SR-10-14-2014-8ACity Council Meeting: October 14, 2014
To: Mayor and City Council
From: David Martin, Director of Planning and Community Development
Subject: Float -up discussion of Concept Plans for a proposed Development
Agreement at 500 Broadway.
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Review the applicant's Development Agreement proposal for a 7 -story, 330,344
square foot mixed -use development project consisting of approximately 39,600
square feet of ground floor commercial area, 262 residential units, and 577
parking spaces within a four -level subterranean parking garage and provide
direction regarding the appropriateness of the site development and potential
community benefits;
2. Direct staff to initiate the Development Agreement negotiation and review
process between the City and DK Broadway, LLC.
Executive Summary
The applicant, DK Broadway, LLC, is proposing that the City consider a Development
Agreement to permit a new mixed -use building located at 500 Broadway. The project
involves the construction of a 7 -story building (84 feet in height) that would consist of
approximately 330,344 total square feet, including approximately 25,600 square feet of
basement area, 39,600 square feet of ground floor commercial space, 262 residential
units, and 577 parking spaces within a four -level subterranean parking garage. The
project site consists of two contiguous parcels with a total of 67,500 square feet located
on the southeast corner of Broadway and 5th Street, and extending 450 feet in length
along the east side of 5th Street (between Broadway and Colorado Avenue). The site is
currently developed with a one -story commercial building and surface parking lot (Fred
Segal).
Pursuant to the City's Interim Zoning Ordinance No. 2466 (CCS) ( "IZO "), a
Development Agreement is required for projects located in the Downtown Core land use
designation with proposed buildings exceeding 32 feet in height. This Development
Agreement project is considered a priority project for the purposes of processing based
on the proposed residential unit mix, consisting of no more than 20% studio units, a
minimum 20% two- bedroom units, and a minimum 10% three - bedroom units.
The proposed uses are consistent with the underlying C3C zoning and Downtown Core
land use designation. Project compliance is limited to the 1984 Land Use and
Circulation Element until the Downtown Specific Plan (DSP) is adopted, while other
aspects of the project such as height, floor area ratio, setbacks, open space, parking,
and other standard zoning requirements would be established by the Development
Agreement.
Staff recommends that Council focus on the following items in considering this matter
and provide comments on:
• Appropriateness of the project as a Development Agreement;
• Site plan layout, building size and massing, and overall design compatibility with
the neighborhood context;
• Consistency with the Land Use and Circulation Element;
• Consistency with the draft Downtown Specific Plan;
• Consideration of alternatives;
• Identification of key negotiating points;
• Discussion of desirable community benefits.
If a Development Agreement is initiated, the project's development and negotiations
between the applicant and the City should:
1) Achieve a building layout and design with uses that are consistent with the
LUCE, with an emphasis on ground floor pedestrian orientation and uses,
building mass, scale, and neighborhood compatibility of new construction.
2) Consider the draft Downtown Specific Plan development standards during the
review process. Both the project and the public review of the draft Downtown
Specific Plan (DSP) would proceed concurrently, and although the project is
currently subject to the 1984 LUCE, staff recommends that the draft DSP inform
the project's development. The project shall be consistent with the general plan
in effect at the time the project is formally considered by Council.
3) Identify community benefits such as a well- designed pedestrian- oriented ground
floor with amenities and uses that support the anticipated growth of pedestrian
activity in the immediate area due to the forthcoming light rail station, streetscape
design including expanded sidewalks, Transportation Demand Management
measures to reduce single- occupant vehicle trips, affordable housing units, and
appropriate contributions including, but not limited to, transportation
infrastructure, open space, and historic preservation.
Background
The project site consists of two contiguous parcels with a total of 67,500 square feet
located on the southeast corner of Broadway and 5t" Street. The site has 150 feet of
frontage along Broadway and 450 feet of frontage along the east side of 5t" Street
(between Broadway and Colorado Avenue). The site is currently developed with a one -
story commercial building and a 92 -space surface parking lot (Fred Segal).
Street Elevation between Broadway /Colorado Ave.
Surrounding
uses
along 5th Street,
Broadway, and across the
5th
Court Alley
include
commercial
retail
and office, hotel
(future Courtyard Marriott
and
Hampton
Inn and
Suites hotels), and residential uses. Across Broadway to the north is a one -story
commercial building with a pending Development Agreement application for a 6 -story
mixed -use project. Existing structures in the area range in building height. The
adjacent forthcoming 6 -story Hampton Inn and Suites hotel would be 77 feet in height,
and all four mixed -use residential buildings across the 5th Court Alley on the west side of
3
6th Street (1522 -1548 6th Street) are 5- stories, 60 feet in height. The adjacent office
building across the 5th Court Alley (520 Broadway) is 6- stories, 86 feet in height. The
west side of 5th Street is developed with a one -story retail building (420 Broadway, Fred
Segal), the 6 -story, 70 foot Silvercrest Senior Housing building, the 5 -story, 56 foot
Step -Up on Fifth mixed -use building, and the forthcoming 6 -story, 76 foot Courtyard
Marriott hotel. The project site is a half block from the future light rail terminus station at
the corner of 4th Street and Colorado Avenue.
The City Council established priority processing guidelines for Development Agreement
applications in 2013. Priority processing categories, include, but are not limited to,
residential unit affordability levels, residential unit mix, and revenue generation. As
mentioned, this Development Agreement project is considered a priority project for the
purposes of processing based on the proposed residential unit mix, consisting of no
more than 20% studio units, a minimum 20% two - bedroom units, and a minimum 10%
three - bedroom units.
Community Meeting
A community meeting was held for the project on December 5, 2013 at the Santa
Monica Main Public Library. Thirty -five members of the public were in attendance. The
following comments were provided during the meeting:
• Positive comments were provided regarding the design approach in breaking the
building massing into four elements, including the podium court openings.
• Positive comments were provided regarding residential unit mix and sizes,
although a higher percentage of 2 and 3 bedroom units should be considered.
• Positive comments were provided regarding the proposed widened sidewalks.
• Step the building back further to avoid 'canyon effect."
• The project should consider more sculptural elements to further differentiate
buildings, with greater emphasis along Broadway.
• Concern was expressed with the parking access.
• Revise the landscape concept along 5th Street and within each opening to be
unique in efforts to enhance /activate the street.
0
ARB Concept Design Review
The project was conceptually reviewed by the Architectural Review Board on February
3, 2014. The Board was supportive of the project's design and proposed uses and
provided the following design comments:
• The Board supported the design approach of breaking the overall building mass
into four separate building forms. A Board member commented that the project
is a good precedent for development of this scale.
• The compositional activity on the Broadway elevation works well.
• The project appears that it would be very active with visitors and residents.
® A positive comment was provided regarding the color composition (white -on-
white) and contrasting treatments on each fagade elevation, the cantilevered
upper floors, and the fin extensions beneath the cantilevers.
® The project has sculptural elements that should be continued to the ground level.
The legs of the building are less successful compared to other components of the
building.
• Concerns were expressed with the spacing between buildings 1 and 2 (from
Broadway) that is narrower compared to other building openings (livability).
Similarly, concerns were expressed with residential uses along the north and
south facing facades directly facing each other in between buildings. The
proposed screens and louvers would somewhat address this concern, however
the glazing could be angled to help further provide privacy. Furthermore,
particular attention should be made to the interior livability of the units internal to
the courtyard, and the courtyards themselves.
• Pay particular attention to the durability and ease of use of the louver screens.
• A board member expressed concerns with the overall size of the project, and
declined to further comment on the project based on this concern.
• Overall design discussions between the applicant and the City design team will
continue based on the comments provided from the Planning Commission and
further direction from the City Council pertaining to the project's design, scale,
pedestrian orientation, and streetscape design.
Discussion
DA Process for Projects Subject to CEQA
The project is subject to environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA). Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report would be required
for this project. Consistent with the process adopted by Council for Development
Agreements that are subject to CEQA review, the applicant hosted a community
9
meeting on December 5, 2013. The project was conceptually reviewed by the
Architectural Review Board on February 3, 2014 and conceptually reviewed by the
Planning Commission (Float -Up) on July 9, 2014. The next steps for the project
subsequent to Council's concept (float -up) review are:
® Planning Commission Formal Review;
• City Council Formal Consideration;
• ARB Review (post DA approval).
Project Components
The proposed conceptual project consists of a 7 -story, approximately 330,344 total
square foot (including basement commercial space) building with a maximum height of
84 feet, consisting of 39,600 square feet of ground floor commercial space, 262
residential units, and 577 parking spaces within a four -level subterranean parking
garage. Below are key elements of the proposed project:
® Residential Component: Project includes 262 . residential units with a unit mix
consistent with City Council's adopted priority process categories, as shown in the
following chart:
Unit Type
Number of
Units /Percentage of
Project
Average Size of Units (SF)
Studio
52/19.9%
560
1- Bedroom
128/48.9%
800
2- Bedroom
54/20.6%
1,150
3- Bedroom
28/10.7%
1,360
The project would exceed the City's Affordable Housing Production Program
requirements by providing affordable units either on -site, off -site, or combination
thereof, subject to further discussions with the applicant.
Based on an on -site scenario, the applicant has provided a preliminary affordable
unit study (Sheet A8.2) that indicates 10% very low units for a total of 27 on -site
affordable units, and the location of the units within the building. The plans .
indicate an affordable unit mix as follows:
® 5 studio units (19 %);
® 13 one - bedroom units (48 %);
® 6 two- bedroom units (22 %);
® 3 three - bedroom units (11 %).
0
The Planning Commission provided their preferences on whether the affordable
housing units for the project should be provided on or off -site, which is discussed
later in this report.
• Commercial Component: Project includes approximately 39,600 SF of ground
floor commercial space, with pedestrian- oriented, neighborhood - serving
commercial retail and restaurant uses, including the potential for a full - service
grocery store. The Planning Commission was very supportive of a grocery store
use on the ground floor, and recommended that DA negotiations ensure that a
grocery store use /tenant be secured for the project, as proposed by the applicant.
Below the ground floor on the first and second subterranean levels, approximately
5,500 SF of commercial storage area and 20,100 SF of commercial space would
be provided (25,600 SF total basement floor area). A potential exercise /gym
facility may occupy a portion of the ground floor space and basement level
commercial space.
• Public Open Space: A publicly - accessible plaza of approximately 3,800 SF is
designed at the corner of Broadway and 5th Street. Along street elevations, the
building is setback to provide additional open space on the ground floor, resulting
in a minimum sidewalk width .of 18 feet (curb to building) along Broadway and a
minimum sidewalk width of 15 feet along 5th Street, consistent with the Building
Frontage Line standards of the draft Downtown Specific Plan. Outdoor
dining /seating areas would be provided in the corner plaza and in various areas
along 5th Street.
• Common Open Space: The project would provide private and common open space
for project residents through private balconies, landscaped courtyards on the
second floor podium level between the four building forms, and a mix of private
and shared open space on each of the four rooftops. The landscaped courtyards
at the podium level, limited to resident use only, would include amenities such as
gardens and outdoor seating. The rooftop amenities may include a pool and spa,
barbeque areas, gardens, and lounge areas with outdoor seating. Additionally,
shade canopies with mounted photovoltaic panels would provide shading for
lounge /seating areas at the roof level.
• Cross Court Driveway: A publicly - accessible shared vehicular, pedestrian, and
bicycle path of approximately 9,000 SF is designed adjacent to the southern
property line of the site connecting 5th Street and 5th Court alley. The driveway
would provide access to the subterranean garage for both commercial and
residential uses from the alley and street, and would support commercial
loading /unloading operations for the site.
7
Conceptual Rendering: Broadway + 5`" Street
Project Design
The proposed building design is modern /contemporary. The building is divided into four
separate building forms above the podium level (second floor) with landscaped courts in
between the structures with seating areas for project residents. The buildings above the
podium level consist of residential uses, and are connected by open pedestrian bridges
on each floor providing access between the buildings. Staff recommends that the
applicant continue discussions with the Building and Safety Division to ensure that each
of the separate building structures provide adequate accessibility. Separating the
building into four sections breaks the overall building mass of the entire structure, and
allows for light and air passage through the project. These physical breaks between the
buildings also provide light, air, and building mass relief for adjacent office and
residential uses across the 5t" Court alley.
P
Pedestrian Oriented Design
The ground floor building design incorporates a variety of glazed surfaces,
approximately 16' in height with varying setbacks along the 5th Street elevation. The
setbacks create pockets for outdoor seating areas, short -term bike parking, and
gathering spaces adjacent to the public sidewalk. The ground floor would have a
minimum 18' -0" floor -to -floor height with transparent glazing along Broadway and 5th
Street elevations. A 3,800 SF public plaza is designed at the corner of Broadway and
5th Street, and includes outdoor seating and landscape elements. Ground floor building
setbacks would provide additional open space resulting in widened sidewalks and
additional outdoor gathering spaces in various areas in front of the ground floor
commercial spaces. Two residential lobbies are designed, one for each street
elevation.
Ground Floor Plan + Vehicular Access
Parking I Vehicular Access
The four -level subterranean garage is currently designed with driveway access from
both 5th Street and 5th Court Alley, connected by a "cross court" driveway. The proposed
garage provides 577 vehicular parking spaces, including 68 motorcycle spaces, for
residents, guests, and commercial uses. Approximately 81 of these spaces would be
provided in a tandem configuration. Eighteen commercial tandem spaces would be
used for restaurant valet use, and 63 residential tandem spaces would be rented to
units requesting 2 spaces. As proposed, the project's commercial parking is below the
draft DSP commercial parking requirement by 19 spaces, however it exceeds the
residential requirement by 62 spaces. The applicant states that the surplus residential
parking could be used by commercial employees.
9
Both commercial and residential parking levels are accessed by ramps located off of the
cross court driveway. Commercial parking is located on the first and second (P1, P2)
subterranean levels, and residential parking is located on the third and fourth (P3, P4)
levels. Residential parking spaces would be secured and separated from the
commercial parking spaces.
According to Policy 5.4.0 of the draft DSP, this site is a potential public parking location
within the Downtown that could provide additional public parking for visitors and
employees to park and walk to destinations throughout the district. This site was
identified based on the large parcel size. Public parking could be negotiated as a part
of the project's community benefits package. Parking approved as a community benefit
must be operated as part of the City network with appropriate signage and pricing
strategy. As commented by the Planning Commission, the overall Downtown parking
needs should be studied to assess the amount of parking that may be considered for
the project.
Council could consider the anticipated reduced parking demand in the area due to the
location of the site in the downtown, and its proximity to the future light rail station.
Furthermore, reduced parking requirements are being considered as a part of the draft
Zoning Ordinance update for districts in proximity to light rail. The draft DSP similarly
recommends lower parking requirements. The following table compares the minimum
vehicular and bicycle parking requirements between the current and draft zoning
ordinances and draft DSP.
Table 1: Parking Comparison
W1,
365 residential
460 residential
329 residential
303 residential **
Automobile Off-
212 commercial
416 commercial*
437 commercial
231 commercial
Street Parking
577 total
876 total*
766 total
534 total
Motorcycle
Parking
28 com. / 40 res.
(68 total)
W1,
- commerciai parking is an approximate. txercise tacmties consist of two parking rates based on the division of
exercise space (1/80) and back -of -house areas (1/300). For information purposes, the exercise facility is included in
calculation assuming 50% exercise area /50% support area. Similarly, restaurant parking is included assuming a 60%
seating area /40% back -of -house average. The division of these spaces would occur based on tenant needs
occupying the space, and is therefore unknown at this time.
** Residential parking requirements based on the draft DSP parking standards, and based on a project that provides
10% very-low affordable residential units, would be reduced from 303 spaces to 291 spaces required (based on lower
parking requirements for affordable units).
Design Improvements
Staff will continue to work with the applicant regarding the project's overall design
features in the following areas:
1. appropriateness of the fagade designs of each of the four building forms,
2. design enhancements of the rear elevation and corner facades,
3. ground floor open space,
4. vehicular circulation,
5. corner plaza (open space) programming including appropriateness of the
building column designs /placements, and
6. the appropriate spacing between buildings, while considering the use of sun
shade devices that provide additional screening that addresses privacy
concerns for courtyard- facing units.
Design comments provided by the ARB, Planning Commission, and Council will further
shape the project's overall design.
Community Benefits
Detailed below is a preliminary list of potential community benefits proposed by the
applicant as a starting point for discussion. Staff is prepared to initiate a substantive
discussion and negotiation of community benefits appropriate for the proposed project
following the float -up process. Specifically, based on additional feedback from Council
and the community, staff will identify and negotiate a full program of community benefits
11
Bicycle Parking
396 residential
5% of total parking
372 residential
372 residential
(long -term)
24 commercial
spaces (short-long
23 commercial
41 commercial
420 total
395 total
413 total
combined)
Bicycle Parking
55 total
5% of total parking
43 total
78 total
(short -term)
(Res + Com)
spaces (short-long
combined)
(Res +Com)
(Res +Cam)
Total Bike Parking
475
438
491
- commerciai parking is an approximate. txercise tacmties consist of two parking rates based on the division of
exercise space (1/80) and back -of -house areas (1/300). For information purposes, the exercise facility is included in
calculation assuming 50% exercise area /50% support area. Similarly, restaurant parking is included assuming a 60%
seating area /40% back -of -house average. The division of these spaces would occur based on tenant needs
occupying the space, and is therefore unknown at this time.
** Residential parking requirements based on the draft DSP parking standards, and based on a project that provides
10% very-low affordable residential units, would be reduced from 303 spaces to 291 spaces required (based on lower
parking requirements for affordable units).
Design Improvements
Staff will continue to work with the applicant regarding the project's overall design
features in the following areas:
1. appropriateness of the fagade designs of each of the four building forms,
2. design enhancements of the rear elevation and corner facades,
3. ground floor open space,
4. vehicular circulation,
5. corner plaza (open space) programming including appropriateness of the
building column designs /placements, and
6. the appropriate spacing between buildings, while considering the use of sun
shade devices that provide additional screening that addresses privacy
concerns for courtyard- facing units.
Design comments provided by the ARB, Planning Commission, and Council will further
shape the project's overall design.
Community Benefits
Detailed below is a preliminary list of potential community benefits proposed by the
applicant as a starting point for discussion. Staff is prepared to initiate a substantive
discussion and negotiation of community benefits appropriate for the proposed project
following the float -up process. Specifically, based on additional feedback from Council
and the community, staff will identify and negotiate a full program of community benefits
11
for the proposed project. Additional community benefits recommended by the Planning
Commission are provided later in this report (Planning Commission Action section).
Proposed Community Benefit
Description
Physical Improvements:
A publicly accessible plaza consisting of approximately
Open Space
3,800 SF would be designed with outdoor seating at the
corner of Broadway and 5th Street. A significant portion of
the corner plaza would be covered by the cantilevered
portion of the 2nd floor above, providing approximately 16
feet of height clearance.
Physical Improvements:
Ground floor setback resulting in a 6' -0" sidewalk widening
Expanded Sidewalks
on Broadway to achieve 18' -0" minimum sidewalk (min. 900
SF of site area).
Ground floor setback resulting in a 3' -0" sidewalk widening
on 5th Street to achieve 15' -0" minimum sidewalk (min. 1,350
SF of site area).
Physical Improvements:
Provision of a 48' -0" wide vehicle and pedestrian pathway
Cross -Court Driveway
connecting Fifth Court and Fifth Street that will be publicly
accessible (termed Cross - Court) that can be used by
adjoining uses (including residential use across the alley).
The applicant believes this driveway would improve the
overall circulation within the block, particularly at the south
end of the 5th Court Alley at Colorado Avenue, and the 5th
Street and Colorado Avenue intersection adjacent to the
Expo Light Rail station.
However, the Planning Commission commented that the
proposed cross -court driveway should not be considered a
community benefit, and should not be considered usable
open space for the purposes of satisfying ground floor open
space requirements.
Transportation Demand
TDM plan that would include measures that would reduce
Management Program
vehicular trips and parking demand generated by the
proposed project. Measures may include, but not be limited
to, transportation information, an AVR target, transit pass
subsidies, unbundled parking, and participation in
Transportation Management Association.
Bicycle amenities would include showers and lockers for
commercial employees who bike to work, ground level short -
term visitor bike parking, long -term parking for employees,
secured parking for residents, residential elevators to
facilitate convenient transport of bicycles throughout the
project.
12
13
Car Share
The applicant would work with the City and its designated
car share operator to facilitate car share, either within the
project's subterranean garage or adjacent to the project.
Transportation /Pedestrian
A monetary contribution towards transportation and
Infrastructure Contribution
pedestrian improvements in the Downtown in excess of the
TIF Ordinance requirements is anticipated.
Open Space Contribution
Although the project would not be subject to the recently
approved Parks and Recreation Development Impact Fee
Program, as the program requirements apply to new
projects determined complete on or after the effective date
of the Ordinance (October 23, 2014), a monetary
contribution towards parks and open space improvements in
the Downtown will be a community benefit consideration.
Historic Preservation
A monetary contribution towards historic preservation in the
Contribution
Downtown is anticipated.
Sustainable Design
Applicant proposes that the project would achieve
equivalency of LEED Gold status in project's design.
However, the Planning Commission recommended the
project achieve a LEED Platinum status in the project's
design.
Solar Infrastructure
The project would include solar panels and solar water
heating technology on the roof decks, with quantity to be
determined.
EV Charging Stations /Stub
The project would include EV charging stations and stub -
Outs
outs in an amount to be determined.
Affordable Housing
The project would exceed the City's Affordable Housing
Production Program requirements by providing deed -
restricted affordable units, either on -site, off -site, or a
combination subject to further discussion with the City. The
applicant is currently exploring off -site opportunities with
Community Corporation of Santa Monica ( "CCSM "). CCSM
has advised the applicant their preference of an off -site
option whereby CCSM would own and manage the
affordable units. The percentage of affordable units would
depend on the level of affordability (i.e. extremely low, very
low, or low income), subject to discussions with the
applicant.
13
LUCE I Downtown Specific Plan Consistency
The project is located in the Downtown Core land use designation and within the LUCE
Downtown District. Both the project and the public review of the draft Downtown
Specific Plan (DSP) would proceed concurrently. Although the project is currently
subject to the 1984 LUCE, staff recommends that the draft DSP inform the project's
development during the review process. The project shall be consistent with the
general plan in effect at the time the project is formally considered by Council. Based
on an initial review of the project's basic development standards, the project is
inconsistent with the 1984 LUCE or draft Downtown Specific Plan in the following areas
as detailed in the Project Compliance Table provided in Attachment B: number of
stories, floor area ratio, floor plate ratios, and open space.
Number of Stories
Based on the conceptual plans, the project is inconsistent with the maximum number of
stories allowed by the 1984 LUCE. If the project is subject to the 1984 LUCE, the
number of stories would need to be reduced from 7 to 6 stories. Alternatively, the
applicant may request a text amendment to the 1984 LUCE and change the maximum
number of stories allowed in the downtown.
14
Based on an on -site scenario, the applicant has provided a
preliminary affordable unit study (Sheet A8.2) that indicates
10% very low units, unit types, and location of such units.
The plans indicate an affordable unit mix of 5 studio
(18.5 %), 13 one - bedroom (48.1 %), 6 two- bedroom, and 3
three - bedroom units, for a total of 27 affordable units (10%
very -low) on -site.
The Planning Commission provided their preferences on
whether the affordable housing units for the project should
be provided on or off -site, which is further discussed later in
this report.
Although the project would not be subject to the recently
approved Affordable Housing Commercial Linkage Fee
Program, as the program requirements apply to new
projects determined complete on or after the effective date
of the Ordinance (October 23, 2014), a monetary
contribution will be a community benefit consideration.
Local Hiring Provision
The project would include local hiring programs for
construction - related and permanent employment.
LUCE I Downtown Specific Plan Consistency
The project is located in the Downtown Core land use designation and within the LUCE
Downtown District. Both the project and the public review of the draft Downtown
Specific Plan (DSP) would proceed concurrently. Although the project is currently
subject to the 1984 LUCE, staff recommends that the draft DSP inform the project's
development during the review process. The project shall be consistent with the
general plan in effect at the time the project is formally considered by Council. Based
on an initial review of the project's basic development standards, the project is
inconsistent with the 1984 LUCE or draft Downtown Specific Plan in the following areas
as detailed in the Project Compliance Table provided in Attachment B: number of
stories, floor area ratio, floor plate ratios, and open space.
Number of Stories
Based on the conceptual plans, the project is inconsistent with the maximum number of
stories allowed by the 1984 LUCE. If the project is subject to the 1984 LUCE, the
number of stories would need to be reduced from 7 to 6 stories. Alternatively, the
applicant may request a text amendment to the 1984 LUCE and change the maximum
number of stories allowed in the downtown.
14
Floor Area Ratio
Based on the conceptual plans, the project exceeds the draft Downtown Specific Plan
maximum allowances for floor area ratio. For the purposes of floor area ratio
calculations, below grade floor area (such as the project's basement commercial space)
is not included in the calculation per Interim Zoning Ordinance No. 2466 (CCS). The
project would be consistent with the maximum allowable floor area ratio of 3.5
established by the 1984 LUCE. The proposed floor area, including a 50% residential
discount on residential floor area as authorized by Zoning Code provisions, results in a
floor area ratio of 2.54. As discussed later in this report, three Planning Commissioners
recommended that the project be reduced from a 4.5 to 4.0 FAR in efforts to reduce the
project's overall building size, bulk, and massing to be more consistent within the
context of the Downtown, while two other Commissioners believed that the proposed
4.5 FAR (and thus a higher FAR compared to the draft DSP of 4.0) would be
appropriate, given the site's location in the downtown in proximity to light rail.
Floor Plate Ratios
This requirement, in conjunction with other light and air stepback standards in the DSP,
attempts to reduce upper -level building mass. Based on the conceptual plans, the
proposed project would exceed the maximum floor plate ratios for floors 6 -7. Maximum
floor plate ratios for floors 4 and 5 may be averaged and applied to all floors included in
the average (floors 4 and 5). However, floors 6 -7 cannot be included in the average,
and the maximum floor plate ratio is 50% for each floor. The Planning Commission,
however, commented that non - compliance with this draft DSP requirement would be
appropriate, based on their support of the project's overall design concept consisting of
separate building forms, which help reduce upper level building mass.
Open Space
The draft Downtown Specific Plan (Chapter 4 D) outlines a series of policies and actions
that address community priority for additional public and private open space that would
support downtown's growing residential neighborhood. This site was considered as an
opportunity to contribute to an open space network that would serve both the need for
passive recreation for the growing residential community, including seniors and families,
but also to improve the walking environment. Policy OS1.1 discusses the desire to
have all sites in the downtown within a two and a half minute walk (118 mile) from open
15
space, and Policy OS1.2 states to negotiate for portions of the site to be used as
publicly accessible parks or plazas through development agreements at identified sites
throughout the Downtown.
The subject property is identified as a large site that should provide significant open
space to function as a public park. Centrally located within the Downtown's residential
neighborhood, and across the street from a large senior housing development, the site
is envisioned to provide passive recreational green open space for area residents. The
proposed project provides ground floor open space similar to what can be achieved with
most mixed -use projects in the downtown, although at a greater amount, such as open
space provided through the corner plaza, widened sidewalks, and outdoor gathering
spaces in various areas in front of the ground floor commercial spaces. However, the
project does not provide the functional recreational open space envisioned for the site
based on the draft DSP.
As proposed, the project's open space is inconsistent with the draft DSP open space
standards. Overall, the project exceeds the minimum 30% open space (of entire lot
size) overall, however the draft DSP envisions that 20% of the open space would be
required at the ground level, and that the remaining 10% may be provided at the podium
level or further on upper floors through private balconies, roof decks, etc. The applicant
believes the project complies with this ground floor requirement, however has included
open space areas, such as widened sidewalk area and the cross -court driveway, which
would not count towards the requirement. For the purposes of calculating the ground
floor open space, private property adjacent to the public sidewalk dedicated towards
compliance with minimum sidewalk widths along Broadway and 5th Street would not
count towards meeting the requirement (as indicated on the project plans, shown as
1,700 SF for widened sidewalks). Furthermore, as discussed below, the applicant
believes that the cross court driveway area of 9,000 SF should be included into the
ground floor open space calculation. However, given the primary purpose of this cross
court is vehicular circulation for both the project and adjoining uses, this shared concept
does not provide usable open space that supports the purpose of this requirement, and
should not be considered open space. Furthermore, the draft DSP states that any open
space directly underneath any cantilevered portion of the building may only count
towards this requirement if the overhang is at least 21 feet from grade. A significant
W
portion of the publicly accessible plaza consisting of approximately 3,800 SF would be
covered by the cantilevered portion of the 2 "d floor above, providing approximately 16
feet of height clearance. This would not qualify as ground floor open space as currently
drafted in the DSP. Further, even if the 3,800 SF corner plaza is considered ground
floor open space, the project would still be insufficient by approximately 9,700 SF since
13,500 SF of open space is required for the ground floor, per the DSP (20% of 67,500).
Motor Court as Open Space
The volume and type of trips that will be using the driveway to access both commercial
and residential uses conflicts with the draft DSP goal for usable, ground floor open
space. Based on the high turnover and large vehicles typically associated with grocery
use and exercise facilities, it is impractical to encourage people to use the driveway as
open space. To avoid potentially negative conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles,
staff recommends that the motor court be used specifically to accommodate vehicle
maneuvers, and that open space be provided elsewhere on the site in a safer and
vehicle free environment. Furthermore, the Planning Commission commented that the
cross -court driveway should not be considered a community benefit, or considered open
space.
Driveway Design
The project proposes that the 50' -0" wide "cross court" function as driveway access to
both the residential and commercial parking levels, provide space for large tractor -
trailers to maneuver into and out of the loading dock, and create a connection between
5th Street and 5th Court alley. The design requires a curb cut along 5th Street that is 25'-
0" north of the driveway to the adjacent hotel. This proposal is only partly in compliance
with the draft Downtown Specific Plan, which supports alley access for residential uses,
but allows street access for visitor - serving and higher turnover uses such as grocery
stores. The side by side driveway design, providing access to the subterranean garage,
results in path of travel conflicts between residential and commercial uses. More
specifically, allowing residents to share access with the commercial uses, as opposed to
a separate residential access from the alley to the subterranean garage, could result in
residents attempting left turns into the site from 5th Street. However, the provision of an
access ramp from the alley could compromise the retail space and preclude the
inclusion of a grocery store. The Planning Commission did not comment on this
concern. Staff recommends that the City Council pay particular attention to the
17
proposed circulation and provide input on the appropriateness of the proposed
driveway /circulation for the project and the trade -off that may be required to
accommodate a grocery store.
Planning Commission Action
The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on this proposal on July 9 22014.
The Planning Commission generally supported the overall building design concept of
dividing the building into four separate building forms, the building's orientation, and the
proposed uses, particularly the proposed ground floor market. The Planning
Commission recommended that Council proceed with Development Agreement
discussions, with the understanding that the draft Downtown Specific Plan has not been
studied by the Commission, including important areas related to the Downtown that can
impact the project, such as appropriate recreational open space, and surplus parking. A
summary of key Planning Commission comments related to project design, TDM,
parking, and community benefits are provided below. A complete list of Planning
Commissioners' comments is provided in Attachment C. The Commission's
recommendations on community benefits below are additional comments based on the
preliminary community benefits provided by the applicant described in the previous
section of this report.
Project Design
® Although the building would be divided into four separate building forms intended
to reduce the project's overall building mass, the Commission expressed
concerns with the project's overall bulk and massing of the building forms.
® Some Commissioners believe that the project FAR should be reduced from 4.5 to
4.0 in efforts to minimize the project's overall building size, bulk, and massing, to
be more consistent within the context of the Downtown. Concurrent with reducing
the floor area, the amount of open space on the ground floor should be increased
(3 Commissioner comments). Alternatively, two Commissioners commented that
the project FAR of 4.5 would be appropriate, given the site's location in the
downtown in proximity to light rail.
® The ground floor open space should be increased in size closer to the 20%
ground floor requirement provided in the draft DSP, but may not need to fully
comply with 20 %.
® Ensure proper privacy of units facing the interior courtyards, with particular
concern regarding the spacing between buildings 1 -2 closest to Broadway. In
response to this comment, the applicant has revised plans, increasing the
distance between buildings 1 -2 closest to Broadway from 16' -6" to 21' -0 ",
18
specifically at the end of the courtyard adjacent to the rear alley at its narrowest
width. Staff will continue to work with the applicant to determine the appropriate
spacing between buildings, while considering the use of sun shade devices to
address privacy concerns for courtyard- facing units.
® Concerns were expressed with the overall size of the project that has the same
character along the entire block. The design of each separate building form
should be differentiated to improve the overall visual interest.
Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
® The TDM Plan should focus on trip reduction.
® The TDM Plan should establish and provide funding for a Transportation
Management Organization for the Downtown area, initiate transit circulator within
the downtown.
® Short -term bike parking should be consistent with draft DSP standards.
Parking
® Study the overall Downtown parking needs to assess the amount of parking that
may be considered for the project.
® Provide a parking study that identifies the actual parking demand for the project.
Community Benefits
® Consider doubling the AHPP requirement when negotiating the appropriate
number of affordable units exceeding the AHPP, which are considered
community benefit units. Community benefit units shall consist of all residential
unit types provided in the project (studio, one -bed, two -bed, three -bed).
® Affordable Housing: On -Site Vs. Off -Site:
- Two Commissioners expressed preference of affordable housing on -site,
however would consider off -site option provided the right opportunity and
service environment, and that it would be worth more to the City compared to
the on -site option.
- If provided off -site, two Commissioners expressed preference of the
affordable housing units provided within the Downtown area.
- If provided off -site, one Commissioner expressed that the affordable units
may be provided anywhere in the City. One Commissioner added that the
units should be located in proximity to transit.
- If provided off -site the investment should be the same (equivalency) as if
they are provided on -site.
® Ground Floor Market: Consider requirement that a market shall be provided
within the project.
19
® Sustainable Design: Project shall achieve a LEER Platinum Certification in its
building design.
Council Focus
In summary staff requests Council direction on the following project - related areas:
1) Whether the proposed building mass, size, and scale is appropriate for this
location in the downtown area.
2) Whether the quality of the proposed design is appropriate, given the project's
prominent location /intersection in the Downtown.
3) Whether the ground floor is adequately designed for this project, considering the
project's corner location, the overall length of the project site along 5th Street, and
the future growth of pedestrian activity along 5th Street upon completion of the
future light -rail station and Colorado Esplanade.
4) Whether the project design is consistent with LUCE policies to enhance the
quality of the streetscape and create an open space environment that
encourages pedestrian activity and interaction.
5) The extent to which consistency with the draft DSP standards should be
considered, including, but not limited to the floor area ratio, open space
requirements, and vehicular access.
6) The community benefits that would be appropriate for this project.
Alternative Actions:
In addition to the recommended action, Council could consider the following with
respect to the project:
Al. Continue discussion for analysis of additional options with agreement from the
applicant.
20
Financial Impacts & Budget Actions
There is no immediate financial impact or budget action necessary as a result of the
recommended action.
Prepared by: Steve Mizokami, Associate Planner
Bradley J. Misner, Principal Planner
Approved: Forwarded to Council:
David Martin, Director
Planning and Community Development
Rod Gould
City Manager
Attachments
A. Applicant's Preliminary Conceptual Plans, Renderings, & Photographs Booklet
B. Development Standards Project Compliance Table
C. Summary of July 9, 2014 Planning Commission Discussion
F:\CityPianningkShare\COUNCIL\STRP-R2013\500
Broadway (13DEV- 008) \73DEV -008 (500
Broadway Council Float -Up 10- 14- 14).doc
21
Reference:
ATTACHMENT A
Applicant's Preliminary Conceptual
Plans, Renderings, & Photographs
Booklet
Is available at the City Clerk's Office
Filed with Staff Report 10/14/2014, Item
LOM
Within Legislative File 401 -031
Development Standards
Project Compliance Table
Development
1984 LUCE / C3C
Draft
Proposed
Compliance
Standard
(13 units) or 10%
DSP
Project
LUCE: 84'/ 6
Height / Stories
Stories
84'/ Unspecified
84'/ 7 Stories
LUCE: No
CM 76' /
DSP: Yes
Unlimited
Floor Area Ratio
units
(FAR)
LUCE: 3.5
4.0 w /housing
4.5 w /housing
(303,750 SF)
Basement Commercial SF
CM 2.5
NO
(P1, 132) exempted as FA, per
(w 150 %Res.Discount)
2.54 /50%
IZO 2455 and draft ZO.
w
residential
discount
Ground Floor
Commercial SF
Basement Commercial
N/A
N/A
39,600 SF
26,594 SF (P1, P2) exempted
as FA, per IZO 2455 and
Not Including
draft ZO.
Basement SF
Grocery Store (+ P1
N/A
storage)
27,800 SF
Fitness Center
27,400 SF
Retail
5,000 SF
Restaurant
Bars
4,000 SF
Outdoor Dining
1,000 SF
994 SF
Residential Units
N/A
N/A
Studio/ % / Ave Size
52119.9% / 560
SF
1 -Bed / % / Ave.Size
128 /48.9% / 800
SF
2 -Bed / % / Ave.Size
54 / 20.6 % / 1,150
SF
3 -Bed / % /Ave.Size
28 / 10.7 % / 1,360
SF
23
5% extremely low
Affordable Units
(13 units) or 10%
very-low (26 units)
or 20% low- income
TBD
TED
(52 units), or 100%
moderate (262
units
Commercial
23
Ground Floor
Frontage /Commercial
N/A
60% / 75' depth
Min 60% / Min
Yes
Space Depth
average
75' depth
average
Ground Fl. to F1.
Height
N/A / 15'
18' min.
18' min.
Yes
Residential Ground
Ground FI Res:
Floor to Floor/ Upper
None
Residential Floor to
N/A
11' / 8'
Upper Res Floor to
Yes
Ceiling Height
Ceiling:
Floors 2 -7: min 8'
4rd Floor
80%
r
F oor
64.8%
5th Floor
70%
Floor
63.6%
Floor Plate Ratios*
N/A
No
6th Floor
50%
64.8%
F oor
7th Floor
50%
63.6%
Floor
Building Frontage
Line: Widened
N/A
Broadway: 18'
Broadway: 18'
Yes
Sidewalk
5th Street: 15'
5th Street: 15'
Open Space
30% of lot area
34.5% total
20% of lot area
5.6% at -grade
N/A
provided at-
No
grade.
(not including cross
court or widened
sidewalk SF)
Private Deck SF
Most units would
Range
50 SF /unit
N/A
have private open
NIA
space
Studio Units
-
-
53 -65 SF
1 -Bed Units
-
-
50 -147 SF
2 -Bed Units
-
-
75 -226 SF
3 -Bed Units
-
-
96 -179 SF
LEED Gold or
FEED Certification
N/A
CalGreen Tier 2
LEED Gold
Yes
green building
"Equivalent"
standards
maximum tloor plate ratios for Floors 4 & 5 may be averaged and applied to all floors included in the average (DSP
Policy 6.3.1.1). Therefore, Floors 6 -7 cannot be averaged, and the maximum floor plate ratio is 50% for each floor
24
...- 1 -.
Summary of July 9, 2014
Planning Commission Discussion
The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the 500 Broadway
Development Agreement on July 9, 2014. The Planning Commission generally
supported the overall building design concept and the proposed uses. The Planning
Commission recommended that City Council proceed with Development Agreement
discussions, with the understanding that the draft Downtown Specific Plan has not yet
been studied by the Commission, including important areas related to the Downtown
that have not been studied that can impact the project, such as appropriate recreational
open space, and surplus parking. The Commission provided the following comments
and recommendations for staff and City Council consideration:
Design:
1. Design: General support for the overall building design concept.
2. Design: Concerns with privacy of units based on the courtyard spacing between the four
separate buildings, with particular concern with the spacing between buildings 1 -2
closest to Broadway.
3. Design: Concern expressed with the project's overall bulk and massing of the four
separate building forms.
4. Design: Concerns with the overall size of the project that has the same character along
the entire block. Each separate building form should be differentiated to improve the
overall visual interest.
5. Design: Rear Alley: Rear alley design appears one - dimensional, and needs further
enhancement.
6. Design: Resident Bridges: Access bridges connecting residents between building forms
appear to add to the overall building mass.
7. Design: Floor Plate Ratios: Non - compliance with the draft DSP floor plate ratio
standards would be appropriate, given the project's design.
8. Design: Corner Design: The corner design of the 5`h Street elevation side does not share
the same level of attention (detail, articulation) compared to the Broadway elevation.
Face of the building on the 5`h Street elevation side on upper floors at the street corner
(5th and Broadway) needs improvement.
9. Design: Sidewalks: Relocate the subterranean garage stairwell (midblock 5th Street)
immediately in front of the (market) tenant space that would allow for better open space
for patron use.
10. Design: Reduce the "looming" effect of the separate building forms over the sidewalks.
Consider further stepbacks on upper floors from the property lines when reducing the
project's FAR.
25
11. Design: Ground Floor Open Space:
- Comment provided that the ground floor open space shall be increased in size closer to
the 20% requirement provided in the draft DSP (however may not need to fully comply
with 20 %).
- Comment provided that the ground floor open space was appropriate. Comment
provided that the corner plaza was appropriate, providing adequate shade.
- Comment that the corner plaza should be reevaluated: not clear that the open space
would be utilized by all segments of the public.
12. Design: 3 -Bed Unit Configurations: Concern expressed that all three -bed units are
located facing the rear alley.
13. Floor Area Ratio:
- Reduce project FAR from 4.5 to 4.0 (actual) in efforts to reduce the project's overall
building size, bulk, and massing, to be more consistent within the context of the
Downtown. Concurrently, increase the amount of open space on the ground floor (3
Commissioners).
- Project FAR of 4.5 would be appropriate, given the site's location in the downtown in
proximity to light rail (2 Commissioners).
Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
14. TDM: Establish and provide funding for a Transportation Management Organization for
the Downtown area, initiate transit circulator within the downtown.
15. TDM: Importance of Trip Reduction: Plan shall focus on trip reduction.
16. TDM: Short-Term Bike Parking: Short-term bike parking should be consistent with draft
DSP standards.
Parking
17. Parking: Provide a parking study that identifies the actual parking demand for the
project. Less parking would be encouraged.
18. Parking: The overall Downtown parking needs should be studied to assess the amount
of parking that may be considered for the project.
Community Benefits
19. Community Benefits: Affordable Housing: Project shall fully comply with AHPP
requirements, specifically with the bedroom and size requirements, and amenities (2-
bedroom units @ minimum 850 SF for this Project).
20. Community Benefits: Affordable Housing: Consider doubling the AHPP requirement
when considering the appropriate number of affordable units exceeding AHPP
considered as community benefits. Quantity needs to be appropriate based on the size
of the building.
rZy
21. Community Benefits: Affordable Housing: Community benefit units shall consist of all
residential unit types provided in the project (studio, one -bed, two -bed, three -bed).
22. Community Benefits: Affordable Housing: On -Site Vs. Off -Site:
- Two Commissioners expressed preference of affordable housing on -site, however
would consider off -site option provided the right opportunity and service environment,
and that it would be worth more to the City compared to the on -site option.
- If off -site, two Commissioners expressed preference of the affordable housing units
provided within the Downtown area. ,
- If off -site, one Commissioner expressed that the affordable units may be provided
anywhere in the City (Anderson), and one Commissioner added that the units should be
located in proximity to transit.
23. Community Benefits: Affordable Housing: If affordable units are provided off site, the
investment should be the same (equivalency) as if they are provided on -site.
24. Community Benefits: Affordable Housing: Provide financial study that demonstrates
equivalency in investment (see above comment), include in financial studies for the
project.
25. Community Benefits: Consider requirement that a market shall be provided within the
project.
26. Community Benefits: Sustainable Design: Project shall achieve a LEED Platinum
Certification in its building design.
27. Community Benefits: Cross Court Driveway: The cross -court driveway should not be
considered a community benefit or usable open space.
28. Applicant should review residential access on upper floors with the Building and Safety
Department to ensure proposed elevators and stairwells as proposed complies with
building code access requirements.
29. Applicant should study angles of residential unit windows facing each other in between
buildings to further ensure privacy between residential units.
27