Objectives Comparison Between Original Proposal and Alternate
Massing Study
• Total public open space on levels 1 - 2 (49,230 sf)
• Uncovered programmable portion of public open
space (22,384 sf)
• Ground -floor plaza (20,756 sf) with seasonal ice rink
• Second floor terrace (12,969 sf) covered and not
programmed
• Ground -floor pocket park associated with hotel
• Ground -floor cultural use (12,000 sf); no pocket park
• Limited public space programming ($430,000 /yr)
• 40,000 sf of retail to activate 41", 51h, and Arizona
• No artisan food themed marketplace
• Neighborhood - serving retail challenging due to need
for high- credit tenants to support project
• Possibly more formula retail tenants
• Reduced restaurant opportunities due to lower
ceiling height
• Over half of ground -floor plaza is covered by
overhanging hotel building
• Total public open space on levels 1- 2 (49, 230 sf)
• Uncovered, programmable portion of public open
space (43,560 sq
• Ground -floor plaza (20,756 sf) with seasonal ice rink
• Second -floor public terrace (12,969 sf) with public
programming
• Ground -floor pocket park for public and cultural
tenant use
• Ground -floor cultural use (12,000 sf) with 4,300 sf
pocket park
• Extensive nublic snace oroarammino ($860.000 /vr)
• 40,000 sf of retail to activate 4th, 5th, and Arizona
• Artisan food themed marketplace at center - smaller,
unique vendors
• Neighborhood- serving retail on 5th St, portions of
plaza; target mix of three -meal restaurants, locally
owned shops and community - serving retailers like
pharmacies, markets, flower shops and cafes
• Target non - formula, independent, local businesses
• Bike share station on plaza; bike room, lockers
13
• Total Net Building Square Footage:
337,000 sf
•
Total Net Building Square Footage:
420,000 sf
• Workspace:
189,000 sf
•
Workspace:
200,000 sf
• Hotel (135 rooms):
72,000 sf
•
Hotel (225 rooms):
120,000 sf
• Residential (24 affordable units):
24,000 sf
•
Residential ( 48 affordable units):
48,000 sf
• Retail:
40,000 sf
•
Retail:
40,000 sf
• Cultural:
12,000 sf
•
Cultural:
12,000 sf
*The 148'scenerio numbers differs from what was presented to
Council in December 2013, proposing
48 affordable
units rather than 96 (48 affordable units +
48 market -rate units).
• 84 feet and 7 stories at highest point; 3.0 FAR
• Office of Metropolitan Architecture with local partner
Van Tilburg, Banvard, & Soderbergh and OLIN as
landscape architect
• Building mass closer to Arizona Ave, increases
street level height perception from Arizona Ave
• LEEDSilverminimum — reducedlandscapingand
public furnishings, lower quality materials and
finishes
• No public access to view from upper levels
• 430 public spaces (150 fewer)
• 510 private spaces (150 fewer); total of 920
• Release some private spaces for public use if
possible
• Access from 4th and 5th Streets into ramps
• Pedestrian improvements reduced by approximately
• Maintains ability to achieve some public objectives
at a lower height
• Limited flexibility due to building overhangs and low
• Annual ground lease estimated to start at
• Annual tax revenue estimated at apprx $;
• 148 feet and 12 stories at highest point; 3.75 FAR
• Office of Metropolitan Architecture with local partner
Van Tilburg, Banvard, & Soderbergh and OLIN as
landscape architect
Less than 25% of bldg is over 84% steps back to
mid -block so existing site lines on major streets are
uninterrupted
• LEED Gold minimum - terraced green roofs, building
systems, energy systems; maximizes light and
ventilation
• From hotel lobby, bar, open spaces (levels 8 and
• 580 public spaces
• 640 private spaces; total of 1,220
• Release some private spaces for public use if
possible
• Access from 4th and 5th Streets into ramps
• TDM strategies; bike station; pedestrian
• Design ensures long -term flexibility of use
• Initially designed with "flex space" that could be
residential or office
• Annual ground lease estimated to start at $1.3million
• Annual tax revenue estimated at appx $6 million
14
Fiscal and Economic Impact Comparison
The table below includes the Development Team's reported estimates of annual City
revenues under both height scenarios, as well as staff's conversion to standardized
estimates for each scenario. The 84 -foot scenario would be expected to result in a
reduction in annual revenues to the City of nearly 50 percent, primarily due to significant
reductions in ground -lease payments to the City and in Transient Occupancy Tax due to
a reduced room count and room rate for the hotel component of the project.
Table 3. Revenue Comparison between Original Proposal and Alternate Massing Study
Ground
15% increase every 5 yrs;
Lease
$500,000
$500,000
$1,300,000
$1,300,000
potential profit share in
Payment
$477,868
$382,592
$584,000
$479,305
148 -foot scenario.
Hotel
Developer projected
Transient
$1,524,576
$1,524,569
$3,176,200
$3,176,184
occupancy and room
Occupancy
$76,426
$75,130
$93,400
$94,121
rates. Fewer rooms at
Tax
lower rates in 84 -ft ootion.
Rnma cfanrlarrli. I ocfimafuc fnr the rovieeA 1AA' n ml — .1mW , Imuor fh— fho l MAI a10 #Mf IN dire
to lower projected development costs with 48 housing units instead of 96, as originally proposed.
15
Post - redevelopment
Parking
$259,363
$247,842
$317,300
$321,440
property tax allocations.
Property Tax
$477,868
$382,592
$584,000
$479,305
Excludes PBAD, Mall,
school, college, water
Utility User
assessments.
Property Tax
$76,426
$75,130
$93,400
$94,121
Based on construction
in Lieu of VLF
costs as value estimate.
Sales and
Based on $400 PSF sales,
Use Tax
$269,610
$269,413
$283,800
$269,413
a 1_5% City tax rate, and
Rnma cfanrlarrli. I ocfimafuc fnr the rovieeA 1AA' n ml — .1mW , Imuor fh— fho l MAI a10 #Mf IN dire
to lower projected development costs with 48 housing units instead of 96, as originally proposed.
15
Avg annual tax per public
Parking
$259,363
$247,842
$317,300
$321,440
parking space. Developer
Facilities Tax
revenue projections for
rivate /shared spaces.
Utility User
Based on $2.00 of utility
Tax
$119,221
$67,403
$145,700
$89,536
charges PSF of bldg area.
Utility User Tax rate - 10 %.
Developer estimates
Other Taxes
$396,286
Not available
$484,300
Not available
include business license,
property transfer, and
Rnma cfanrlarrli. I ocfimafuc fnr the rovieeA 1AA' n ml — .1mW , Imuor fh— fho l MAI a10 #Mf IN dire
to lower projected development costs with 48 housing units instead of 96, as originally proposed.
15
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. (KMA), the City's financial consultant reviewed the two
alternative development scopes and pro forma information provided by the
Development Team. Based on the return thresholds identified by the Team's financial
partner, KMA confirmed that the Team has the capacity and access to capital to finance
both of the alternative development scopes currently being considered. The ground
lease payment amount that can be supported, and the public revenues that can be
generated by the project, will be entirely dependent on the scope of development that is
approved by the City. Once the scope of development is defined, it will be possible to
prepare a detailed financial analysis of the agreed upon project scope.
Based on the final scope of development, a Disposition and Development Agreement
(DDA) would 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.
Staff seeks direction regarding the ongoing development of design concept plans for the
property, in light of tradeoffs related to building height and Council- identified public
objectives for the site. Council direction on the preliminary design concepts, in particular
the height scenarios, will allow the Development Team to proceed with continued
design development, community dialogue, and float -up reviews.
Alternatives
In addition to directing the Development Team to pursue one of the proposed scenarios,
Council could elect to direct the Development Team to pursue a different massing
scenario with less of an impact on the public objectives for the Site.
16
Environmental Analysis
Providing direction on advancing project design is exempt from CEQA. As the proposal
progresses, the 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.
Architectural Review Board Concept Review
The Development Team solicited input on the original proposal and the alternate
massing study from the Architectural Review Board on April 21 2014. Public comments
were received by four members of public with three people supporting the open space
of the project and the proposed children's museum. One person spoke in support of the
project design but felt that the original proposal would be out of place in Santa Monica
and that the proposed 84 -foot high design still provides exceptional architecture and
meets the identified public objectives including open space.
The Board did not take any formal action on the project but provided generally positive
feedback regarding the proposed design commenting that the project is an exceptional
design with thoughtful site planning that minimizes the overall impact given its size and
would be a good addition to the Downtown, liked the broad open space concept of
terraces on each level, liked the cultural aspect of the project, appreciated the inclusion
of the ice rink, and supported the ability of the project to potentially draw activity from
the 3rd Street Promenade.
17
The majority of the Board was most concerned with providing a high - quality
development that meets public objectives, including iconic architecture. There was
broad agreement that while the design concepts are exceptional, the execution and
construction would need to be on par with the high - quality design. Several Board
members commented that the project exhibits a comprehensive mix of vertical
relationships and overlapping programming, with the building height being a byproduct
and not the driving force in the design. There was concern that if those relationships
were artificially modified to comply with an arbitrary height limit that the project's
integrity would be compromised. As a result, most of the Board members felt that while
they were not convinced that 148 feet was the right height for the project, the building's
height was not necessarily a choice between 148 -foot or 84 -feet but should be
determined based on its function and ability to meet broader goals, rather than a
specific number. One Board member expressed concern regarding the 148 -foot height
and indicated that the creativity exhibited in the 84 -foot height scenario could still result
in a good project.
The Board also indicated that additional study is likely needed regarding the number of
stories proposed within each program bar particularly the residential and office spaces.
Concern was expressed regarding the depth of each floor plate (80 -96 feet in depth)
relative to the floor -to- ceiling heights, which are directly related to the number of stories,
as they would not allow for sufficient natural light to permeate the space. Other
individual Board member comments included that there be some commonalities in the
planting palette across the various open spaces and that further study would be needed
as to whether the proposed planting could be achieved on structured slabs.
d-i
Public Outreach
The Development Team solicited input on the two design scenarios at a community
informational meeting on May 15, 2014. The meeting was attended by approximately
100 people, and provided an opportunity for community members to hear about the
original proposal and the alternate height scenario, to ask questions, and to provide
comments in writing. Over 20 people spoke at the meeting to provide comment or ask
questions, and others left their comments in writing for the Development Team. There
was no overall consensus among the speakers regarding the appropriate building
height for the project, although most agreed that the design is exceptional. Attachment
B is the Development Team's complete summary of the comments from the meeting,
including written comments and responses to questions raised.
Opportunities for community input on the proposed project will continue during the
remainder of the ENA period and throughout the development review process.
Next Steps
During the remainder of the exclusive negotiating period, the development team will
submit design concept plans and a development agreement application, solicit
additional community feedback, and complete float -up presentations to the Architectural
Review Board and Planning Commission. Following the Planning Commission float -up,
the project will return to the Council for conceptual approval of initial business terms
regarding the lease of the property and authorization to enter into development
agreement negotiations. With Council direction, staff would then prepare environmental
analysis and negotiate a development agreement and a disposition and development
agreement. The project would proceed in tandem with the Downtown Specific Plan
process, and the two efforts would continue to be coordinated. Construction would not
be expected to commence until 2017 at the earliest.
19
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
roved:
Andy Agle, Direc or
Housing and Economic Development
Attachments:
Forwarded to Council:
Rod Gould
City Manager
A. Revised Design Concept Plans
B. Development Team's Summary of Community Meeting, May 15, 2014
20
ATrACHMENTA. SUBMITTAL FOR COUNCIL
JUNE 10 ,2014
SUBMITTAL CONTENTS AS PER RFP
C DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT
D COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT PLAN
E COMMUNITY EVENT AND OPEN
SPACE PROGRAM MANAGEMENT
PLAN
F FINANCIAL ANALYSIS OF
DEVELOPMENT
THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
METROPOLITAN PACIFIC CAPITAL
CLARETT WEST DEVELOPMENT
DLJ REAL ESTATE CAPITAL PARTNERS
OLIN
OMA
VTBS
Open Space
C.,Ian ition is to preserve the entirety of the site's
area as programmable open space. The building's
mass is a series of block - length bars that step
up from Arizona to the southern edge of the site,
lifting the open space along with Main in a series
.ml ... had gardens and tenaces. They criminal.
at 14a' tall in 380 degree views ofdowntown ,the
beach and the mountains. Thus, the building on
Adzona and Fourth will not simply be Ranked by
open space, itvall itself become a collection of
great open spaces.
The building's pragmm is structured by these five
open plateaus.
4 THEPtAZAATaANTAMONWA
Life
The uses on the Ground level ensure matihe
Plaza at Santa Monica amplifies downtown's .1
tive street life. By combining different scales ofpro-
grammableopen space aswell es neighborhood
serving, regional retail, and a cultural institution,
we ensure that the project extends and augments
the activity of surrounding streets.
Along Arizona, a 20,000 s.f. open space is oriented
towards the vibrancy of the Third Sheet Prom-
enade. This is the project's most Resole and public
open space. An embedded system can easily shift
from a summer fountain to a winter skating dnk, or
a dry plaza that can host can cents or markets. The
ground Floor is anchored by two main prog rams:
Retail and Culture. Retail lines me sheets along
4th, 5th and along Arizona. A porous marketplace
facing the plaza acts as a cockatrice shortcut
between Arizona and 5th. Deeper into the building,
a 12,048 s.f, cultural space connects to a asked
along 5th Sheet and is skyiit. This space has the
potengai to bring to Santa Monica a satellite space
for a majorAds institution. Alternatively, it could
operate as a children's an museum.
Mix of Uses on Upper Levels
Uses on the upper levels are chosen to respond
to the current needs of the Downtown core while
providing the necessary diversity offense that can
ensure me building will be activated at all times.
Upper levels feature three different types of uses:
Offices (F2 -F4), Flexible space that can be offices
or residential units f' i, and a hotel R'S i2J.
Smaller hubs embedded between these different
programs allow me multiple disciplines within me
building to come together in spaces that foster
creative and enbepreneudal energy.
F2-F4 feature very large floor plates and a 301
structural grid that can respond to the Down towns
need for large office areas. The building's unique
inside /outside a tgtude, abundant access to outdoor
landscaped tenaces, and the fiexibilly afforded by
Me structural gritl wall make it a pdme office space
for many kinds of office typologies: from more
conventional corporate headquarters to creative
and computerese) once; or spaces catering to
the surge in tech industry.
FS-F] am a Manor gT who floor plates that can be
subdivided into smaller offices or residential units
If me Downtown market so demands. These floors
spill out on the gf r Roar toreace to Me north and
a large covered terrace to the south that can host
large events.
Floors 612 house a 225 -mom hotel with unob-
sWCted views of the city, beach and mountains.
The hot el overlooks a lush garden tenets that is
an extension of its lobby and bat Aveci ness hub
of fitness, spa, lounges and bars rises through me
hotel, emerging on the roof.
Sustainability and LEED Certification
The building's design inherently suggests an
attitude regarding sustainability. The building's
terraced form allows for green roofs, and every ter
race will beat least pa pally landscapsd. Terraces
will also be irdgated by heated grey water from the
builtling.
The building systems are designed to optimize
access to natural day lighting and venglation.
Every part of the fa..do is operable which allows
Me building to open up to balconies, terraces, and
gives users the chance to enjoy the ocean breeze
and unique light quality emphasizing the indoor/
outdoor lifestyle of Santa Monica.
Taking savant.... file mixed-use nature, the
building will incorporate an energy- resilient system
Met uses the different cycles of programs within the
mixed -use typology, for example using energy from
the oificos to beat tar for the hotel.
At a minimum, Me developmeetwili meet LEED
silver certification, and aim for LEED Gold.
Public Access to Views
Our approach is notjust about creating publicly
ssible vows from interior spaces (hotel ba0 ef-
frst. etc.), but also abouttmiy elevafing the public
realm. Because there is already a tendency to
stack uses (retail, office, residential) in downtown
Sent. Monica, the vertical extension of the public
realm Is a natural opportunity. From the Plaza
along ArizonaAvenue to the confirm observation
tleck, the many terraces offer an array ofouMOOr
activities that come alive at different times of the
day. They lift downtown's .threat streets into line
skyline and create opprdomiles far the public to
experience 360 degre e views of the ci ty, the ocean
and the mountains.
The hotel's rooftop is the building's highest tenace,
animated by a bar, a restaurant and an observe -
Gen tleck and surtounded bye refiectlon pooLThis
levehvill also be available to the public as aview-
ing platform.
The potential landing of a gondola connecting %a
undue to the expo line station can tudher add to
the public nature of This elevated plaza. The ft,
poorest purace could became due termirmsofan
elevated experience ofthe d"th the addition
of a moflop terminal for a gondola line thatwould
connect the building to the Expo line as well as the
P., and peripheral parking on Lincoln Boulevard.
Hinting at Santa Monica's historic 'Oman Skyway'
which operated a long the pier until 1968, it would
offer transportation alternatives as well as encom-
passing views of Santa Monica.
5 SUBMITTAL FOR COUNCIL JUNE 10, 3014
Access and Parking Strategy
The development win include a new ..cft st
alley that will bisect Ne city block where the project
site is located, replacing to northern halfof the
xisting noghbinmh alley. The nsweasilwasl alley
will provide access to the projects subterranean
garage and loading areas and will include a bike
lane allowing bicyclists a mid-block cut through
and access to the bicycle facilities.
The pmkmil garage Is designed far maximum fiex-
ibility by ensuring that all levels are interconnected.
This flexibility will allow the garage to respond to
changes In parking demand on an heady, daily,
and weekly basis as well as major shins in the
future parking needs ofdowntown Santa Monica.
Initially, the garage will be operated with ap-
proximately 580 public parking spaces, including
339 replacement spaces, plus as internal 640
spaces that will be reserved for tenants of line
development during certain hours. The public
spaces will be available for all dmvntown Santa
Monica visitors and will be operated as an exten-
sion of Me City of Santa venture public parking
program with parking rates matching the rates in
the city owned downtown structures. The reserved
spaces will flow in and out of the public parking
supply depending on tenant demand and the hours
of operation of III ... less, uses in the project.
Additionally, we have included the option of the
adding roWe. parking to the garage which would
simificantly increase the number of Publicly avail-
able spaces ani reduce the overall size ofthe
garage.
Flexibility
The building's structure is based on a 30x30'
column grid that can easily allow reconfiguration
for different purposes. Both the fie. space (FSF7)
and the hotel (Fe -F12) are dimensioned in order to
increase flexibility on the long term, allowing their
use to be easi y changed from orfice to resimmuml,
hotel or other uses to respond to the Downtown's
changing demands for many years to came.
Compaq bility with Downtown
Specific Plan
The project's program will encourage .wide range
of users: residents, employees, international and
regional visitors, shopper and diners.
The design is oriented to foster Santa Monica's
thriving creative and entrepreneurial milieu .-The
many amenities offered by the office spaces, from
access to outdoors, transportation alternatives and
unique shared amenities will make this building
uniquely affradive to startups, incubators and
creseve uses.
The project is designed to take advantage of
Its close proximity to a variety oftfediflu aflon
alternatives. Bicycle commuting is encouraged by
integrating a bike cents, (equipped With showers
and lockers), a bike path, and a bike share sta-
tion. Pedestrian activity is also encouraged by Ne
incursion ofwfde, 18' sidewalks, street forgo ure,
landscaping, Pont, and parklets. Additionally, the
potential to add a lending for a gontlola that would
connect me farcical directly to the Expo line station
has been incorporated.
The parking is designed to integrate with down
-
town Santa Monica s parking program and to build
on the City's °park once and shared parking phi -
beaphles. The flexibility ofthe structure will allow
for parkingemerations to shiffwith the demand for
parking on a daily, weekly, and seasonal basis.
The buildings design is shaped around the public
realm. far from being simply a plaza, Ne open
space rises through all levels of the building, truly
embracing Santa Monica's outdoor lifestyle.
The buildings trpaNte massing steps back from
the streets to maintain sun exposure on surround -
ing sidewalks and buildings while affording views
from upper levels.
Building as Open Space
Our approach to the development
is a celebration of this indoor/
outdoor culture: rather than isolate
the building and plaza as separate
entities, we wish to integrate
the two and thereby multiply the
number of exchange opportunities
for Indoor /outdoor continuity of
program. Our proposal is deployed
as a series of block - length bars
that step up from Arizona Avenue
to the southern edge of the site.
They create four elevated terraces
that span the whole width of the lot,
and overlook a public plaza along
Arizona Avenue.
SUHMIlTFL FOR COUNCIL JUNE 10. 2014
In the ciys visioning scenario, she FAR is distributed around a comer
plaza, Isolating some buildings from the open space.
A more radical binary relationship beween building and Plazs will
isolate the open space from the upper levels of the building.
We propose to lift the public realm mrough the building, preserving me entirety of the site as programmable open space and allowing these new
grounds to be Informed by different adjacent programs.
The resulting volume is not a
monolithic mass. Instead of creat-
ing urban walls, its elevations are
dynamic and are permeable to
Santa Monica's unique light and air
qualities.
N.A,w t(4th.n Aw.n.)
� C�IWEMN
SO�ast(5th)
Nodheast
9 SOBMIWALFORCOUNCILJUNE10,2014
FA
West(41h)
c f
East(5th)
Sou mt
SOUNwe0(4th)
[ y
J �
Northeast (5th and Adzona)
Nodheast
Ipstocreate
0
nj
c'
to THE PLAZA ATSANTA MONICA
Ipstocreate
0
nj
Open Space
I°
11 SUBMRTHL FOR COUNCIL JUNE 10, 2014
12 THE PI ATSANTA MONICA
GROUND FLOOR PASSAGES ,
'0"FFICE
Arizona Avenue
o°
lvlGi7i(vl e Y
♦c
e°
00
00
N
U)
L
V
13 SUBMIUAL FOR COUNCIL JUNE 10, 2014
i
(D
(D
View from the corner of Fourth
Street and Arizona Avenue
The project's main approach from
the Promenade is anchored by a
flexible open space that will be
programmed year- round.
14 TNEPL ATSANTAMOMCA
PEDESTRIAN ACCESSTO PARKING LEVEL
�I
17 SUBMIMAL FOR COUNCILJUNE 10, 2014
Sustainabilitv
The building's: design Inherently
suggests an attitude regarding
sustainability. The building's
terraced form allows for green
roofs, and every terrace will be at
least partially landscaped. Terraces
will also be irrigated by treated
grey waterfrom the building.
The building systems are designed
to optimize access to natural day
lighting and ventilation. Every part
of the facade is operable which
allows the building to open up
to balconies, terraces, and gives
users the chance to enjoy the
ocean breeze and unique light
quality of Santa Monica.
The building will also use an
energy - resilient system that takes
advantage of the different cycles
of programs within the mixed -use
typology, for example using energy
from the offices to heat water for
the hotel.
18 THE PL/SAATSANTA MONICA
Combined Heat and Power
A combined heat and priver plant would provide
both electricity and heal. As there is late space
heating load, the heat would be primarily used for
domestic hot water.
Advanced Building Management System
and metering
The projectwould be extensively metered and
monitored to ensure affcient energy management
and allow for aptimai utility rate structures.
Photovoltalos
Even though mofspace is intensely used, PVscan
be integrated on the upper levels above mechani-
cal penthouses and shading pavilions.
Heated Poolicooling Heat Rejection
The swimming pool on the roof can be used as a
heat rejection source for the cooling system. The
waste heahvould warm the pool antl some of the
cooling system equipment could potentially be
replaced or made more efficient.
Shading
The building massing has been optimized to
reduce unwanted solar gain. Balconies on all sides
as well as deep contravene along he south ensure
the reduction of solar heat gain.
Graywater
Gmywatm Contract from hotel showers, of
sinks, kitchen sinks, clothes washing and such will
be captured, Vested and reused for drip irrigation
and Hushing cf WCs and urinals. It is expected that
the volume of gb watervmuId be sufficient far Me
demand and that blackwaterwould not be needed.
Efficient Fixtures
Water signals fli will he used throughout
the project. This is padiculady important for flush
fixtures as theyvbll be utilizing a limited volume
recycled greyvato,
LEEe Score
At a minimum, fine development will haste high
LEEe Silver Comfire ion, and aim fori Gold.
Sustainability
M maoon OmdooILOMAM
19 SUBM"AL FOR COUNCIL JUNE 10, 2014
20 SUBMUTAL FOR COUNCIL JUNE 10, 2014
COMPARISON OF PROPOSED DESIGN TO 84'
ALTERNATIVE MASSING STUDY
21 THE PL ATSANTA MONICA
DESIGN COMPARISON ® BUILDING PROGRAM &
MASSING
Design comparison - 8uilding
Program and Massing
We studied an alternate massing
that limits the height to 84 feet
while maintaining —as much as
possible —the key elements of the
proposed design. This study is
based on the following principles
and assumptions:
-Reduce height to 84 feet
-Maintain program mix
-Preserve 80% of the Initial
proposal FAR (367,000 sf)
-Maintain commercially
viablefloorpiate dimensions
-Provide public open space
adjacent to Arizona
We believe that the redistribution
of the building mass compromises
the design concept and reduces
the quality of the open public
spaceswith a less optimized
building form.
22 SUBMITTAL FOR COUNCIL JUNE 10, 2014
PROPOSED DESIGN ALTERNATE MASSING
with residential STUDY
TOTAL NET AREA= 42Q000SF TOTAL NET AREA= 33P,000SF(80 %)
PROPOSED DESIGN
Total Net Area: 420,000 sf
Height: 148'
Hotel: 120,000M
Residential: 48,000 sf
Wskspace: 200,000 sf
Museum: 12, 000 sf
Retail: 40,000 sf
23 THE ?L ATSANTA MONICA
ALTERNATE MASSING STUDY
Total Area: 337,000 sf
Height: 84'
Hdd: 72,000 sf
Residentlal: 24,000 M
mItspace: 189,000Sf
Museum: 12,W0,f
Retail: 40,000 sf
Key Plans
GF
F5 -7
3 Floors
Workspace
24 ME ?L ATSANTA MONICA
F2 -F4
Fe -F42
,:
m
AREA Calculations for FAR -Santa Monica, Arizona & Fourth
F8
Retail Cullural Workspace
Residential
Hotel Service Total Gross
Cores
Voids
Total Net
F1 Ground
44271 12,046 930
1,559
1,063 10,753 66,622
2,159
475
63,988
F2
57,121
33,613
5],121
1,551
966
54,604
F3
57,121
25,249
57,121
1,509
2,889
52,723
F4
57,121
25,249
57,121
1,509
2,837
52,975
FS
12.381
11.900
24,281
884
1,889
21,508
F8
12,381 11,900
Balronies
24,281
885
1,502
21,894
F7
12,381 11,000
F3
24,281
1,134
2,504
20,643
F8
11,900
33,613
11,900
387
11.513
F8
25,249
25,249
740
203
24,216
F9
1,656
25,249
25,249
740
815
23,694
F10
F11
25,249
25,249
740
24,509
F11
28.160
25,249
25,249
740
183
24,326
F12
25,249
25,249
740
905
23,604
Roof
0
Total
40,271 12,046 M.438 49,159
127,308
10,753 448,973
13,718
15,058
420,197
Outdoor Plaza and Balcony Areas -Santa Monica, Arizona & Fourth
26 SUBMITTAL FOR COUNCIL JUNE 10, 2014
Plaza
Balronies
F1 Groand
28,705
F2
12,969
5,423
F3
5,423
F4
5,423
F5
33,613
31168
F6
3,168
F7
3,168
F8
19,840
3,089
F8
1,656
F9
3,089
F10
3,089
F11
3,089
F12
3,089
Roof
28.160
26 SUBMITTAL FOR COUNCIL JUNE 10, 2014
Key Plans
cF
Retail /CulWral
3 Floors
Hotel
2 Floors
Workspace
26 THE PL ATSANTA MONICA
V6 3 Floors
Residential
F2 -F4
Workspaoo
AREA Calcolaticns for FAR -Santa Monica, Arizona & Fourth
Retail
F4
10,753 66.622 2,159
966
Total Net
F5 13,325 8,750 25,249 47,324 1,624 3,521 42,179
Total 40,271 12,046 198,943 27,500 76,810 10,753 366,323 11,642 17,684 337,017
Outdoor Plaza and Balcony Areas -Santa Monica, Arizona & Fourth
Plaza
F1 Ground
29,706
F2
12,969
5,423
F3
5,423
F4
5,423
FS
29,188
6,257
F6
6,257
F7(R.c)
4,542
Roof
27,027
Total -
98,890
33,326
27 SUBMITTAL FOR COUNCIL JUNE 10, 2014
View of Plaza from comer of4lh and Anzona, showing maroA and fountain scenario in the summer
28 ME PL ATSANTA MONICA
Community Objectives Comparison
29 SUBMITTAL FOR COUNCiLJBNE 10, 2014
Proposed Design
Alternate Massing Study
Iconic Architecture
iconic, open design with dramatic stepped
Denser, less porous design. Stepped fagade
facade and public open space.
is lost.
Height and Massing
l and 2 story configuration along Arizona
Building massing shifted towards Arizona.7
stepping up along W" and 5" Streets. 25% of
stories (84') tall along Arizona, 4t" and 5'"
building above 84'. Height is concentrated in
Streets. Building is w /in 84' height limit.
center of block away from Arizona.
Public Gathering Space
Ground floor plazas and pocket parks fully
Significant reduction of public gathering
opentosky. Upper terraces face Arizona and
space. Majority of ground floor plazas no
are also open to the sky.
longer open to sky. Second floor terrace lost
as gathering space.
Public Access to Views
Rooftop deck and upper terrace open to
Rooftop deck and upper terrace eliminated.
public.
Parking
640 public spaces.
490 public spaces.
Fiscal Benefits to City
Ground lease payment of$1.3m to $1.5m.
Ground lease payment reduced to $500,000.
TOT, Property, ground lease and other taxes
TOT, Property, ground lease and other taxes
of $6.3M annually. M u nicipal fees of $9.1 m.
of $3.6M annually. Municipal fees of $7.8m.
Jobs
169 full time union jobs
101 full time union jobs
Public Space Programming
Estimated budget of$860,000 annually
Estimated budget of $430,000 annually
Reconnection of Street Grid
Proposed and Alternate are the same.
Proposed and Alternate are the same.
Pedestrian Improvements
Fully improved street scape.
Streetscape improvements reduced by 50 %.
Public Art
Public art budget of$1,232,026
Public art budget of $1,078,869
Neighborhood Serving Retail
Retail includes marketplace for small
Market place eliminated.
vendors.
Social /Cultural /Education Facilities
12,000 children's museum.
12,00D facility. Sharply reduced subsidy to
cultural component. Children's museum not
feasible.
Sustalnabtlity
LEED Gold
LEED Silver
Affordable Housing
48 units
24 Units
Historic Preservation
N/A
N/A
29 SUBMITTAL FOR COUNCiLJBNE 10, 2014
PROPOSED DESIGN AND ALTERNATE MASSING STUDY
PUBLIC OBJECTIVES COMPARISON
Omenlle.
ropi —Ces.
ISt., Bldg.
Mlleremlel Y.ReMNw
Iaroda"M1iM<Iwe
so.'sunal, Nlly realrsN desgn by 1M1e.. of Me4oPolilen
Aromprom6etl der re rMM1 Slgni "Oortfrousual publi<open
MAheRUre and Mest"' SNEIV. Thus designwas seleclM for
xe.lards.,rue, public Nenlshings•..... nbrarland
Itseleganlre"... 1. Ne dzslgn oeaAVZs xl forth In crane
open spare p.. For—re, Redured overall netlnaome will
of the 0munlaxn Spe[ill<pla n. tha LUC andolherpubll[
rryulre 1pwer puali(y fnlsAes and rraledalx lFmvghouL
plznnlµdowmentszlrer a lost'SO—pxNlbn. The
prolM featu resexlen9ly publl[a ntl... shoope- 'reawilh
I...tI001, ng zM pub ll<NrnlNings. Nigh pualiry
finches antl -t.Ils th ushout th z tlzvelo ... A.
Neigh a ntl Maning
less than2N Of the bulldlrg he aWve g4' In return. The
Nl of The 6vlWing kWnLatest nr less. iousl vlu se IooUge
bul Idly In rtepped back tram nee OF tell esto N Z topent se rural
4 reduced by SO. he aawn Is. N e hulldl, wlNln nee
artM1e rtru[tureat mldblakwrere the Ve rteplbn o(heluht is
N'hlgh buildingemaloper Ue massof Ue Aru<Wre must be
Ygnlfkanlly retlu[etl. ixlsting sl[e llnei tram 0[ean Avenue,
spreM a.— sh. Slz towards Means Avenue. The
and Marc, Turn levard, a ntl Wlshire remain unlntermpled.
retllAl6utlm of lh a bulNing nsar need by the to
The FFRO1 See isM.I. to a 1. to r Me sire as spzafietl in the
he 1pet in ses nee px rcepum of th a hul Whose he lght at
so edR plan,
e[Iesvl paNMaM abng Adzona antl /mmlhe Mau ntl
floor public plaza
Public GatM1edng 5pa2x
Ground IF— prof.. Least Fe The, and umnd level plat.
P When publlr/prMle open spxe bsA arply I"— vnU
prwNe shuspaant gable open spa. th at will be programmed
Nzlrssolthese<..d LOW plea, hotel terrace and reed top
deovgM1out the yas, Addlllonal ulpsollearle open sp tte is
led. The and llwr puhll[ plaa is shale d during mist of
owed at the total torte¢ and rood lop dead. AT Wbso and
th or' mpaNng lls appeal to Ne puhll<and <omp'amlfing
publl[/en. Ipxels open to NZ 4V antl rvnlil ohm ugAOU1
Nz ablllly to elfavlets propem th -pees.
medeydnenganmweeawna.
ound Floor Pl,m,&Paketparks -] bPUbNc
3A.0
muntl Fbw Plasss &Packet Pa rYS- ]NMPublb
uI
I...n landen
usable as publb space due an buise Ing NUM M.
-
gN Fluor Tursou lultrepprodo - counted at 56b
....liable to Me public
-
Nwsep,msxa publ lc/pmale <ounled.150%
-.I-
No roof top crack
09.]93
3A F; 5y034 IS fl3M
N oleo Lauren
tic hotel design with 3W de&ee news. Pend top d1ok
pro MSetlietarlslgnvdur li ad eT,mIld arrop
..no upper ferrate op en he the puhpc 1. -1]S proms,
tled wfe rtaa. gm mreiure fr ]1D135 cars of holA
MulEple apyMnNesfor re #aunnls and cater wllhln Me
wessrs vnll ignilcanNy rMUCe tle9rahiliry of the M1OM.
pro1M
115
]35 9J d0(43
Publi<ro.annotepen Spacewith.,
Tooftopded and upper used tenztt proddz stunning 3M
Peal by dedsee ... ars --s eellMnIetur —re Wbllc
tlegree news of the Santa Monks, Bay Santa Me nose Mountains
news.
I nd greater nos Msure
30 THE PL AATSANTA MONICA
..",a,
Joalltvnfmteanr macs /retbg neippti
ught anaa4ceilgn Pwosirr
VMergrau nd Parking
Fuml Benefits to H,, non
Pa,,Hto CiNTbrougbfondarllon
lnnr lrclwiy vrf pe eebw)
Publl<BenentS TM1raugM1 Wnstnetion
Permanent ns"n3menleenepts
Puhll<Spa ae ProgramMng
arena, spe<es are re aemas wl I, re, 'riling Felgbti C
Ceping NelgM1ts: W
Wa.,"o— are sass gene— aM orr I., held,, are C
Ceiling Helga.
relal To r
rNU<ea. ¢
¢tall
otr<e a16' O
Om<a It.
Hotel SG' H
Hotel IV
Besidr,ifel B'IW .
.1car al IV
BuIIElre aeilgn allowiler un1,U,md fiewilrom almost sae U
Uppealewls aftne be.lag look towards one another
ravel. llrt M1pnding ra{aa<ts a <ilgn <a to nven btna dements m
mnNng News. Paofroor m¢M.
vAtnouunemssorvriva9 . open VeserMbewnl.. are opea
ro the W wtn Nava.
I'M xe race rground¢ sage to 3W Spxes avallabl a to s
s,.a unaerre.nd ga,. Frt thane publl<pullng
the publl<24 /)and 6W spaes Portable to the pobll<an a part r
reaurew""Pxez Plavenepubll<p"Ide ,enurtdbyan
Hme bads 6
6w '
'dams", 139 spares. 4
49
Hotel irannent Onoo,rn, Fag
Iscrea 114., —,ad %ape M T.
Parking T.
Bur. site note Ter
sale G Use raz tor9te/Blreet)
o"I In lieu of VeI.e Ure nu lees
sales re Hoe m (GIr aledndned)
Total Mnual H—. a...
Prose M TransferL a (one nm)
I.,. and Other MUnl<Ipa l Feei
Can strvalbn lobs
rU,r, to than cannmelnn
Teel totorsAeme than c"etmmon
'alunne Unto n H..1 lobs
..,.a publl < apxe pogxmming'fasted by a re now am
pablle francs nan ate, aA eu"not.d 4 an annual badges of
$BB3.OM
31 SUBMITTAL FOR COUNCIL JUNE 10, 2014
1.1 "he,
I -,— <omponem of th a development
$ 3,ll6,EIX1
31J.3W 317. VC
143,].
z63.�
93,4.
06,3.
$ 6J19.2W
a".
1,393
fish
U YM pubin spxe programming. BUtlge[rHUSetl to
eW,O.
.IT ..I'd %Hddarsdon
1. -2346%
3W.071 $ 69.OJJ .6134%
$ 1,324,3)6 $ 1631NZ4 32, #.5
41],¢69 ]W,132 d81TA
z59,636 3],664 I81J%
11a,211 .,sv Pei %
stol 16,1. -1.l]%
9,42d 1'. -s1iS
E)6,4E6 16,9)4 1B.f]%
Isev4 -la fns
$ 3,37B,431 $ 3,749,363 4350b
33,1¢7 ]1,813 Us",
$ 7,833,631 $ 1,323,333 14.50%
1,142 2. -101)%
11%
$ 16 W',,r9 5 3],0112] -1Blx
101 68 W.24%
430,.3 43,000 - r.
PROPOSED DESIGN AND ALTERNATE MASSING STUDY
PUBLIC OBJECTIVES COMPARISON
PmenXles ry01dg. SI.ry0W6 pHerenllal %fleduaibn
0.tton neN'm of 56eet Grid
32 THEPW ATSANTA MONICA
not
Yea
".a,
pedexblallmprovxments
FuIlV lmprwN &upaMetl sltlewalk; lantlsapin &Sre el
pMeN'an lmpmvemen4 tllminldled by approxlmalely5tlb.
Iumlhre, publh aR.
gMU¢d
lgnll'M
Publiv.d.dgd.f5l,g8,O8o
1,533,..o Nhli—it bWgel reduced to SIXI,80.
1,038,g6n ..In7
- 1g46'b
Ita"IdarMOd Serving Petal
MmIndplana for small aMarti— Ivend.-
Marketplxen..leaslhle with reauretl [odlrrvenue.
NelghhorFOad relal along5N 5[
HlgFrredit tenantsneetled to xupPort she profeR wnldt will
requRe dexeloperto 5eekrroee extabl6hM re ®onalaM
navonalrnam:
led.ma rexn.renV.aee.pp.n.nmex a.em mwere..rm
.mrngneiphrx.
Sndal, Nltural, litmo.nalFttl,.a
sF "Id"aw's ho—om opemod narlonalry
1 ;WeN liry. Snarylyreauud a.bsldy for not ural
ree.®-izad rnldFwd ads and acludion ar.taaVOn.
g.d1.0.n add, it anAlryta a.., hlgh quality, utlalN
nmmu; nomemnt.pamtarand maka me lhmd,.a
Museum lnfea sable.
9,393 SF an park
... R park.
",.% 1ped.rman ¢Aace supper le rtaal.
Nope rfo —loge spxe.
4xG EMssi.nx It I. l.ng.xtlon gang..
Itt." a ondOcnX.n.
LEEO aer4nendon retlnad In tEFD St—WINhn&
Pont iOM.
odwR..'
Blmle am Nio Intl uding nika mom, bike dnare pr.gnim, and
ryde amenlaex would not indul. bike rwm or suhsldy for
,'S path dorm a Nag dtn &SN Sbeets.
Hike dinar. Program
mordable Hinan",
dd tog" o3 arymtlable hooding wilt amenldon gearand towado
I ant" of fundable no,., Lt." a—,'. i for
affordable ho." —,a, ti
alloNable M1OUSingc¢upanri per fo mmu oily COrp o /Santa
Monlm, 3d un1. sbelavtnreanoldtopmvideeXMHe
d. "odn"to low Ili— ..a.,
2< 2G
5dO
Hixtonc to —don
None.
None.
32 THEPW ATSANTA MONICA
DESIGN COMPARISON - OPEN SPACE
33 SUBMITTAL FOR COUNCIL JUNE 10, 2014
,,TYPICAL COU
(A RD DESIGN
t
84'
14 THE PW ATSANTA MONICA
a
Proposed
COVERED:
5,581 sf
35 SUBMMAL FOR COUNCIL JUNE 10, 2814
Alternate I
36 T EPL AT6ANTAMONMA
iblic Terrace
OVERED:
26,847 sf
SUN STUDY COMPARISON
PROPOSED DESIGN
PROPOSED DESIGN
PROPOSED DESIGN
ALTERNATE MASSING STUDY ALTERNATE MASSING STUDY ALTERNATE MASSING STUDY
Dec. 21st, 12pm '
37 eUBMMALFORCOUNCILJUNE10,1014
March 21st, 12par
June21st, 12par
38 THE PLAZA ATSANTA MONICA
39 SUBMITTAL FOR COUNCIL JUNE 10, 2016
40 THE PL ATSNNTA MONICA
41 SUBMIITRL FOR COUNCIL JUNE 10, 1014
Proposed Design -4th and Arizona
42 THE PV ATSANTA MONICA
Altemate Massing Study -4th and Adz0na
43 SUBMITTAL FOR COUNCIL JUNE 10, 2014
Proposed Design - 5th and Arizona
44
Alternate Massing StNny - 5th and Ancona
45 SUEMRWL FOR COUNCIL JUNE 10, 2014
Proposed Design .5th
46 THE PL ATSANTA MONICA
Alternate Massing Study - Sth
47 SUBMITTAL FOR COUNCIL JUNE 10, 3014
48 THE PLAZA ATSANTA MONICA
Attachment B.
ip-
METROPOLITAN PACIFIC
CAPITAL, INC.
The Plaza at Santa Monica development and design team held a community meeting on Thursday, May
151" at 7pm in the Multi- Purpose Room of the Santa Monica Library.
Our outreach included email invites to the following neighborhood groups: NOMA, Northeast
Neighbors, Santa Monica Mid -City Neighbors, Wilshire Montana Neighbors Association, Pico
Neighborhood Association, Friends of Sunset Park, Ocean Park Association, Downtown Study Group,
Downtown Santa Monica, Inc., and the SM Chamber Board. Additionally, we emailed residents who
contacted us about the project and mailed approximately 2,900 printed invites to neighbors within
1,000 feet of the project site.
We estimate that over 100 people attended the meeting and we received a significant number of
written comment cards. Below are the questions /comments received from the community with the
answers provided by our team. We have also listed the written questions from the comment cards at
the bottom.
Questions /Comments from the Community (bold) and our team's responses
a Creative, ingenious design. The hotel is needed. Will it be union?
Yes, we are already in discussions with Unite Here.
® The original concept is preferable to the alternative. Why not remove a few floors indifferent
bars to arrive at the same result?
If you take some FAR out of each block, it doesn't meet the economic goal, and it doesn't reduce
the project by 20 %. Also, there's no way of fitting in the full floor area. The size of the building
is within the zoning.
o The taller version is far superior. Why do 84 feet if the greater height is already vetted with
the community?
The 84 foot height came from comments by the City Council. We were asked to do a study of a
reduced height project.
® 1 like both designs. Programmatically the taller version is better. What makes you think there
will be pedestrian use in the project?
The building's programming will generate pedestrian traffic through the plaza. There will be
year -round programming that is varied and active and going on simultaneously. The
programming will vary by time of day and from day by day. The mix of activities combined with
Children's Museum will be a great draw, and there will be seasonal and free programming. One -
half of the parking is public parking that brings the visitor directly to the plaza. Both the Grove
and Americana at Brand work well because the parking access brings visitors directly from the
garage to the plaza. The retail, market and public parking will generate pedestrian traffic, as will
201 Santa Monica Rot levard - Suite 620 - Santa Monica California 90401 - 310 395 7300 a FAN 3io 319 0144 4 metropolitanpacific.com
MP
METROPOLITAN PACIFIC
CAPITAL, INC.
direct pedestrian access to the 2nd floor plaza. We plan to do focus groups on programming
options and will encourage all stakeholders to participate.
0 Community needs a public park on the site. Reverse the placement of green space and
hardscape between the second and ground floor plazas. The plaza needs trees and areas to
sit. Can you define Neighborhood Retail —who will it be? Can you define the hours of use for
the public terraces? Make sure the retail serves residents rather than tourists.
0 High -end retailers go to the Promenade, and we want much more of a neighborhood fee. We
don't want chains. Maybe something like City Target, or Duane Reade, which is more than a
drugstore in New York City and has amenities such as a sushi bar. The retail needs to be
resident - serving.
0 In favor of the original plan and like the open space. Did you consider the future theaters
across the street.?
The theaters have off -peak parking demand. This will work well with our office parking
0 1 like the original plan. Will there be movie theaters?
Theaters have already been approved for Santa Monica Place, and the City is looking at theaters
on 4`h Street, right across the street.
0 How far down does the garage go? How do you define height?
It's 4 levels and 45 feet, and it's above the water table. 148 feet is the total building height
from grade.
0 What are the uses on each floor?
The ground floor is retail and community uses such as the Children's Museum. Above that is
creative workspace and affordable residential. The hotel is on the top three floors.
0 There should be more commercial space and less parking.
All parking will be underground and Y2 is public. The public parking will replace Parking
Structure No. 3 and the onsite surface parking.
0 Downtown is already congested and you will make it worse.
The project will serve neighborhood residents who won't need to drive, and there will be ample
parking for both the project and for public use.
0 The community never vetted anything over 84 feet and if you don't listen to the community,
you can ask Hines about how that worked out for them.
0 The original idea is whole. The second idea is a compromise and looks like one. What will we
lose with the compromise?
Significant open space will be lost, as well as revenue generation for the City.
0 How many hotel rooms will be lost with the alternative plan? How many affordable units?
That's a lot of affordable housing to lose compared to the hotel rooms.
The original proposal has 225 rooms, which would be reduced to 150 -160. The original number
of affordable units is 48, and the reduced number is about half of that. Affordable housing is
201 Santa Monica Boulevard a SuRe 620 6 Santa Monica California 90401 - 3m 395 7300 a FAN 3m 319 0144 o metropolitanpacific.com
—M P
METROPOLITAN PACIFIC
CAPITAL, INC.
expensive, and when the revenue producing elements of the project are reduced, the larger
number of units can't be maintained.
® There are a number of hotels already proposed for downtown. Do we need more?
We don't know if any of the proposed hotels will be approved, but even if they are, our studies
show that the market demand is there.
• What's the square footage and percent of office and residential uses?
(refer to chart) Hotel 120,000 sq. ft.; residential 48,000 sq. ft.; workspace 200,000 sq. ft.;
cultural 12,000 sq. ft.; retail 40,000 sq. ft.
• Impressed by the taller project. Seems less intrusive than the smaller one.
• Happy to see this level of design in Santa Monica. Is there an illustration looking from the
south? What's the impact on views from buildings to the south?
Views from the south are blocked by other buildings.
• As a city, we've paid for open space. How is it, in a financial sense, that height gives us open
space?
The open spaces is all above structure and expensive to build, but it will last a long time. The
open space is achieved by incorporating all of the uses into a taller building.
• Will there be free wi -fi access? Has a telecom provider been chosen?
Yes, there will be free wi -fi, but we haven't identified a provider.
• What alternatives will be analyzed in the EIR? I would like a totally different design. The city is
notorious for dropping things that have been promised. Will this be the fate of the skating
rink?
This project is a partnership with the City and was designed to accommodate the elements
mandated by the City and community. The skating rink is going to stay; we think it will be a
project benefit. Just like a project in Washington D.C., the ice rink can be integrated into the
pavement. The rink will have the same square footage as the existing.
• You lose light with the alternative plan and open space is cut in half. If it isn't light, people
won't use the space. Stacking makes the height look less and you still have great views.
Exceptional design.
• What's the square footage in the preferred 12 -story structure? What's the FAR in both
alternatives? Is the reduced project getting a fair shot?
The FAR is 3.75 vs. 3.0. The reduced project definitely has compromises.
• Love it. Thank you for putting this together. I'm a young resident looking for a place to hang
out.
• If we want to stay at 84 feet, is it possible to take a new look at the site and come up with an
entirely new concept? If the City did not have so many mandates could you reconfigure the
design?
201 Santa Monica Boulevard 4 Suite 620 - Santa Monica California 90401 0 310 395 7300 o FAX 310 319 0144 - metropolitanpacifir.corn
—M P
METROPOLITAN PACIFIC
CAPITAL, INC.
Theoretically we can come up with projects all day, but this is the one we think will work best.
Ultimately it will be the City's decision.
Written Comments
0 Keep the original concept it looks great.
0 Wonderful project)
0 Would like to participate in focus groups.
0 1 am in favor of the original project because I like higher degree and the open space for the
community to enjoy. Specifically I am concerned that in the smaller 84' project that the
programming and subsidies for the public spaces and cultural components like the Zimmer
Museum will be greatly reduced. The project benefits from short design, aggressive and well
thought out TOM, and a highly active pedestrian environment. If we don't build smart density,
where there is good public transpiration and infrastructure such as what we have in DTSM, Los
Angeles will continue to be one big suburb.
0 Have you gone as far as thinking about free Wi -Fl access? And if so, which telecommunication
provide have been considered?
0 1 strongly encourage you to include "negative" illustrations of impacts from the pedestrian from
the South. Please show us that from x,y,z, determinated pointes the proposals visual impact is
zero or negligable. Thank you.
0 Proposal design please!
0 Original design; make most public space
0 Beautiful inventive design: but much too tall; thanks for the presentation
0 I very much like the taller original building and the attention to public space amenities, etc. This
is a clear example of "Go Big or Go home." This be icon for Los Angeles and I'd welcome to the
project as originally concerned especially if it means sacrificing affordable housing units and
possibly one children's museum. Santa Monica, do not be afraid of change!!!
0 Where is the sheet with square footage of user on each floor? Wants fact sheet.
201 Santa Monica aoulevaid - Suite 620 - Santa Monica California 90401 " am3957500 - cnx3103190144 , metropolilanpacif .coin